Name: Adewuni Faith Inioluwa

Matric no: 2023/45749

Case citation

Ikpekpe V. Warri Refinery & Petrochemical Co. & Anor (2018) LPELR 44471 (SC)

IKPEKPE

V.

WARRI REFINERY & PETROCHEMICAL CO. LTD & ANOR

Background of the case

Supreme Court:

Justice that sat on the case: Olabode Rhodes- vivour J.S.C, John Inyang Okoro J.S.C (
Delivered the leading Judgement), Amiru Sanusi J.S.C, Ejembi Eko J.S.C, Sidi Dauda Bage
J.S.C.Olabode Rhodes- vivour J.S.C, John Inyang Okoro

Suit No: SC- 203/2006

Date Of Judgement: Friday May 11, 2018.

Court Division: Court of Appeal Benin Division

Counsel :

D.E Agbaga. Esq.- For the Appellant.

C.D Bello Esq. – For the Respondent.

Facts

This is an appeal against the judgement of the Court of Appeal Benin Division delivered on
4 March, 2005 , where the court therein set aside the judgement of the Delta state High
th

Court .

The Appellant in this case was a casual driver with the 1st respondent, Warri Refinery &
Petrochemical Ltd, then as Petrochemical section of the NNPC at ekpan. He applied for
employment as driver 11 on the 1st respondent salary grade level 16/1. In August, 1986 the
appellant was interviewed along with others for regular employment to The corporation.
However, on December 30th 1986 was dismissed .In June 1987, he was invited by the 1st
appellant letter to attend the medical test, the condition upon handing over him his letter
of employment by the 1st respondent which letter was alleged at the material time to be in
the custody of the 2nd respondent and employee of the 1st respondent. The Appellant State
that he passed the medical test conducted and medical report was issued to him which
automatically entitled him to be employed as a driver 11. That the 2 nd respondent withheld
the letter of employment issued by the 1 st respondent without any just cause, Consequent
upon which the Appellant as plaintiff instituted an action at the High Court of Delta State,
holden at Warri, claiming the against respondent as defendants the following :

i. A Declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to employed by the 1st defendant as driver
with effect from 12th of June, 1987.
ii. Order of specific performance of the contract of employment of plaintiff by the 1st
defendant upon the successful medical test the first defendant ordered the plaintiff
to undergo as a condition for desired employment as a driver weapon on the 1 st
defendant salary grade level 16/1.

The respondent in their joint amended statement of defence denied the claim and
stated that they never issued any employment letter to the appellant under the
medical test conducted by the first responded was one of the sin quo- non for an
applicant seeking gainful employment with the corporation and that it is not a
guarantee or an assurance that the applicant is successful when such examination
is conducted.

Issues
The Appellant formulated 2 issues for the determination of the appeal as follows:
I. Whether section 230 (1) of the 1979 constitution has amended by decree
number 107 of 1993 now section 251 (1)of the 1999 constitution applies to
action founded on breach of contract and specific performance for which the
state High Court enjoys the jurisdiction in line with the decision in Felix
Onuorah v. kaduna Refinery and Petrochemical Co.Ltd (2005) All FWLR (pt.
256)1356.
II. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to dismiss the appeal when it did not
find it necessary to consider and determine the issues identified by the
Appellant.

The Respondent also formulated two issues for the determination of the appeal
as follows:

1. Whether the court of Appeal was wrong in holding that section 230 (1) of
the Constitution of the federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended by
the constitution (suspension and modification) caused by the decree 107
 of 1993 vested jurisdiction in the Federal High Court rather than the State
High Court in the appellant action seeking declaratory relief against the
respondent when the first respondent is an agency of the Federal
Government.
2. Whether the court of appeal did not consider the appellant case
complaining that the respondent did not appeal against the order of
various liability made by the trial court and, in an event, where the decision
of the court of Appeal on the issue of jurisdiction did not dispose of the
entire appeal before it.

Decision/ Held

On the whole the Court held that the Appeal succeed on the issue of jurisdiction
determined by the court of Appeal.

Rationale

This is an appeal against the judgment of the court of Appeal Benin division delivered on 4th
March , 2005, wherein the court set aside the judgment of the trial State High Court for lack
of jurisdiction and struck out the claim of the Appellant who was the plaintiff at the trial
Court.