The plaintiff stated that he was employed as a cashier by the defendant, hereinafter referred to as the Company, on the 1st of June, 1988 on a salary of N2, 500.00 annually. He rose, in time, to the post of Deputy Financial Accountant at a salary of N11, 976.00 a year. He was all along, attached to the Finance Department of the Company.

About the 25th of September 1986, a conflict erupted at the motor Repairs Department of the Company. As a result of this, a committee was set up to investigate it. A circular dated the 3rd of October 1986, duly signed by one Haruna Sako as the Chairman of the said committee was issued. By the said circular, staff of the company were invited to testify if they were so inclined. Plaintiff did not testify as that was optional. As a result of not testifying, he was issued with a query in writing signed by the Deputy Managing Director of the Company recommending that disciplinary action be taken against him and some other members of the staff who did not co-operate.

In answer to the query aforesaid, the plaintiffs offered some explanation, the terms of which were not pleaded. A few days after, the company terminated the plaintiff’s employment. At the time of this event, the latter was 32. Subsequently, the plaintiff through his solicitors demanded re-instatement to his post and payment of the sum of money claimed which represents his earnings until his retirement at 50 and in terms of the writ of summons.

Plaintiff whereof claims a total sum of N247, 903.20 from the defendant being damages for loss suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the wrongful termination.

The company denied that a Solicitor acting for the plaintiff wrote to it demanding plaintiff’s instatement to his employment or for payment of the amount claimed.

Defendant denied that plaintiff suffered any damage as a result of the termination of his employment and repudiated the plaintiff’s claims in their entirety.

At the hearing, the plaintiff testified in support of his case and in line with the averments in his pleadings. He called no other witness. He agreed that he had been paid the repatriation expenses and maintained that he did not testify before the Committee investigating the conflict alleged and that no reasons for the termination of his employment with the company were stated in the letter conveying his termination.

Mr. Idris Abubakar for the company, intimated that he was resting the defendant’s (company) case on the plaintiff’s and proceeded to address the trial in reply to the submissions made on behalf of the plaintiff.

The judge dismissed all the plaintiff’s claim.

At the Court of appeal the plaintiffs counsel argued that the employment of the plaintiff was regulated by statute although none was cited by him.