162
16. Medical Care: Government medical facilities are provided free to all public officers and their families. An officer, such as a teacher, who prefers to be treated by a private practitioner instead of availing himself of government medical facilities must himself bear all expenses incurred through such treatment.
However, in certain cases, an officer or a member of his family may avail himself of the services of a private medical practitioner (e.g., where there is no public medical officer), be responsible in the first instance for the fees payable and after on get a refund on the advice of Government Chief Medical Officer.
17. Salary Increments: This is not automatic but teachers who have worked creditably well within the year are entitled to annual salary increment. Annual increment varies according to salary grade level.
18. Compulsory and Voluntary Retirement: The compulsory retirement age is sixty years or thirty-five years of service, whichever is earlier. When an officer stays beyond the date he attains 60 years or the date his services aggregate to 35 years, all emoluments earned thereafter is then deducted from the officer’s retirement benefit. The onus is on a retiring officer to give six months notice of his intention to retire from the service.
An officer can retire voluntarily from the service provided he has put in at least ten years of service. He will be entitled to his gratuity and pension.
163 Emmanuel Takon Ndoma-Egba, J.C.A. (Read the Lead Judgement)
Tuesday, 31st May, 1988 ISSUE Whether the appellant was given a fair hearing as guaranteed under Section 33 (1) of the 1979 Constitution taking into consideration the conduct of the proceedings as a whole.
FACTS
The Appellant (Plaintiff at the Court of trial) was on 23/2/76 employed as a teacher by the defunct Western State Government. Upon the creation of Ondo State, his service was transferred to the said Ondo State on 1/9/76 and was assigned to St. Augustine’s Comprehensive High School, Oye-Ekiti as principal. Owing to some disagreement with some sectors of Oyo Community, petitions were addressed to the 1st Respondent (1st Defendant at the Court of Trial).
On 21/12/77, a letter was written by the 1st Respondent to the appellant transferring him to Acquinas College, Akure with effect from 1/1/78.
The Appellant refused posting and after efforts to persuade him to resume at his new posting failed, the appellant was dismissed vide a letter dated 10/1/78.
Two months later, the Appellant took out a writ of summons questioning the basis or validity of his dismissal. The writ of summons and the statement of claim were signed and filed by a legal practitioner, but the Appellant later personally took over the prosecution of the case.
During trial, the Appellant personally, examined and cross-examined the witnesses. This lasted several hours. Several instances of frictions between the Appellant, the Respondents’ counsel and the Trial Judge were recorded. On one of the occasions, the Appellant asked for adjournment to enable him continue the cross-examinations of a witness since the time then was about 4.15 p.m. This application for adjournment was refused. On being refused, Appellant insisted on having an hour’s rest, as according to him, he was tired of standing up.
This application was also refused. He then refused to go on with the cross-examination. The trial judge heard further evidence from witnesses called by the Defence.
On another occasion, the appellant applied to be allowed to “have a friend in court” to take notes for him. The trial judge intimated him that such practice was not allowed. The Appellant insisted on having somebody to take down notes because, according to him, Order 35 Rule 10 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, Ondo State permits him to have a friend in Court. This application was also refused.
164
Consequent on the above and other events, the appellant accused the trial Judge of being biased against him. The Trial Judge commented thus:
• The Plaintiff says that the Court is biased against him because the Court has refused to allow him pursue his vexatious and irrelevant cross-examination of the witnesses. The Plaintiff has insulted and shown so much disrespect to the Court that it is not in the interest of the Bench that he should be allowed to go away with it as he has been doing. However, I do not want to commit him for contempt of Court at this stage but I have no alternative other than to remand him in prison custody until Monday, 31/3/80.
The Trial Judge, amongst other things, said the case ought to have been disposed of within 3 days but that the Appellant who was not represented by a Counsel spent 14 days in the witness box; that realizing he was not a legal practitioner he was given every cooperation by the Court and the opposing Counsel; that every indulgence granted to the appellant was turned into a right by him and that if he was not pampered like a baby, he became hysterical; that he insulted the court and every other person; that he behaved in a manner “I had never seen in a Court of Law even when trying cases involving insane criminals”; that on several occasions, he attempted to turn the Court into a boxing arena charging at witnesses with clenched fists.
Particularly, the learned Judge further said “Whenever his imagination ran riot, and that was quite often – he found himself incapable of distinguishing between fact and the fiction emanating from his fertile imagination. He is a bundle of evil genius, mischief maker and a brazen liar, full of theatrical display of peevish temper like a baby. The plaintiff, an extremely mischievous character, tried as much as he could to rope everybody into a web.”
After hearing evidence, the trial Judge dismissed the claims of the Appellant. Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that the trial Judge erred in law in conducting the proceeding in the suit in such a manner as deprived him of his fundamental right to fair hearing in that:
• he displayed personal hostility to the appellant by remanding him in custody for 3 days without being guilty of contempt
• the appellant was prevented from seeking the help of anyone in Court to help him to take notes of the proceedings
• the appellant was refused an hour’s rest during the cross-examinations after an adjournment had already been refused on
165 the ground that he had already taken too long a time in his cross-examination.
Held (Unanimously allowing the Appeal and ordering a retrial),
Fair hearing must involve a fair trial, and a fair trial of a case consists of the whole hearing. No difference exists between the two. The true test of fair hearing is the impression of a reasonable person who was present at the trial whether from his observation justice has been done in the case (Muhammed v. Kano Native Authority (1968) 1 ALL N.L.R. 424 at 426 applied).
In the instant case, the irresistible inference one can draw from the trial as disclosed on the printed record is that the appellant has not had a fair trial. This is the impression a reasonable person sitting in court would have had at the end of the trial.
Once the Appeal Court holds that an appellant did not receive a fair hearing at the court of trial, the appropriate consequential order which it should make is one of re-trial.
A retrial was ordered.
The issues that would have to be resolved at the trial were:
1. whether the respondents are competent to transfer the appellant without giving reasons thereof. (Was the transfer of the appellant ill-motivated or biased?)
2. whether the dismissal of the appellant is in compliance with the provisions of the Teachers Service Manual, 1974.
(2) Claims for Damages for Wrongful Dismissal Payment of Arrears of Salaries – Contract Law JOSEPH M. OKOROAFOR Plaintiff
v.