n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Idufueko V. Pfizer Products Ltd (2014) CLR 5(d)(SC)

Judgement delivered on May 30th 2014

Brief

  • Concurrent finding of fact
  • Contract – Terms of
  • Extrinsic evidence
  • Damages
  • Notice
  • Issue for determination
  • Alternative claims
  • Section 128 (1) (b) of the Evidence Act
  • Section 128 (1) of the Evidence Act
  • Section 128 (1) (d) of the Evidence Act
  • Section 128 (1) of the Evidence Act

Facts

The appellant, as plaintiff had instituted an action at the High Court of Lagos State ("the trial court") before OBADINA (J), as he then was. It was vide a writ of summons dated 31st July, 1987, claiming for the sum of N2,883,727 (Two Million, Eight Hundred and Eighty Three Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty-Seven Naira] being general and special damages arising from the unlawful termination of his employment with the 1st respondent Alternatively, against the 2nd respondent for his alleged unlawful interference in the legal relationship between the appellant and the 1st respondent, which purportedly induced his termination.

At the conclusion of the case by the parties, their learned counsel addressed the court. In his well considered judgment, the learned trial judge, partly decided in favour of the appellant. Of the overall sum claimed by the appellant in his statement of claim, he was awarded a total sum of N21, 135.34(Twenty-One Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty-five Naira, Thirty-Four Kobo) against the 1st respondent as suffered by the appellant for wrongful termination of his employment, while the other claims of the appellant were dismissed by the trial court as lacking in merit and not sufficiently proved by the appellant.

Dissatisfied with the award of damages by the trial court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division ("the lower court".) vide a Notice of Appeal dated 26th June, 1990. The appellant contended in that court, inter alia that the quantum of damages awarded by the trial court was inadequate and he was equally unhappy with the trial court's dismissal of his alternative claim against the 2nd respondent. That despite the success of his primary claim against the 1st and 2nd respondents jointly and severally, the trial court still ought to have granted his alternative claim against the 2nd respondent.

Again, in a well considered judgment delivered on 19th January, 1995, the lower court, in a unanimous decision, dismissed the Appellant's appeal in its entirety. It upheld the trial court's assessment and award of damages, finding the same to be proper in the circumstances and unassailable in law. On the issue of the alternative claim, the lower court held that the appellant failed to prove his claim of unlawful interference against the 2nd respondent and further stated thus:

  • "Where an alternative claim is made in addition to a main claim, it is only where the main claim has not been granted that the consideration and the granting of the alternative claim can arise as both the main claim and the alternative claim cannot at the same time be granted".

The court, per SULU-GAMBARI JCA, in the lead judgment, proceeded to dismiss the appeal and award costs to the respondents.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the court below, appellant has further appealed to this court upon the six grounds of appeal.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether it was open to the lower court to have sustained the view that...
    • Read More