22/01/2018
AKINOLA AROBIEKE V NATIONAL ELECTRICITY LIABILITY
MANAGEMENT COMPANY
Appeal no:SC.176/2006
AREAS OF LAW: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, APPEAL, FAIR HEARING, LABOUR LAW, WORDS AND PHRASES
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant, an employee of the Respondent, allegedly co-ordinated and supervised unauthorized works at another Company. The Respondent issued him a query that clearly indicated the offences and breaches leveled against him. Dissatisfied with the Appellant’s reply to the query and that of the other employees, who allegedly carried out the unauthorized works under the direct supervision of the Appellant, the Respondent set up an AD-Hoc Disciplinary Committee, and by a letter invited the Appellant to appear before the said Committee. At the end of the investigation by the Ad-Hoc Disciplinary Committee, it found the Appellant blameworthy which consequently resulted in the termination of his appointment. The Appellant’s appeal against the termination of appointment was rejected hence; he filed a motion ex-pate seeking an order quashing the proceedings and findings of the Committee for being unconstitutional, null and void and being in excess of the powers and jurisdiction of the committee and the Appellant and also a violation of the Respondent’s right to fair hearing, an order of injunction to restrain the Respondent by itself or through its servant or any other person otherwise described from enforcing the proceedings of the Committee. The trial court in its ruling granted the prayers of the Appellant declaring the entire trial and recommendation of the AD-Hoc Disciplinary Committee upon which the Appellant’s appointment was terminated, unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and quashed same. It also issued an order of perpetual injunction against the Respondent. By leave of the Court of Appeal, the Respondent appealed to the court which unanimously upheld the appeal and set aside the decision of the Federal High Court and dismissed the Appellant’s application. Dissatisfied, the Appellant has appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Ø Whether on a fair, balanced and proper evaluation of the evidence before the trial court, the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in holding that the Ad-hoc Disciplinary Committee did not violate the rules of natural justice while considering the appellant's disciplinary case and consequently in proceeding to set aside the decision of the trial court.
RATIONES
RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - WHETHER THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICES AS EXIST IN A COURT MUST BE ADHERED TO BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL
"It is now settled law that an administrative panel such as the AD-HOC disciplinary committee in the case at hand "in its enquires may not necessarily strictly adhere to such rules of natural justice such as exist in a court as known to our law however it is standard and I dare say basic that the rules of fair hearing- natural justice can neither be compromised nor waived. The reason is that any infraction to that basic rule of fair hearing should automatically bring to naught whatever had been done in the process of the inquires embarked upon by the panel, judicial or administrative, see Federal Polytechnic Mubo v T.L.M Yusuf ( 1991) 1 NWLR ( pt 165) page 81 at 100; Olaniyan and ors v University of Lagos & Anor. (1985) 2 NWLR(Pt 80) 25" . PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C
DISMISSAL OF AN EMPLOYEE - REQUIREMENT FOR THE DISMISSAL OF AN EMPLOYEE UNDER COMMON LAW
"Under the common Law, before an employer can dispense with the services of his employee, he needs to afford the employee an opportunity of being heard before exercising his power of dismissal, even where the allegation for which the employee is being dismissed involves accusation of crime. There is no requirement that there must be a formal charge against the employee. In Yusuf v. U.B.A. Plc (1996)6 NWLR (Pt.457) 632 at 645 Para A, this Court per Onu JSC held:-
"To satisfy the rule of natural justice and fair hearing a person likely to be affected directly by disciplinary proceedings must be given adequate notice of the allegation against him to enable him make representation in his own defense. The complaint against him must not necessarily be drafted in the form of a formal charge. It is sufficient if the complaint as formulated conveys to him the nature of the accusation against him."
- PER P.A.GALINJE,J.S.C
FAIR HEARING - IMPLICATION OF FAIR HEARING
"Fair hearing lies in the procedure followed in the determination of a case and not in the correctness of a decision. It is synonymous with trial and implies that every reasonable and fair minded observer who watches the proceedings should be able to come to conclusion that the court or tribunal has been fair to all the parties". PER P.A.GALINJE, J.S.C
FAIR HEARING - MEANING OF FAIR HEARING
"Fair hearing, in essence, means giving equal opportunity to the parties to be heard in the litigation before a court or Tribunal, an Ad-hoc Tribunal inclusive. Where parties are given opportunity to be heard and the charge or complaint against the party standing trial or being investigated made available to them, they cannot complain of breach of fair hearing principles. See Darma v Ecobank Nig Ltd (2017) LPELR - 41663 (SC), Prof. Folarin Slyllon v Mrs Judith Asein (1994) LPELR - 3071 (SC), (1994) 6 NWLR (pt 353) 670". PER J.I.OKORO,J.S.C
STATUTE REFERRED TO:
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria1999
