HAIDAR V. BERINI (B.R.) (NIG) BANK. LTD

• Pages: 110-113

110



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1963] N.S.C.C.

in the judgment. We cannot say. We are faced with a flaw in the consideration of

the vital issue of negligence and the only proper course is to have a fresh trial.

The parties should be at liberty to put in fresh pleadings and adduce whatever

evidence may be needed on the issues raised. One hopes that things will be done

better in that regard. One also hopes that the new judgment will give some light on



5

the method used for assessing damages, if the plaintiffs succeed; the judgment

under appeal gives no clue, and both sides found it hard to say anything useful on

appeal.

I would allow the appeal and propose -

10

That the appeal be allowed and the judgment of 30th March, 1962, in Suit

1/288/1961 of the High Court of the Western Religion, be set aside, and that it

is hereby ordered that there shall be a new trial before another judge, with liberty

to have fresh pleadings. with forty guineas as costs of appeal allowed to the

defendants, and forty guineas as costs in the court below.

Appeal allowed;

re-trial ordered.

Brett, F.J.:

I concur.

Coker, Ag. F.J.:

I concur.

HAIDAR V. BERINI (B.R.) (NIG) BANK. LTD.

25

KOUSSAY USSUF HAIDAR



APPELLANT

V

BERINI (BEIRUT-RIYAD)

(NIGERIA) BANK LIMITED



RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. FSC 68/1962



30

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

BRETT,



F.J.

TAYLOR,



F.J.

BAIRAMIAN,



F.J.

15th March, 1963.



35

Commercial Law- Contract of Service - Master and servant - Wrongful dismissal

- Servant - Alien engaged abroad.

Remedies- Damages - Measure of - Break of contract of service - Bases of

assessment.



40

ISSUES:

1. What is the proper remedy for breach of a contract of employement, by way

of wrongful dismissal, which contract was for a fixed period?

FACTS:



45

The plaintiff, an alien was engaged in the Lebanon to come out to Lagos as an

employee of the Bank on a fixed of employement contract for three years (clause

4) as from 24th October, 1959, at £1,200 per annum (clause 3), was wrongfully

dismissed on 1st June, 1960. The contract stated in clause 7 that at the end of the

three years, unless three months notice was given by either side, the contract would



50

be renewable every year; and in clause 8 that if the Bank, without cause, revoked

the contract during the currency of the three-year period, he could not claim more

than the salary for the remainder of the period, and that if he revoked it during that

period he would have to pay a pre- estimated indemnity of £3,600 "which is con-

15

20