AIYETAN V. THE NIG. INSTITUTE FOR OIL PALM RESEARCH

• Pages: 777-804

AIYETAN V. THE NIG. INSTITUTE FOR OIL PALM RESEARCH



777

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

AIYETAN V. THE NIG. INSTITUTE FOR OIL

PALM RESEARCH

EDWARD AIYETAN



APPELLANT

V

THE NIGERIAN INSTITUTE FOR OIL PALM

RESEARCH RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 189/1985

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

OBASEKI,



J.S.C.

NNAMANI,



J.S.C.

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

KARI BI-WHYTE,



J.S.C.

BELGORE,



J.S.C.

5th June, 1987

Constitutional Law - Natural justice - Fair hearing - Mere invitation to be a

witness sufficient compliance with requirement that person must be informed

of clzaiges against him.

Commercial Law - Contract - Employment

by

statutory corporation - Fair hearing,

a principle of natural justice - Formal cline unnecessary - Employee

/Mist

be informed of alleged nzisdeed.s and afforded opportunity to defend himself

- Contract - Master and servant - Employment by statutory corporation -

Recourse must be to constitution, and rules of

CO171171011

law and equity where

statute and regulations governing employment silent on gr0111111S for removal of

officer.

Statute of Limitations - Public Officers Protection Law Sec. 2(a) - Limitation of

actions - Defence under Public Of



Protection Law - Available to public

officer against the Government or its agent as his employer.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether an invitation to an aggrieved party to testify as a witness before a Board

of Inquiry is sufficient compliance with the rules of natural justice.

2.

Whether a defence under the Public Officers Protection Law is available to a

person employed by a Government Agency.

FACTS:

The appellant was employed as a paymaster in the services of the Respond-

ent, a Federal statutory corporation. He was responsible for collecting money

from the Corporation's bankers and paying same as salaries to the staff of the re-

spondent. On 17th September, 1979 he gave one 0, another employee of the re-

spondent N12,000 to take to the respondent's accountant for smaller

denominations. 0. absconded with the money. Later, the appellant and 0. were

charged with stealing and conspiracy to steal the money. The appellant was in-

terdicted pending conclusion of the trial. At the end of the trial 0. was convicted

of stealing the money while the appellant was discharged and acquitted and he re-

turned to his employment. Thereafter the respondent set up a board of enquiry to

778



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[19871 2 N.S.C.C.

pry into the circumstances of the loss, and the appellant was invited as a witness.

The board found him guilty of negligence and the respondent dismissed the ap-

pellant from its employment.

The appellant then sued the respondent in the Benin High Court claiming,

inter



alia,

a declaration that his dismissal was unlawful, void and contrary to natural jus-



5

tice. The respondent counter-claimed for the N12,000 which was lost; the appel-

lant's defence was that the counter-claim was statute-barred as it was brought after

the expiration of the 3-month period prescribed by the Public Officer Protection

Law. Both parties failed at the trial and they appealed and cross-appealed to the



Court of Appeal, where again they were unsuccessful. The two parties further ap-



10

pealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD:

1.

It has never been the law that merely being a witness in an inquiry satisfied the

requirements of Natural Justice. The rules of Natural Justice imply much more



than a person being summoned to testify before an Inquiry Board, the rules



15

dictate that a person should know what is alleged against him and he should

be given a fair opportunity of stating his case. In the instant appeal these rules

have not been followed and as such any purported dismissal is

ultra vires

and

of no effect.

2.

The counter-claim was not raised until 19 months after the cause of action arose,



20

as such the trial judge was right in holding the counter-claim statute barred by

s.2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Law of Bendel State, which law operates

to protect a public officer against his master be it the Federal Government or

its agents on whose behalf the public officer was performing the duty.

25

[As to

denial of right to fair hearing,

see Halsbury's Laws 4th Edition 1 paras.

64 to 66, 74 to 77.1

CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:

1.

Kanda v. Government of Malaya

(1962) A.C. 322, 337, 338 PC.



30

2.

Ridge v. Baldwin

(1964) A.C. 40, 71-79.

3.

R. v. Chancellor of Cambridge University

(1716) Str. 557.

4.

Reg. v. Smith.

5.

Adedeji v. Public Service Commission

(1968) N.M.L.R. 102.

6.

Buzugbe v. Civil Service Commission

(1984) 7 S.C. 19 at 23-25.



35

7.

Attorney-General of Bendel State v. Wilson

(1985) 1 N.W.L.R. (Part 4) P.572.

8.

Falomo v. Lagos State Public Service Commission

(1977) 5 S.C. 51, 61.

9.

Olaniyan v. University of Lagos

(1985) 2 N.W.L.R. 599 at 623.

10.

Garba v. University of Maiduguri

(1986) 1 N.W.L.R. (Part 18) 550, 603, 618.

11.

Cooper v. Wandsmith Board of Works

14 C.B. (N.S.) 1180.



40

12.Board of Education v. Rice

(1911) A.C. 179, 182

13.

Ceylon University v. Fernando

(1960) 1 W.L.R. 223; (1960) 1 All E.R. 631

P.C.

14.Malloch v. Aberdeen Corporation

(1977) 1 W.L.R. 1578.

15.

The State Exparte Joseph Ajidele Olakunrin and 6 Ors v. Oba Alaiyeluwa



45

Ogunnoye, Oluwo of Iwo and 6 Ors

(1985) 5 S.C. 161, 193, 283.

16.

The Head of the Federal Military Government and Commander-in-chief of

the Armed Forces v. The Military Governor of Mid-Western State of Nigeria

(1973) 12 S.C.23.

17.

Wiseman v. Borneman

(1969) 3 All E.R. 275.



50

18.Pearlberg v. Varty

(1972) 2 All E.R.

19.Furnell v. Mangari High Schools Board

(1973) 1 All E.R. 400.

20.

/.G.P. v. Olatunji

21 N.L.R. 52.