MOROHUNFOLA v. KWARATECH

• Pages: 27-44

MOROHUNFOLA V. KWARATECH

27

5

MOROHUNFOLA V.

KWARATECH

B. A, MOROHUNFOLA

APPELLANT

V.

10

KWARA STATE COLLEGE

OF TECHNOLOGY

RESPONDENT

APPEAL NO. SC.170/1987.

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

15

OBASEKI,

J.S.C.

UWAIS,

J.S.C.

KARIBI-WHYTE,

J.S.C.

BELGORE,

J.S.C.

NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C.

20

6th July, 1990.

Contract - Contract of employment - Action for wrongful dismissal - Whether the contract

ought to be pleaded - Effect of failure to so plead - Employee accepting salary in lieu

25

of notice of termination of employment - Whether can bring action for wrongful

termination - Effect of such receipt of salary in lieu of notice.

Evidence - Proof of admitted facts - When dispensed with.

Master and Servant - Contract of employment - Termination of - Pleadings of plaintiff in

30

respect thereof - What it must contain - Effect of failure to plead same - Plaintiff

accepting salary in lieu of notice of termination - Whether can bring action for wrongful

termination - Effect of such receipt of salary in lieu of notice.

Practice and Procedure - Action founded on contract - Plaintiff to give sufficient

particulars in his pleading for the identification of the contract - Pleadings - Function

35

and constituents of - Parties bound by their pleadings - Evidence on matters not pleaded

-

How treated - Wrongful termination of appointment - Facts which must be pleaded

by plaintiff - Effect of failure to plead same.

Remedies - Injunction - When a court can grant it - Plaintiff seeking an injunction - What

to prove.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether a party (an employee) who contends that his contract of employment

was wrongly terminated must, in his statement of claim, plead or show the

existence of the said contract?

45 2, What is the function and nature of pleadings?

3. When may a court grant an injunction?

40

50

28

NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1990] 3 N.S.C.C.

FACTS:

The plaintiff/appellant who was the Deputy Registrar of the Defendant/Respon-

dent before his appointment was terminated sued the defendant at the Ilorin

Division of the Kwara State High Court for a declaration that:

(a)

the purported termination of his appointment by a letter dated the 17th of

April, 1980 from an agent of the defendant is null and void as the Sole

Administrator's office had terminated on or before the 15th of April, 1980

and a Governing Council had not been set up by the Governor of Kwara

State;

(b)

he is entitled to his emoluments until the determination of his suit, and

thereafter until he is legitimately relieved of his post, and

(c)

a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and/or its agents and

servants from filling the post, which he contends is not vacant.

15

The defendant, on its part, filed and served a statement of defence in which all

the averments in the three-paragraph statement of claim were denied. In addition,

the defendant averred that the plaintiff's appointment was terminated in accord-

ance with the Regulations governing conditions of service of its senior staff and

that the plaintiff was paid three month's salary in lieu of notice in accordance with

the said Regulations. It was further averred in the statement of defence that the

20

consent of neither the Sole Administrator nor the Governing Council was neces-

sary in paying the said three months' salary or in terminating the plaintiff's

appointment, since he was not terminated for misconduct.

In his evidence-in-chief at the hearing, the plaintiff/appellant tendered the letter

of 17th April, 1980 wherein his appointment was terminated. However, he failed to

tender his letter of appointment. When cross-examined, the plaintiff/appellant

admitted that the respondent paid into his bank account his salary for three months

in lieu of notice of termination of his appointment. The defence consequently rested

its case on that of the plaintiff/appellant.

The trial Judge, in his judgment, found no merit in the plaintiff's case and

non-suited him. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeal, the plaintiff against

the refusal of the trial Court to grant his claim and the defendant challenging the

order of non-suit and claiming that the action ought to have been dismissed

entirely. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the appellant and allowed

the cross-appeal of the respondent. Dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal's judg-

ment, the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court contending,

inter elle,

that the

learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred and misdirected themselves in law

in holding that his non-pleading and non-tendering of his letter of appointment was

fatal to the case.

HELD:

Per

KARIBI-WHYTE, J.S.C.

1.

In our High Court the best method of explaining issues between the parties

before hearing is by way of pleadings. Pleadings must contain facts on which

a party relies for his case: the facts must be material. In the matter of pleading,

it is for the plaintiff to plead sufficient material facts so that the defendant will

45

know the case he is to face, and it is then up to him to admit or traverse those

facts.Thus, facts not pleaded go to no issue; and because parties are bound

by their pleadings, evidence received on unpleaded facts must be expunged

from the record.

5

10

25

30

35

40

50