AKINOLA & ANOR. V. OLUWO & ORS.

• Pages: 157-160

AKINOLA & ANOR. V. OLUWO & ORS.



157

The trial Judge evaluated the evidence and came to the conclusion that the facts

justified summary dismissal under Regulation 13(3). This Regulation sets out cer-

tain specific matters which justify summary dismissal and contains a saving provi-

sion in subsection (3) in respect of other acts of misconduct justifying dismissal.

5



Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant, as a confirmed em-

ployee, should not have been dismissed without being given an opportunity to be

heard, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Regulation 16. I accept

this submission, as I do not think that Regulation 13(3) can be construed as de-

priving a confirmed employee of his rights under Regulation 16.

10



Counsel then went on to submit that a failure to comply with the provision of

Regulation 16 rendered the dismissal wrongful, and deprived the High Court of

jurisdiction to enquire whether there was just cause or excuse for the dismissal. I

do not think that there is substance in this contention. The failure to comply with

Regulation 16 cannot deprive the Courts of jurisdiction to enquire into the issue of

15



just cause or excuse any more than a compliance with that Regulation would de-

prive the Courts of the power to consider whether an employee had been dis-

missed without such cause or excuse. I am satisfied from the record of

proceedings in the Court below that there was abundant evidence to establish that

there was just cause and excuse for dismissing the appellant on the ground that

20



he had been guilty of misconduct as defined in the Regulations.

I should mention that Regulation 16 provides for dismissal and not for termina-

tion after a period of notice. The question of notice does not arise in this case.

For the reasons given above I would dismiss the appeal with costs assessed at

21 guineas.

25



Ademola, C.J.F. I

concur.

Taylor, F.J. I

concur.

Appeal dismissed.

30

AKINOLA & ANOR. V. OLUWO & ORS.

35 JOSIAH AKINOLA

EZEKIEL A. AKINTOYE

V

FATOYINBO OLUWO

SOBANDE ODOFIN

40 ISAAC YEKU BANTUUN

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT

BRETT,



F.J.

UNSWORTH,



F.J.

45



TAYLOR,



F.J.

27th April, 1962.

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. FSC 231/1961

Evidence - Burden of proof - Plaintiffs burden - when plaintiff may rely on

weakness of defence.

50

Courts - Appellate court - Findings of trial court - wizen disregarded - findings

based upon Credibility - Findings based upon evaluation of evidence accepted

by all parties - Distinguished.