SULE V. NIGERIAN COTTON BOARD

• Pages: 807-826

807



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1985] 2 N.S.C.C.

If the amount was not repaid as directed to the registrar, the registrar who has to

recover must of necessity require further order of the court as to the means of

enforcing it. It is my view that the Court of Appeal which made the order was

competent to further direct how its decision should be enforced.



Further, section 16 provides that the Court of Appeal shall have full jurisdiction



5

over the whole proceedings as if the proceedings had been instituted in the Court

of Appeal as court of first instance. So if the High Court has the jurisdiction to

make the order committing the appellant to prison for contempt, the Court of Ap-

peal was equally competent to make the order now on appeal. The appellant was



the person who actually collected the sum of N658,000 from the registrar, High



10

Court, Enugu albeit on behalf of the people of Amaechi village. It was he who dis-

bursed it amongst the people he claimed to be his clients. Consequently, he knew

who they were and therefore had the responsibility of recovering it from them when

it subsequently turned out that the High Court had no jurisdiction to make the order



which enabled him receive the money. The order of court to pay the Amaechi vil-



15

lage was on an application of the appellant to a court which had no jurisdiction to

entertain the proceedings. The appellant himself received the money and person-

ally undertook to disburse it. By obtaining an order which was a nullity and his un-

warranted receipt and disbursement of the money he rendered himself liable



together with his purported clients to account for the money he collected from the



20

court.

For the above reasons and those given by my learned brother Uwais, J.S.C.,

the appeal must be dismissed with costs of N300 to the respondents.



KAWU, J.S.C.:

I agree with my learned brother, Uwais, J.S.C. whose judgment



25

in draft I had been opportuned to read, that there is no substance in this appeal.

I too would dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed

30

SULE V. NIGERIAN COTTON BOARD

35

TELIAT A.O. SULE



APPELLANT

V

NIGERIAN COTTON BOARD



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 113/1984

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA



40

OBASEKI,



J.S.C.

ANIAGOLU,



J.S.C.

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

KAWU,



J.S.0

OP UTA,



J.S.C.



45

7th June, 1985

Master and Servant - Employment - Wronglitl retirement - Appellant's employmou

- Whether governed by Civil Service Rules and by the conditions of Service

of the Respondent's Board - Refusal by servant to vacate premises as ordered



50

by master - Whether disobedience of lawful orders - Implications thereof.

SULE V. NIGERIAN COTTON BOARD



808

Landlord and Tenant - Recovery of Residential Premises in Lagos - Appropriate

forum - Transfer of High Cowl's original jurisdiction to Rent Tribunal -

Counter-claim for possession - Absence of prescribed notices - Effect.

5



Jurisdiction - High Court of Lagos State - Recovery of residential premises in

Lagos - Ouster of High Court's original jurisdiction except in matters pending

before specified date - Counter-claim filed in High Court about 3 years after

date for recovery of residential premises from plaintiff suing for wrongful

retirement - Effect - Incompetence of High Court to entertain counter-claim.

10

ISSUES:

1a.Whether disobedience by a servant to a lawful order from his employers is a

ground for dismissal.

1 b.Whether an employer who had good cause to dismiss an employee summarily,

15





but elected on humanitarian grounds only to retire him with full benefits can be

accused of bias against the employee.

2.

Whether the legal effect of such disobedience is affected by a compulsory

retirement age clause under the terms and conditions of service.

3.

Whether the High Court of Lagos had original jurisdiction to entertain a

20





counter-claim for possession of residential premises and mesne profits as at

the 1st of August, 1979.

FACTS:

The plaintiff instituted an action in Court claiming damages for wrongful and

unlawful retirement. The plaintiff was transferred by the defendant from Lagos to

25





Funtua. He proceeded on the transfer but refused to comply with the order to va-

cate the official quarters in Lagos for his successor despite repeated warnings of

disciplinary action. The defendant retired the plaintiff with full benefits whereupon

the plaintiff brought this action. The defendant counter-claimed for possession of

the premises and mesne profit. The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and

30





upheld the respondent's counter-claim. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Ap-

peal contending that he was not given a fair trial and that his appointment was gov-

erned by the Civil Service Rules, that he had not reached the retirement age of 60

years and that only the Federal Commissioner responsible for pensions could law-

fully retire him. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's claim for damages

35





but held that the trial judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the counter-claim for

possession and mesne profits. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court:

HELD:

1a.That under Common Law and Statute Law disobedience of a lawful order from

any servant, high or low, big or small is viewed with seriousness, and such

40





conduct normally attracts the penalty of summary dismissal as disobedience

ranks as one of the worst forms of misconduct in any establishment.

1b.I n the instant case, the facts of this case clearly show that the employee's attitude

was disobedient and tantamount to insubordination. With regard to fairness

and fair hearing, the employer exhibited impartiality and fairness, the employee

45





was given opportunity to write exhibits F, K, M and P. This was fair hearing at

its best.

2.

Once the trial court found the Appellant guilty of conduct amounting to

disobedience and insubordination, the compulsory retiring age of the servant,

whether it be 53 or 60 under the terms and conditions of service will not affect

50





the legal effect of disobedience to lawful orders in a contract of employment.

Retiring the appellant with full benefits was therefore a humanitarian act.

3.

The Rent Control and Recovery of Residential Premises Edicts ousted the High

Courts jurisdiction except in matters pending before it or part-heard. As the

counter-claim was filed in the High Court some 3 years after the plaintiff had