FETUGA V. WESTERN NIGERIA HOUSING CORP.

• Pages: 274-279

274



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1967] N.S.C.C.

FETUGA V. WESTERN NIGERIA HOUSING

CORP.

R.C.A. FETUGA

V.

WESTERN NIGERIA

HOUSING CORPORATION

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BAIRAMIAN,



J.S.C.

COKER,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

1st December, 1967

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 572/1965

Commercial Law - Contract - Master and servant - Wrongful dismissal

Civil Procedure - No case submission - Duty of Judge and Jury - 0.26 r.10-18,

Western State High Court Civil Procedure Rules - Civil Procedure in Supreme

Court then 1942 - 035 4.1 to 9; 1923 Laws of Nigeria.

ISSUES:

1.

What is the next step for a trial court to take at the end of the plaintiff's case?

2.

Whether a Judge can stop a case on the conclusion of a plaintiff's case, if he

is satisfied that no claim has been made out in law.

3.

What is the proper procedure for defence counsel to follow on a no-case

submission?

FACTS:

This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Western Nigeria dis-

missing the claim of the appellant. In his writ the plaintiff/appellant claimed as

against the defendant/respondent the sum of £14,000 being both special and

general damages for wrongful termination of employment as a Mortgage Officer

under the defendant notwithstanding his wilingness to continue to work for the de-

fendant. The particulars of damage were for loss of gratuity, loss of salary for a

period of 10 years and general damages.

At the trial the plaintiff gave evidence in support of his claim and called one wit-

ness, who was the Secretary of the defendants. At the close of the plaintiff's case

the learned trial Judge without calling upon the defence, called on the plaintiff's

counsel to address the court as to whether or not there was a case to go to the

Jury. Counsel for the defence did not in any way object to this course and both

counsel addressed the learned trial Judge upon the issue raised by him. He event-

ually gave his ruling and decision dismissing the claim without costs on the ground

that the point in issue upon which counsel addressed him was raised on the courts

own motion.

It is against this judgment that the appellant appealed to the SUpreme Court,

solely upon the ground that an erroneous procedure was adopted which he sub-

mitted was so fundamental that the decision must be quashed and by implication

though not expressly requested the court to order a retrial. The learned counsel