Propriety of Court Placing Reliance on Findings Made in Similar Case to Resolve Present Issues
PAGE 4
The Respondent filed a claim against the Appellant at the National Industrial Court (NIC) seeking inter alia, a declaration that the purported termination of his employment was invalid, wrongful, and in breach of his terms of employment with the Appellant. The Appellant denied liability, and the matter proceeded to trial. The Court entered judgement for the Respondent. Dissatisfied, with the decision, the Appellant filed this appeal.
Issues for Determination (1) Whether the Honourable trial Judge was right to adopt his erroneous finding of facts in his previous decisions, as his finding of facts and judgement in this case, in breach of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing;
(2) Whether the Honourable trial Judge was right, when he suo motu, made out a case in this matter different from the case submitted to it by the parties for adjudication, in breach of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing;
(3) Whether the Honourable trial Judge was right, when he refused to consider any of the issues raised in the Appellant’s Reply on Points of Law in response to the Respondent’s Final Written Address, in the final judgement of 30th September, 2015, in breach of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing;
(4) Whether the Honourable trial Judge was right, when he made findings on the documents (Exhibit A04, A03 & A09) tendered and relied on by the Respondent by admitting and/or placing full evidential value on the documents contrary to the provisions of the Evidence Act, 2011, without making any findings of facts and pronouncement on the objections raised by the Appellant as to their relevance and/or admissibility in breach of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing;
(5) Whether the trial Court was right to hold that the Respondent’s employment was wrongfully terminated, and to award damages in the sum of N172,660.52 as two months gross salary to the Respondent, a relief not sought by the Respondent in breach of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing; and
(6) Whether the trial Court was right to rely on “the purported handbook” and the photocopies of the Appellant’s minutes of the Board of Directors meeting with extraneous attachments, in awarding the sum of N550,7781.25, a relief not sought by the Respondent.
Arguments The summary of the Appellant’s argument, was that every decision must be based on the peculiar circumstances and facts surrounding it, and that failure of the Court to consider the peculiar facts of the suit before relying on its earlier judgements, constituted a breach of its right to fair hearing. It was submitted that, the trial Judge was wrong to make out a case different from the case submitted by the parties.
The Respondent, on his part, contended that the trial Court dealt with the issues raised by the Appellant, and that every Judge has a style of writing in so far as the case is properly resolved.
Court’s Judgement and Rationale Resolving the issues, the Court noted that the decision of IHESI v ARINZE & ANOR (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1027) 241 relied upon by the Appellant, was distinguishable from the instant case where the trial Court relied on its previous decisions of UKANDU v MAINSTREET BANK REGISTRARS LIMITED (UNREPORTED) SUIT NO. NICN/LA/335/2013 and ABIMBOLA v MAINSTREET BANK REGISTRARS LIMITED (UNREPORTED) SUIT NO. NICN/LA/317/2013 delivered on 27th May, 2015. Here, the issues and the documents for evaluation were the same, so as the principal witness. Hence, the trial Court could not be faulted as a Court can rely on its previous ruling on a particular point, when relevant in the determination of an issue. This is more so, where the Court had earlier resolved same issues raised by a party in earlier proceedings.
On whether an erroneous finding is a breach of fair hearing, the Court observed that fair hearing was used in the instant case as a cancer with no definite shape or identity, as every perceived wrong was tagged as breach of fair hearing even when the Appellant had been given an opportunity to be heard. Fair hearing is giving equal opportunity to parties to be heard in litigation before the Court, and where parties are given opportunity to be heard but fail to use it, they cannot complain of breach of the right of hearing. DINGYADI v INEC (2010) LPELR -952 SC. The Court held that the Appellant was not denied fair hearing, as it fully participated in the trial and with the Court’s unfettered right to rely on any material in arriving at its judgement, the findings relied on by the trial Judge was permissible, so as to save judicial time and avoid repetition.
Further, fair hearing is the courts right to rule against a party after having considered its case. A court of law has no legal duty to confine itself only to authorities cited by the parties; UNOGBO v UNA (2002) 16 NWLR (Pt.792) 175 at 211-212, but can include its own decision which it considers relevant. It follows that the arguments of the Appellant, were frivolous and misconceived.
On the second issue, the Appellate Court agreed that there was no pleading in support of Pre-action notice; thus, the findings of the trial Court on the issue of Preaction notice, not being the case of the parties, was wrong and same was set aside. A court cannot raise issues suo motu and resolve same, without affording the parties an opportunity to address the Court thereon. Therefore, the trial Court erred, by including the issue of pre-trial notice in its finding on jurisdiction. Nonetheless, this did not occasion a miscarriage of justice to the Appellant, as the issue of jurisdiction is covered by the Constitution and not the Companies and Allied Matters Act relied on by the Appellant.
Parties had joined issues on the minutes of meeting of the Board of Directors, which the Appellant had asked the Court to take judicial notice of. Hence, to say the decision of the court was perverse because a copy of the minutes was tendered by the Respondent, was untenable. The Appellant who had adopted the answers to cross-examination in the UKANDU’S case, cannot turn around to complain when the Court also relied on its findings on similar issues in those cases.
Deciding the third issue, it was observed that the trial Court reviewed all preliminary issues raised by the Appellant in its Reply on Points of Law, which was similar to those raised in UKANDU’S and ABIMBOLA’S cases, where the trial Court adopted the findings in the judgement. The Appellant who had invited the Court to take judicial notice of the records, cannot challenge the adoption of the Court’s findings therein.
On the fourth issue regarding admissibility of some documents in contravention of the Evidence Act, the Appellate Court stated that there is no rule of practice that says that the Court must make specific findings on each statement of counsel. Admissibility is founded on relevance and pleadings, the test which was met by the Respondent - OKONJI v NJOKANMA (1999) 14 NWLR (PT.683) 250. Though what is required to be tendered as documentary evidence is the original, the same law anticipated a situation where the original may not be available, such that a party can use secondary evidence, so far as the necessary foundation is laid – Section 87 of the Evidence Act. Having complied with the above, the Evidence Act was not flouted in any way. By the decision of the Court of Appeal, the lower Court is bound to observe the provisions of the Evidence Act contrary to Section 12 of the NIC Act. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v ABILO UBOBOSO CA/A/388/2013 (Unreported) and delivered on 21st December, 2016. The trial Court evaluated all the exhibits, and the fact that the finding did not benefit the Appellant, did not mean they were not evaluated.
Deciding issues five and six, their Lordships held that it is settled law that a Court cannot give what was not sought for by a Claimant. NIGERIAN AIR FORCE v SHEKETE (2002) 18 NWLR (PT.798) 129. However, the Appellate Court justified the two months’ salary awarded to the Respondent, even though the handbook stipulated a month’s salary in lieu of notice as in this case, the Appellant terminated the employment of the Respondent by letter giving only one day notice. Thus, failure to pay the one month’s salary in lieu of notice was a breach of the term of employment, and payment after such alleged termination, is wrongful. Also, going by the handbook which had been approved by the Board, the Respondent was entitled to terminal benefits having served for 5 years, which the trial Court computed. The terminal benefits includes gratuity - JULIUS BERGER (NIG) PLC v NWAGWU (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt.995) 518. The trial Court considered all evidence before it, and arrived at a just decision which the Appellate Court could not interfere with. By the way, a Court has the power to make consequential orders, and that cannot be offensive in anyway. USIOBAIFO v USIOBAIFO (2005) 3 NWLR (PT.913) 665. The award of sum of N550,781.25 was justified and well founded.
On this note, the Court found that the appeal lacked merit, and same was dismissed with costs of N100,000.00 against the Appellant in favour of the Respondent.
Appeal Dismissed.
“..... A COURT CAN RELY ON ITS PREVIOUS RULING ON A PARTICULAR POINT, WHEN RELEVANT IN THE DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE. THIS IS MORE SO, WHERE THE COURT HAD EARLIER RESOLVED SAME ISSUES RAISED BY A PARTY IN EARLIER PROCEEDINGS”