pg148
Appeal
Court, 8th Nov.
1941.
Contract of
employment--Admissibility of
document-Termination of
employment.
In a claim for the difference
between salary alleged to be due
and the amount actually paid the
trial Judge ad)Ilitted a copy of
an agreement with one Auerbacher
which appeared to be unsigned,
undated and unstamped, the
original of which the
defendants-appellants were
unable to produce: the agreement
was stated by the
plaintiff-respondent to have
been made by the other party on
behalf of the defendants. There
was other evidence of a letter
from the firm authorising the
plaintiff to draw his salary at
a certain rate.
Held: That the document should
not have been admitted in
evidence and even if admissible
it was of no evidential value
and that the trial Judge
misdirected himself in holding
that there was nothing to show
that there had been any
termination of employment.
Cameron
for Appellants.
No appearance of Respondent.
The following joint judgment was
delivered:-
BUTLER LLOYD, ACTING C.J.,
NIGERIA, BAKER
AND JEFFREYS, JJ.
I;n this case the learned trial
Judge gave judgment for the
plaintiff for £116 0s 0d
representing the difference
between his salary between
February, 1938, and October,
1940, and the amount actually
paid. In doing so he relied on a
copy of an unsigned, undated and
unstamped document by which the
plaintiff agreed to enter the
service of one Auerbacher at
Kano at 80 rupees a month plus
20s a week food allowance. In
our opinion this document should
not have been admitted in
evidence and even if admissible
it was of no evidential value in
support· of the plaintiff's
claim.
There was however evidence that
in July, 1937, plaintiff was
authorised
by the defendants to draw salary
at the rate of £12 a month from
cash at his station Gaidam but
in February, 1938, the
defendants informed him that
this would be reduced to £10 as
his purchases had not increased
and it is clear both from
exhibits put in by the plaintiff
himself and from his particulars
of claim that
the plaintiff accepted this
reduction. There was also
evidence that plaintiff was on
leave during September and
October, 1939, and that on his
return to work his salary was
further reduced to £8 and from
July, 1940, again reduced to £6
a month
