(1965) LCER-346(SC) #

Case Summary #

This appeal borders on Labour Law.

Brief Facts:
#

This is an appeal challenging the ruling of the High Court of Lagos. The appellant began employment with the respondent Bank on June 1, 1948, and continued until January 12, 1962, when he received a letter terminating his employment due to alleged serious misconduct. On January 30, 1964, he initiated legal proceedings, seeking damages for wrongful dismissal totaling 1,381-3s-10d. This amount comprised one month’s salary, six months’ leave pay, and sums allegedly owed to him as shortage allowance and from a Provident Fund and a Staff Profit Sharing Fund.

In the Statement of Claim, it was asserted that the employment contract stipulated one month’s notice for termination, and that the appellant’s dismissal was wrongful, with the claimed sums wrongfully withheld. The factual background involves a customer of the Bank, Mr. Umenze, who visited on January 3, 1962, seeking to withdraw funds. When queried about the state of his account, he presented a teller dated the previous day, indicating a payment in of 235, bearing the appellant’s signature as the receiving cashier and an imprint of a rubber stamp allocated for the appellant’s use. Only the appellant had access to this stamp, with written instructions not to leave it unprotected.

While it is undisputed that Mr. Umenze presented the teller, the appellant’s version differs from that of Mr. Lowd, who queried him about it. The appellant claims to have denied receiving the money and contests the authenticity of the signature. However, Mr. Lowd asserts that the appellant admitted to both the stamp and the signature being his, leading to crediting Mr. Umenze’s account and allowing him to withdraw funds immediately. Although Mr. Lowd lacked authority to dismiss staff, he reported the incident to the Head Office, resulting in the appellant’s dismissal.

The trial judge sided with Mr. Lowd’s account and dismissed the appellant’s claim. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues: #

The Court was asked to reverse the findings of the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi #

PLEADINGS – Allegation of Fraud – Whether an allegation of fraud must be specifically pleaded #

“It is also settled that a party who intends to prove fraud must plead it expressly and that if he had not done so he will not be allowed to produce evidence which points unequivocally to fraud and nothing else.” Per LIONEL BRETT, JSC in USEN V. BANK OF WEST AFRICA LTD (1965) LCER-346(SC) (Pp 5 – 5 Paras F – F)

PLEADINGS – Allegation of Fraud – Whether the Court can be invited to find fraud as proved where same was not pleaded #

“Where fraud has not been pleaded, it is well settled that neither party may invite the court to find it proved, and there are even stronger objections to the court’s doing so uninvited.” Per LIONEL BRETT, JSC in USEN V. BANK OF WEST AFRICA LTD (1965) LCER-346(SC) (Pp 5 – 5 Paras D – E)

Decision/Held: #

The appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed.