MAJA V. STOCCO

• Pages: 112-119

112



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1968] N.S.C.C.

1966. On the evidence before the lower court the judge, rightly in our view, came

to the conclusion that the appellant failed to establish the defence of insanity. Both

grounds of appeal must therefore fail.

We dismissed the appeal when it was heard on the 28th March, 1968 and these

are our reasons for having taken that course.



5

Appeal dismissed.

MAJA V. STOCCO



10

OLADIPO MAJA

V

LEANDRO STOCCO

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

COKER,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

11th April, 1968.

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 533/65

15

20

Master and Servant - Dismissal of servant - Misconduct of servant - servant



taking advantage of his position to enrich himself - whether liable to instant



25

dismissal by master fo• breach of contract.

ISSUES:

1.

Where a trial court has drawn erroneous inferences from the facts, or has made



unjustified findings from them, can an appeal court deal with those facts and



30

make proper findings.

2.

What type of acts will constitute misconduct justifying a servant's dismissal.

3.

Whether a servant who takes advantage of his position to enrich himself is liable

to instant dismissal, and accountable to his master for the proceeds.

FACTS:



35

The appellant, a private medical practitioner, engaged the services of the re-

spondent, an Italian doctor, to work in his clinic on a contractual basis; there was

a service agreement. The respondent commenced proceedings against the ap-

pellant, complaining that the termination of his employment was wrongful. The



case for the appellant was that the respondent had no right to practice medicine



40

in his house and was doing so contrary to agreement; he also misbehaved in not

entering up the cards of patients he treated in the appellant's clinic. The respond-

ent maintained that he was entitled to practice medicine outside his hours in the

clinic. The trial judge found for the respondent and awarded him general dam-



ages, special damages and costs. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.



45

HELD:

1.

Where the facts found by the Court of Trial are wrongly applied to the

circumstances of the case or where the inference drawn from those facts are

erroneous or where the findings of facts are not reasonably justified or



supported by evidence given in the case, the Court of Appeal, is in as much a



50

good position as the trial Court to deal with the facts and to make proper

findings.