ALHAJI ABDULLAHI BABA v NIGERIAN CIVIL AVIATION TRAINING CENTRE, ZARIA AND ANOTHER (SC 78/1987) [1991] NGSC 6 (5 July 1991)

ALHAJI ABDULLAHI BABA (APPELLANT)

v.

NIGERIAN CIVIL AVIATION TRAINING CENTRE, ZARIA AND ANOTHER (RESPONDENTS)

(1991) All N.L.R. 218

Division: Supreme Court of Nigeria

Date of Judgment: 5 July 1991

Case Number: SC 78/1987

Before: Mohammed Bello, CJN; Adolphus Godwin Karibi-Whyte; Phillip Patrick Nnaemeka-Agu; Uchemefuna Omo; Bolarinwa Babalakin, JJSC

ISSUE

Whether the proceedings of an investigative panel had been conducted in breach of the principles of natural justice?

FACTS

The plaintiff (appellant here) joined the defendant company (the respondent) as an Assistant Security Officer on 4 December 1979. His letter of appointment, of same date, stipulated that the plaintiff was to undergo a probationary period of two years. During his period of probation, the plaintiff enjoyed two promotions: first to the rank of Acting Security Officer and then to the position of security officer.

Following a spate of thefts at the defendant's premises, a petition was drawn up and signed by 30 Security Officers and presented to the defendant's management. In this document the signatories intimated that the burglaries and other forms of theft could be linked directly to the Appellant's inefficiency, without directly accusing him of the thefts.

Staff Regulations were in place and these allowed for the forming of a panel to investigate the allegations levelled at the plaintiff. The panel convened on 10 September 1981 and only on 14 September did it invite the plaintiff to attend a sitting thereof. The plaintiff was given an opportunity to state his case by way of written presentations to be delivered the following day. The plaintiff complied with the panel's demand but when the plaintiff asked the panel to be allowed to cross-examine his adversaries, his request was refused.

Following the plaintiff's written submissions, the panel made certain unfavourable recommendations regarding the plaintiff to the defendant's management, after which the panel disbanded and ceased to exist.

Thereafter the Training Centre presented the plaintiff with written allegations made by the petitioners which called into question, inter alia, the plaintiff's attitude towards his duties, his inefficiency, his lack of responsibility, the heavy spate of burglaries in his allocated area and the lack of trust in him by his subordinates. The plaintiff's reply failed to address all of these allegations adequately and on 27 October 1981 he received a letter of termination of his services together with an offer of a month's salary in lieu of notice.

The plaintiff then instituted action against the defendant as a result of what he believed constituted an unfair dismissal. He based his case primarily on the facts that he had not been given a fair hearing by the panel, that good cause for his dismissal had not been shown and that his probation had come to an end when he was promoted during his period of probation. The trial court dismissed his claim in its entirety, as did the Court of Appeal to whom the plaintiff turned following his failure in the trial court.

The plaintiff contended that the panel's refusal to allow him to face and cross-examine his adversaries was a breach of natural justice and contrary to the principle of audi alteram partem.

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of both the trial court and the Court of Appeal, and found that the dismissal had been justified in that good cause had been shown, that the probation period had not come to an end because of the plaintiff's promotions during that period and that the requirements of fairness were met at the investigative hearing by the panel.

HELD (Unanimously dismissing the appeal)

1.      On the distinction between a judicial or quasi-judicial body and a purely administrative body conducting an investigation or holding an enquiry

The criteria for a fair hearing as envisaged by Section 33(1) of the Constitution of 1979 are only required when a person's civil rights and obligations are to be determined by a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding or by a tribunal acting judicially. Since it was not a regular trial and in such a proceeding the requirement of fairness was met by the opportunity afforded the plaintiff to make written representations. The panel was acting in an administrative capacity: it conducted an enquiry, not a trial. Its functions were exploratory and investigatory and it was not a body set up to determine the plaintiff's rights and obligations. Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC at page 230.

2.      On the nexus between the panel's findings and the plaintiff's dismissal

It could not be said, in any event, that the panel had been the direct cause of the plaintiff's dismissal. It had been authorities at the Training Centre who issued the plaintiff with a list of queries to respond to and only after his reply had been less than satisfactory, did management decide to dismiss him. Uche Omo, JSC, at page 253.

3.      On good cause

The interests of the employer are paramount when the dismissal of an employee is in issue. "Good cause" includes a number of situations which do not necessarily amount to misconduct or moral turpitude. Thus, if staff reduction is necessary for the employer's success, a resultant dismissal may still be for "good cause". Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC at page 229.

4.      On distinguishing between good cause and good cause shown (obiter)

A distinction must be made between "for good cause" and "for good cause shown". The former relates simply to good reasons from the point of view of the party so deciding. In the latter instance the good cause should be the result of evidence produced before the tribunal in question. Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC at pages 235 and 236.

J.B Daudu for the Appellant

Respondents absent and unrepresented, but filed a brief.

The following cases were referred to in this judgment:

Nigeria

Adedeji v Police Service Commission (1967) NSSC 59

Adedeji v Police Service Commission (1968) NMLR 102

Adigun v A-G of Oyo State (1987) 1 NWLR (Part 53) 678

Aiyetan v NIFOR (1987) 3 NWLR (Part 59) 48

Alhaji Bello v Diocesan Synod of Lagos (1973) 1 All NLR (Part 1) 247

Bello v Diocesan Synod of Lagos (1973) 1 All NLR (Part 1) 247

Ceylon University v Fernando (1960) 1 WLR 223

Deduwa & others v Okorodudu (1976) 10 SC 329

Denloye v Medical & Dental Practitioners Tribunal (1968) 1 All NLR 306 (Part 1)

Eperokun v University of Lagos (1986) 4 NWLR (Part 34) 162

Falomo v Lagos State Public Service Commission (1977) 5 SC 51

Federal Civil Service Commission v Laoye (1989) 2 NWLR (Part 106) 652

Garba v The University of Maiduguri (1986) 1 NWLR (Part 18) 550

Hart v Military Governor of Rivers State (1976) NSCC 622

Kotoye, NAB v Central Bank of Nigeria (1989) 1 NWLR (Part 98) 419

Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal v Chief Fawehinmi (1985) 2 NWLR (Part 7) 300

Mogaji, AR & others v Rabiatu Odofin (1978) 4 SC 91

Mohammed v Kano NA (1968) 1 All NLR

Nicon v Power Ind. Engineering Co Ltd (1986) 1 NWLR (Part 14) I, 27

Nigerian Maritime Services Ltd v Afolabi (1978) 2 SC 79

Nwabuoku v Ottih (1973) 11 SC 34

Olaniyan & others v University of Lagos & another (1985) 2 NWLR (Part 9) 599

Prince Yahaya Adigun & others v The Attorney-General of Oyo State & others (1987) 1 NWLR 678

Queen, The v Director of Audit (WR) (1961) NSCC 292; (1961) 1 All NLR 659

Shitta - Bey v Federal Public Service Commission (1981) 1 SC 40

Sken Consult (Nig.) v Ukey (1881) 1 SC 6

Sofekun, Dr. v Akinyemi & others (1980) 5-7 SC 1

Foreign

Adam Tyton Ltd, In Re; Ex parte Charlesworth (1887) 36 Ch.D.299

Board of Education v Rice (1911) AC 179

Miller Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government (1968) 1 WLR 992

Miller v Minister of Health (1946) KB 626

Kanda v Govt. of Malaya (1962) AC 322

Local Government Board v Arlidge (1915) AC 120

MacFoy v UAC (1962) AC 152

Nakkuda Ali v Jayartne (1951) AC 66

R v Chancellor of Cambridge University (1716) 1 Str. 557

R v Housing Appeal Tribunal (1920) 3 KB 334

R v Judge Amphlett (1915) 2 KB 223

R v Newmarket Assessment Committee (1945) 2 All ER 371

R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy (1924) 1 KB 256

Ridge v Baldwin (1964) AC 40

Sheldon v Bromfield Justices (1964) 2 QB 573

Spackman v Plumstead District Board of Works (1885) 10 AC 229

Stafford v Minister of Heath (1946) KB 621

Summers v Minister of Health (1947) 1 All ER 184

Timmins v Timmins (1919)

Underwood v Underwood (1948)

The following statutes were referred to in this judgment:

Nigeria

The Constitution of 1979: Ss 31(1); 33(1)

Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC (Delivered The Leading Judgment):- This is an appeal by Alhaji Abdullahi Baba who was the plaintiff in this suit in a Kaduna High Court presided over by Chigbue, J (as he then was). The plaintiff's claim as amended by his amended statement of claim was as follows:-

"1.     A declaration that the letter of termination from the first defendant dated 27 October 1981 and issued by the authority of the second defendant at Zaria under the hand of one I. B. Lawal for the second defendant is wrongful, void and of no effect whatsoever in that the said letter and the decision to terminate the plaintiff was:-

(a)     Ultra vires.

(b)     Capricious.

(c)     Mala fide, and

(d)     An abuse of power.

2.      A declaration that the letter of termination dated 27 October 1981 issued by the authority of the second defendant is contrary to the Staff Regulation of the first defendant and therefore null and void.

3.      A declaration that the plaintiff holds and is still holding a permanent pensionable appointment as Security Officer on Salary Grade Level 07 in the employment of the first defendant, and in the alternative.

4.      A declaration and or Order that the plaintiff is entitled to the following benefits with effect from 27 October 1981 to November 1984. That is to say:-

(i) Salary at the going rate for Grade Level 07 ie N236 per month from November 1981 amounting to N8 732.

(ii) Leave allowance for 3 years from 1981-1984 at N160 per annum amounting to N480.

(iii) Salary at the going rate for Grade Level 07 ie N236 per annum from November, 1984 until judgment is delivered."

The suit was initially against the first defendant only, but on plaintiff's application, the Principal of the Centre was later joined as co-defendant.

The facts which led to the claim are straightforward. On 4 December 197