The Appellant, Dominic Ntiero, was an employee of the Respondent. He was the Senior Industrial Relations Officer. He had served the Respondent for about 14 years before the dispute that led to this case arose between him and his employer. It was shortly after he was transferred to Warri that he received a letter on 6th June, 1984 by which he was interdicted without pay. The Appellant's reaction was first to appeal to the appropriate officers of the Respondent to rescind the letter of interdiction written to him. There was however no favourable reply to his plea for reconsideration of his case. Rather than withdraw the interdiction letter, he received another letter by which he was dismissed from the services of the Respondent.

The Appellant, as Plaintiff, therefore commenced this action at Calabar High Court. His claim as set out in his amended particulars of claim is as follows:-

The Respondent, as Defendant, reacted by raising a preliminary objection to the competence of the action on the ground that a pro-action notice was not served on it by the Appellant as provided for in Section 97 of the Ports Act. The learned trial Judge over ruled the objection. The Respondent thereafter filed its statement of defence and again raised the same objection therein and the trial then commenced. The Plaintiff led evidence in support of his pleadings. But the Defendant did not lead any evidence in defence part of the evidence led by the Plaintiff was that he wrote a letter dated 18th June, 1984 Exhibit 6 which was written in compliance with the provisions of Section 97(2) of the Ports Act.

The learned trial Judge, in his reserved judgment held that the provisions of Section 97 of the Ports Act did not apply to the Plaintiff's case as his claim was based on contact. Judgment was accordingly entered for the Plaintiff on three of his five heads of claim and granted the declarations sought.

The Respondent was dissatisfied with the judgment and it filed an appeal against it to the Court below, the Court below held that the Appellant failed to comply with the provisions of the said Section 97(2) of the Ports Act and that the Appellant's letter, Exhibit 6, did not comply with the requirements of the said Section. The appeal was therefore allowed in that the trial Court was without jurisdiction to entertain the case. This appeal is from the judgment of the Court below.