The Plaintiff's case was that he was employed by the Respondent company in Warri on 18th April, 1979 as an Assistant Patrolman in charge of Uzere Road project at the company's Oleh site. He was issued with an Identity Card (Exhibit A) when he was employed. His duty as an assistant patrolman involved posting guards working under him to their various beats for both day and night duties. He claimed that he served the Respondent company without any blemish and was on 18th April, 1989 issued with a certificate often years long service award by the company (Exhibit B).

But the trouble that led to his exit from the company's service and eventually to the institution of this case arose over the theft of the Respondent's two Mercedes Benz Heavy Duty tipper lorries with registration Nos. LA 6540 ML and LA 2878 MM valued N800,000.00 on 27th January 1991 at the company's yard at Oleh in Isoko area of Delta State. The Appellant, as the head of the security men in charge of the station, immediately reported the theft to the police at Oleh police station. A search for the two missing lorries by the police eventually led to their recovery in Ibadan. The information about their recovery came from the police who claimed that the two lorries were intercepted at the Nigerian border as they were to be driven across to Benin Republic. Some arrests were made in Ibadan where the lorries were recovered. The Appellant was implicated in the statements made to the police by one of the suspects. This led to the arrest of the Appellant. He was first detained by the police after his arrest and was eventually charged to Court along with the other suspects with conspiracy and stealing of the two lorries.

The Appellant was, however, discharged and acquitted in a ruling on a no case submission at the close of the prosecution's case. The Appellant was remanded in prison custody for some days before he was granted bail by the Isoko Area Customary Court, Oleh which tried the criminal charge preferred against the Appellant and the other suspects. Four of the Appellant's co-accused at the trial were, however, convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment at the end of the trial.

After the Appellant had been discharged and acquitted of the criminal charge preferred against him, he reported for duty at his place of work with the Respondent. He was however prevented from resuming duty. Instead, he was issued with a notice titled Dismissal/Termination - Notice" (Exhibit J). The reason given in the notice for the termination of his appointment was that the Appellant's services were no longer required on the ground of redundancy. He was however paid the arrears of his salaries and allowances for the entire period he was away from duty up to the time of his final discharge by the Court. The Respondent also prepared the entitlements due to the Appellant as an official disengaged from the company's services on the ground of redundancy. The Appellant, however, refused to accept the amount of N5,285 as the total amount due to him as an officer disengaged on the ground of redundancy. The Appellant insisted that he ought to have been allowed to resume his normal duties or allowed to retire having regard to his long and unblemished service with the company-When all efforts to get the Respondent to yield to any of his requests failed, the Appellant commenced the action.

The learned trial Judge dismissed the claim of the Appellant. The entire action of the Appellant was described by the trial Judge as speculative and gold-digging, provocative and sufficient to cause the Respondent annoyance. Aggrieved with the decision of the learned trial Judge, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant's appeal. The Court of Appeal awarded the Appellant redundancy benefits in the sum of N5,285.00.

Still aggrieved the Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.