Facts:

The Appellants (Plaintiff in the trial Court), a Divisional Superintendent at Enugu, was under the employment, and a pensionable staff of the Respondent (Defendant in the trial Court). On the 10th of March 1994, by a letter through the Respondent’s acting Managing Director – F. Bola Kolawole, the Appellant’s appointment was purportedly terminated, wherein he was made to retire with immediate effect. The Appellant contended that by the condition of service applicable to the pensionable staff of the Respondent and the Rules of the Corporation’s Pension Scheme, he was entitled to continue in the Respondent’s pensionable service up to the age of 60 years. Aged 52, he stated that he is entitled to continue in the Respondent’s pensionable service up to the year 1997 when he shall have attained the compulsory retirement age.

The Appellant further contended that his compulsory retirement from the Respondent’s service “with immediate effect” on the 10th March, 1994, is null and void, illegal, malicious, unconstitutional and of no effect whatsoever. He also stated that the reason behind his immediate retirement was to foster the accomplishment of the grand design by the Acting Managing Director to promote one Mr. Kankia from Katsina State as the Railway Divisional Manager in Zaria above the plaintiff. About the year 1992, the said Mr. Kankia and three other officers including the plaintiff were recommended for promotion by the then Managing Director, Mr. Wilcox before he went all voluntary retirement. With a view to strengthening his prospects of confirmation of his appointment as Managing Director, the incumbent Acting Managing Director got Mr. Kankia to be promoted, when asked as to the reason for Mr. Kankia’s promotion above others, the Acting Managing Director professed that he did so because of his belief in what he called geographical spread. He then followed this by illegally retiring the plaintiff “with immediate effect”.

The Respondent did not defend the action and so it was determined on the basis of the case presented by the appellant who testified and tendered documents. the trial Court found for the appellant and granted the reliefs sought.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Respondent appealed against same at the Court of Appeal, Enugu (lower court) and in a judgment dated 22nd June, 2006, the appeal was allowed, the decision of the trial court set aside and the Appellant’s case dismissed.

Expectedly, the Appellant was aggrieved by that decision and so by a Notice of Appeal, appealed to the Supreme Court.