The undisputed facts of the case are that the Plaintiff was employed as an Assistant Education officer by the 2nd Defendant for the 1st Defendant on 6th April, 1971. He was granted two (2) years study leave without pay to enable him undertake a course of study in the United States of America with effect from 19th January, 1976. In August 1976, he applied to the 1st Defendant for extension of the study leave by three or four years. This was forwarded by the 1st Defendant to the 2nd Defendant for approval who then directed that the Plaintiff should reapply in November 1977 with a fresh confidential academic report from the Head of Department of his College. A reminder was sent to the Plaintiff on 9th September 1977 by the 1st Defendant The Plaintiff failed to comply with the directives until 28th June, 1978, when he wrote to the 1st Defendant renewing his old application and informing the 1st Defendant of the inability of his College to issue academic progress report because he was indebted to the College. There was no exchange of communication between the parties after this. The Plaintiff without authority or permission then overstayed the study leave granted him by over eight (8) years until January, 1986, when he suddenly returned from the USA and wrote a letter dated 10th January 1986 to the 1st Defendant informing him that he had returned and wished to resume duty immediately. The Defendants then reacted by terminating Plaintiff's appointment with effect from 20t January 1978.

It was against the termination of his appointment that the Plaintiff brought this action against the Defendants.

The respondents counter-claimed from the appellant the sum of N22,739.49 being an amount fraudulently earned and drawn as salaries by the appellant. The trial judge dismissed the plaintiffs claim and gave judgement to the defendants on their counter-claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the judgement of the trial court subject to the requirement that the appellant should deduct his one month's salary in lieu of notice from the excess salaries paid to him. The appellants still dissatisfied have appealed to the Supreme Court.