BABA V. CIVIL AVIATION

• Pages: 145-174

BABA V. CIVIL AVIATION



145

BABA V. CIVIL AVIATION

5

ALHAJI ABDULLAHI BABA



APPELLANT

V.

10 1. NIGERIAN CIVIL AVIATION



TRAINING CENTRE, ZARIA.



RESPONDENTS

2. MR. YAHAYA BAMIDELE

(PRINCIPAL, N.C.A.T.C.

15



APPEAL NO. SC. 78/1987.

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BELLO,



C.J.N.

KARIBI-WHYTE,



J.S.C.

NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C.

20



OMO,



J.S.C.

BABALAKIN,



J.S.C.

5th July, 1991.

25

Administrative Law-

Panel of inquiry - Power, duty and proceedings thereof - Refusal of

opportunity to cross-examine witnesses - Whether amounts to denial of fair hearing -

Administrative body - Determination of allegations of crime - Competence of -

Necessity for a "hearing" and content of - Questions relating to. - How determined

-

30



Applicability to administrative tribunal.

Appeals -

Slip committed by court - When may an appeal he allowed thereon.

Contract-

Terms - Interpretation of - Whether proper to refer to other documents relating

thereto.

35

Evidence -

Unchallenged and uncontradicted evidence - Effect of

Fairhearing -

Principles and requirements of - Whether binding on administrative body -

Section 33(1) of the Constitution, 1079.

40



Which prevails where there is inconsistency - Allegations against employee - Duty of

Master and Servant-

Terms of employment - Letter of appointment and staff regulations

-

employer.

Words and Phrases-

"For good cause" and "For good cause shown" - Distinction between

in the context of the termination of appointment - "Determination" - Meaning of

45



Section 33(1) of the 1979 Constitution.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether refusal to allow a person appearing before a panel of inquiry to

50



cross-examine witnesses who had petitioned against him and who testified

before the panel amounts to a denial of fair hearing or a breach of relevant rules

of natural justice.

146



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1991] 2 N.S.C.C.

2.

When is a hearing necessary in an inquiry?

3.

What are the requirements of fair hearing?

4.

What is the duty of an employer where some allegations have been made

against an employee?

FACTS:

The plaintiff/appellant was employed by the defendant/respondent as Assistant

Security Officer in its establishment on 4/12/79 as

per

a letter of employment.

Exhibit A. By the letter of employment the plaintiff's employment was to be on

probation for 2 years, but during that period he was promoted twice. The 1st

defendant, a statutory corporation, had Staff Regulations Exhibit J, made under

the statute. The regulations contained provisions governing relationship with

officers on probation and officers whose employment had been confirmed.

Before the expiration of the two-year probation period, the relationship between

the plaintiff and the defendant went sour due to frequent losses of valuable

property in the 1st defendant's premises. A number of security officers working

under the plaintiff made some allegations against the plaintiff, consequent upon

which the Management of the 1st defendant set up a penal of inquiry to investigate

the matter. The plaintiff was informed of the setting up of the panel.

The panel of inquiry commenced sitting and when the plaintiff appeared before

it he was shown the petitions of his junior colleagues and he was asked to explain

the reports that the thefts were due to his inefficiency. In reaction to this, the plaintiff

submitted a memorandum, Exhibit D, wherein he tried to answer the allegations

made against him. However, the panel rejected his request to confront his accusers

and to cross-examine them. Later the panel prepared a Report, Exhibit E. and a

copy thereof was served on the plaintiff.

On 13/10/81 the plaintiff received a letter, Exhibit F, asking him to show cause

why his appointment should not be terminated. He complied and wrote Exhibit G.

Later however ihe 1st defendant wrote a letter to the plaintiff in which he was

informed that his appointment was terminated and a one month's salary in lieu of

notice was offered to him.

The plaintiff challenged the termination of his appointment in a Kaduna High

Court. claiming a declaration that,

inter alia,

the letter of termination was wrongful,

void and of no effect whatsoever and contrary to the Staff regulations of the 1st

defendant.

After considering the whole evidence, the learned trial judge dismissed the

plaintiff's case in its entirety. The plaintiff's appeal to the Court of Appeal was also

dismissed. Still dissatisfied, the plaintiff further appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD



4

1.

The refusal of a panel of inquiry to allow a person to cross-examine witnesses

who testified before the panel cannot ground such person's complaint for

denial of fair hearing or breach of the relevant rules of natural justice. This is

so where the panel of inquiry is acting in an administrative capacity and not

taking evidence on oath. It would be cumbersome against the run of

authorities and deleterious to good administration to decide that for every

administrative inquiry all parties whose names get mentioned even before any

serious charges are fixed on them must be given the opportunity to be heard

orally or to cross-examine all those who make statements against them.

(See

p.164 lines 6 - 13)..

2.

Whether or not a hearing is necessary at all in an inquiry depends on the nature

and purpose of the inquiry. It depends so much upon the intention and

1(

2(

2!

a

3

4