By his writ of summons dated 21/12/92, the plaintiff now to be called the respondent claimed a sum of N608,550 (Six hundred and eight thousand five hundred and fifty Naira) from the defendant now appellant as constituting arrears of salaries, special and general damages committed against him. As the background to his claim he stated in his statement of claim that as an employee of the appellant he was granted a study leave for accountancy course in the United Kingdom with a promise by the employer the respondent that his salary would continue to be paid. This was in 1983, Suddenly, in August, 1984 his salary was stopped. There was no message according to him why his salary was stopped and he could not come down to enquire as to the cause. The respondent engaged himself in menial job to support himself amidst the Police hunt for him, and the situation reduced him to a level where the Home Office was asked to deport him. He stated that inspite of the suffering he underwent overseas when he came back to Nigeria in 1991 the appellants could not give him any useful explanation why his salary was stopped. He stated that the documents to back up his claim would be shown at the trial. He stated in his reply to the amended statement of defence, that he never got the letter supposedly sent to him at London School of Accountancy as he had left for Kiburn College London.

The respondent in its defence stated that the appointment of the appellant came to an end on 27/8/84 which termination was backed by 2 letters. The termination was in pursuant of the provisions of Decree No. 17 of 1984. It averred that the respondent challenged the basis of the termination of his appointment as being morally baseless. It stated that the condition of service of the respondent as being morally baseless. It stated that the condition of service of the respondent was governed by Lagos University Teaching Hospital Act 1961 and not the Civil Service Rules. It further averred that the claim is in any case statute barred.

Before the trial of the action in the court below when issues were framed the appellant had sought in the court below to strike out or dismiss the action on the ground that having regards to the provision of Section 8 of the Limitation Law aforementioned the action was statute barred. The motion to dismiss was refused

The court gave judgment to the respondent and ordered payment to him of the arrears of salary till the date of judgment form 1984.

The judgement gave the impression that the action was one of unlawful dismissal despite the fact that it was for arrears of salaries. It also did not compute the exact amount which the respondent was entitled to be paid.

Thus, the respondent applied to the court for amendment of the judgment by way of motion on notice. The application was granted and the judgment was amended to read that the judgment debt was N790,354.00.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court and the subsequent amendment, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.