The Appellant was appointed by the Respondent with effect from September 1, 1980. Five years later his appointment was terminated with effect from 30 August, 1985. He then brought action against the Respondent claiming for-

The Appellant relied on and pleaded in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the statement of claim that the terms of the letter of offer of appointment, which he accepted, governed his appointment. He also relied on the conditions of service of the Respondent as stated in a document which was admitted as exhibit B at the trial, and also the act which set up the Respondent and "other policy circulars." The Respondent admitted this in paragraph 3 of the statement of defence.

The termination of the Appellant's employment was by a letter dated 30 August, 1985, (Exhibit H) whose body captioned "Termination of Appointment" reads:

"Management has decided to terminate your appointment with effect from today 30th August 1985.

You are hereby terminated immediately.

You should please handover all Corporation's properties in your care and pay up the balance of any loan owed by you to the Corporation immediately.

The General Manager, Finance and Accounts is by this memo being advised to pay you a month (sic) salary in lieu of notice."

Although the Appellant was initially appointed as a Senior Accounts Supervisor on a salary of N6,420.00 per annum, he had by promotion on 21 June, 1985 become an Assistant Chief Accounts Supervisor on a salary of N8,664.00 per annum. As pleaded by the Appellant in paragraph 10 of the statement of claim, it was soon after that promotion that certain al legations of fraud against him were made. This development led to his suspension from duty and eventually to the termination of his appointment by the said letter which made no reference to any allegations of fraud.

The question of allegations of fraud made after the letter of promotion reference No.AD/Per/C.6610 of 30 August, 1985 and the issue of retrospective termination of his appointment were further pleaded in paragraph 11 of the statement of claim. These were denied in paragraph 8 of the statement of defence thus;

It would appear the Respondent made it clear that it relied only on the conditions of service to terminate the Appellant's appointment. Exhibit H was in pursuance of that. But the learned trial Judge (K.St. Sagbe, J.) who, after considering the terms of the conditions of service, particularly those dealing with termination of staff for inefficiency or for fraud, and had reasoned that the Appellant's appointment was terminated because of the alleged fraud, observed and found inter alia as follows:

"So that since the proper procedure for termination of a staff for inefficiency or even fraud was not adopted the termination of the Plaintiff is invalid and of no effect. And since the termination is invalid the Plaintiff continues to be regarded as a staff of the Corporation. This is because a contract of service is determinable by the master only upon reasonable notice or on the notice stipulated in the contract of the parties."

The learned trial Judge upon this curious observation, having regard to the simple issue involved in the case before him, in the end gave judgment for the Appellant, holding that he was still in the employment of the Respondent; and dismissed the counterclaim in respect of the accommodation rented for the Appellant by the Respondent and the indebtedness of the Appellant to the Respondent.

The appeal against the decision was determined by the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division on 20 June, 1995. The grounds of appeal and issues raised for determination from them in respect of the counterclaim were abandoned at the hearing of the appeal. The Court of Appeal held that Exhibit B regulated the contract of service between the parties. Although the Court of Appeal held that the termination of the Appellant's appointment was wrongful in that the Appellant was not paid his one month's salary in lieu of notice, the Court overturned the decision of the learned trial Judge on the issue of specific performance in a master and servant relationship.

Dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal decision, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.