Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims The Claimant approached this Court by his General Form of Complaint on 12/11/14 together with all requisite frontloaded processes and by his amended statement of facts along with accompanying processes dated 14/12/15 sought the following reliefs from this Court - 1. An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant Bank to issue an unconditional recall to the Claimant to resume his official duties with it, having been discharged and acquitted of a charge of conspiracy and attempt and removal of a sum of =N=400,000,000.00 (Four Hundred Million Naira only) pursuant to the Ruling of the Chief Magistrate Court of Lagos State sitting at the Yaba Magisterial District delivered on the 17th day of February, 2014. 2. Special Damages in the sum of =N=20,375,131.38 (Twenty Million, Three Hundred and Seventy Five Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty One Naira, Thirty Eight Kobo) being the unpaid salaries, allowances and other emoluments due to the Claimant from February, 2012 up to November, 2014 (i,e the time of filing this suit) which the Defendant has failed, refused and neglected to pay the Claimant despite repeated demands. 3. An Order of Further Special Damages of the sum of =N=599,268.57 (Five Hundred and Ninety Nine Thousand, Two Hundred and Sixty Eight Naira, Fifty Seven Kobo) monthly from December, 2014 until Judgment is delivered in this suit. 4. Interests at the rate of 21% (Twenty One percent) per annum on the total sum arrived at in (2) & (3) above. 5. The sum of =N=5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) as general damages to the Claimant for the physical, emotional and psychological distress which the Claimant was made to suffer due to the false allegation levied against him by the Defendant. 6. An Order directing the Defendant to issue an unconditional letter of apology to the Claimant which should be published in two (2) national newspapers so as to clear the good name of the Claimant which was adversely affected by the Defendant's false and negative publicity against the Claimant before and during the pendency of the criminal case which the Defendant instigated against him i.e Charge No: B/7c/2012. The Defendant entered an appearance, filed a statement of defence and by its amended statement of defence dated 12/1/16 and filed on 14/1/16 denied liability to the Claimant in whatever form. 2. Case of the Claimant Claimant opened his case on 20/2/19. He testified in chief by adopting his witness deposition dated 15/12/15 as his evidence in chief, adopted his statement on oath of 2/2/16 as is additional evidence and tendered 7 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. HT1-Exh. HT7. The case of the Claimant as revealed from his pleadings is that he was employed by the Defendant as a Senior Banking Officer pursuant to an offer of employment issued to him which is dated 22/10/11; that during the course of his employment with the Defendant, he was an extremely dedicated officer and was some time ago involved in the recovery of funds stolen from the Defendant sometime in the year 2008, a task which he did at an enormous personal risk to himself; that as a result of the above and such other exceptional efforts which he did, he rose through the ranks in his employment with the Defendant to become its Operations Manager at its branch at Aba, Abia State; that on the 27/2/12 at the Defendant’s branch at No 86 Cameroun Branch, Aba, Abia State, where he worked, he was notified of a cash debit of =N=14,000,000.00 (Fourteen Million Naira) which allegedly emanated from the abovementioned branch of the Defendant; that he was taken by surprise as this kind of transaction could not have been possible except through the authorization of the Bank Operations Manager or through the knowledge of an officer in his own department; that he immediately caused a discreet investigation so as to ascertain how the said transaction came about; that after an enquiry into the said transaction, he found out that the posting and authorization of this transaction was done as if it was done in his branch and through his office; that on this discovery, he immediately suspected that the Bank system has been hacked in order to authorize such a transaction; that immediately he informed Alex Onwuka, the Branch Coordinator of the South East 1 Branch of the Defendant and ordered the Funds Transfer Officer in his Department, who immediately logged on to the Defendant’s system, pulled out the said amount from the account it was credited and subsequently warehoused same in the Defendant’s sundry credits account. The Defendant further averred that after the above incident occurred he decided to ascertain all transactions made on the said day; that he then discovered several fraudulent transactions and postings totaling =N=421,000,000.00 (Four Hundred and Twenty One Million Naira) which were made on that same day and credited to several accounts; that he also reversed the above fraudulent transactions after this discovery by pulling out the said amount from the accounts with which they were credited and depositing same into the sundry credits account of the Defendant Bank; that while he was still basking in the euphoria of averting an imminent fraud, to his utmost surprise his mobile phones were seized and they were all ordered by the Resident Auditors to report at the Defendant’s Head Office in the above stated address on Monday, the 30/1/12 for questioning. Claimant further averred that on getting to the Defendant Head Office in Lagos State, he was questioned by the Defendant’s officer on his alleged culpability in the said fraud, he however denied any involvement in the alleged fraud; that immediately after being questioned by an official of the Defendant, he was arrested and taken to the Special Fraud Unit and detained for four days from Monday the 30/1/12 to Thursday the 2/2/12 when he was granted bail; that he subsequently received a letter of suspension dated the 1/2/12 from the Defendant placing him on ‘indefinite suspension without pay” pending the conclusion of the investigation on the case; that he was subsequently charged to Igbosere Magistrate Court, Obalende, Lagos State on the 5th day of March 2012, where he was granted bail; that due to the stringent bail conditions stipulated by the Magistrate Court which he could not fulfill he was further moved to the Ikoyi Prison where he remained for two weeks until he was able to perfect the bail conditions; that his arrest and trial of the Claimant in the Magistrate Court garnered enormous negative publicity due to the unrelenting efforts of the Defendant to embarrass him; that this was made possible by the publishing of this alleged fraud in several national gazette; that the prosecution in the case called six witnesses and tendered exhibits and that the Magistrate upheld his no case submission and he was discharged and acquitted of a charge of conspiracy and attempt and removal of a sum of =N=400,000,000.00 (Four Hundred Million Naira) from the Defendant; that after his acquittal by the Magistrate Court due to my innocence of the said charge he approached the chambers of Messrs Olaniyi Akinyemi & Co. who wrote the Defendant on my behalf of his intention to resume official duties with it, pursuant to his acquittal of the said offences; that the 3rd accused person in the criminal trial who was the Fund Transfer Officer under him at the time of the incident was recalled and reinstated in October 2012 while the criminal trial was still on; that after much persistence on his part, the Defendant acknowledged the receipt of his Solicitors letters and responded to same by promising to cause an investigation into the matter and revert to them; that he has equally lost out on the last promotion exercise carried out in June this year (2014) by the Defendant for officers in his cadre which would have made him to become an Assistant Manager with increased salary and other emoluments; that his total annual salary, allowances and other emolument is =N=7,191,222.88 (Seven Million, One Hundred and Ninety One Thousand, Two Hundred and Twenty Two Naira, Eighty Eight Kobo) which averages =N=599,268.57 (Five Hundred and Ninety Nine Thousand, Two Hundred and Sixty Eight Naira, Fifty Seven Kobo) per month and that ever since his suspension by the Defendant, 34 (thirty Four) months ago, he has been in a state of financial quagmire as he has not been paid his due entitlements by the Defendant and this has denied me my means of livelihood. Under cross examination, Claimant stated that he holds a B. Sc in Economics and an MBA in Banking and Finance; that he is a thorough professional; that he worked with Spring Bank which became the Defendant; that he graduated in 2000, worked with Omega Bank and Fountain Trust Bank; that he joined Omega Bank in 2001; that it is not correct that =N=419,000,000.00 was moved from his desk on 27/1/12; that no amount was fraudulently moved from his desk and that =N=421,000,000.00 was not moved via his password and profile. 3. Case of the Defendant The Defendant opened its defence on 10/4/19 and called one Chinasa Odom as its lone witness. The witness adopted her witness deposition dated 3/4/19 as her evidence in chief and tendered 2 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted and marked as Exh. CO1 & Exh. CO2. The case of the Defendant as revealed by its pleadings and evidence led is that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant as a Senior Banking Officer by an employment letter dated 22/10/11 and the employment was effectively terminated by a letter of Termination of Appointment dated 14/2/12 and his terminal benefits paid to him on 17/2/12; that it did not commend the Claimant in 2008 in recognition of his hard work or at all nor did the Claimant rise through the ranks in the employment of the Defendant to become the Operations Manager; that on 27/2/12 sums totaling Four Hundred and Nineteen Million Naira (=N=419,000,000.00) were fraudulently transferred from the accounts of some customers of the Defendant through the office of the Claimant; that if the Claimant was vigilant and alert to his responsibilities, such huge amount would not have been moved without his notice, only for him to discover when another staff notified him; that the kind of fraudulent transaction carried out, if not by conspiracy of the office through which it was done can only be possible through gross dereliction of duty and negligence of office by the officer in charge; that for that kind of transaction to take place the user profile and password of the officer must be logged in, each officer has a personal duty to keep his user profile and password safe; that User profile and password can only be disclosed by the officer or accessed through negligence; that the Claimant was directed to report at the Defendant’s Head Office and questioned on the transactions of 27/1/12 as is normal to do in such circumstance; that the Claimant was not arrested by Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, but the Claimant was arrested by the Special Fraud Unit of the Nigerian Police for further investigation of the fraudulent transfer of the Defendant’s money; that the indefinite suspension of the Claimant without pay is in compliance with the Defendant’s laid down disciplinary procedure and the contract of service between the Claimant and the Defendant as contained in the letter of appointment of the Claimant with the employment particulars dated 22/10/11; that immediately after the letter of suspension of 1/2/12issued to the Claimant, the Defendant embarked on a Staff rationalization exercise which affected the office of the Claimant, however the Defendant invited the Claimant like all other staff affected in the rationalization to convert his termination to resignation but the Claimant refused to take the option thus it had to terminate the employment of the Claimant on the 14th February 2012; that staff Account No. 1800005163 of the Claimant was promptly credited with his terminal benefit totaling Four Million, Two Hundred and Eighty-Three Thousand, Two Hundred and Eighty-Eight Naira, Twelve Kobo (=N=4,2283,288.12) on 17/2/1216; that the employment of the Claimant was still in the probationary period of six (6) months as at the time of his suspension and eventual termination; that the arrest and trial of the Claimant did not garner any negative publicity and the Defendant did not take any step to embarrass the Claimant, the Defendant has no reason whatsoever to do so; that the fraud perpetrated through the office of the Claimant was not published in any national gazette or at all and the report of the arraignment in PM newspaper did not have anything to do with the Defendant as same was done in the ordinary cause of the business of the newspaper; that the Claimant was discharged and acquitted by the learned Magistrate on the charges brought against him, however the reason given by the learned magistrate for the acquittal is that the evidence led cast doubt on the culpability of the Claimant; that the Claimant was not acquitted due to his innocence as averred, but on the reason that the evidence cast doubt on the culpability of the Claimant; that there was no need for the Claimant to notify the Defendant of his intention to resume duty as his employment with the Defendant had already ended and that the letters of the Claimant to the Defendant were unnecessary and a distraction as the Claimant was no longer a staff of the Defendant and the letter of the Legal Department of the Defendant to the Solicitor of the Claimant was only an acknowledgement of the Solicitor’s letter and a promise to investigate the content. It is also the case of the Defendant that the Claimant has ceased to be an employee of the Defendant from the 17/2/12 when his terminal benefits were paid to him and thus is not entitled to be recalled to resume his official duties or entitled to any promotion exercise carried out by the Defendant; that promotion exercises are not guaranties that a staff will be promoted as only deserving employees with clean records and who meet the criteria set for such exercises are promoted; that contrary to averment of the Claimant that he has not been paid his due entitlements, the Defendant has paid the Claimant his terminal benefits totaling Four Million, Two Hundred and Eighty-Three Thousand, Two Hundred and Eighty-Eight Naira, Twelve Kobo (=N=4,283,288.12) on 17/12/12; that the Defendant is not obliged to recall the Claimant into its service, not owing the Claimant any unpaid salary, not obliged to write any letter of apology to the Claimant or any general damages or at all as prayed by the claimant in this suit and that the Claimant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought. While being cross examined, the testified that she has been with the Defendant since 5/8/11 and has always been at the Head Office of the Defendant; that she was privy to the events leading to the termination of the employment of the Claimant since she was in the Human Capital Department though not part of the investigating team; that her evidence in chief was based on the information supplied to her and those found in the files; that a month salary in lieu of notice was paid as part of the terminal entitlements of the Claimant; that the Defendant does not pay interest on Current Account; that she is not aware that the Claimant was not allowed access to his account with the Defendant; that obviously the fact that the Claimant reversed the fraudulent transaction showed that he did not have any criminal intention; that she is not aware that the Claimant was a staff of Spring Bank; that Nene Flora Abosi was a colleague of the Claimant at the Defendant; that her appointment was not terminated; that she was still a staff of the Defendant at the time the Defendant invited the Claimant by phone call to take option of resigning rather than termination of employment which the Claimant refused and that the terminal benefit included a month salary in lieu of notice, earned allowances and gratuity. 4. Final Submissions of Counsel On 30/4/19, an 11 page final written address was filed on behalf of the Defendant. In it, learned Counsel set down the following 3 issues for determination - 1. Whether the Claimant is entitled to an order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to issue an unconditional recall to him to resume his official duties with the Defendant. 2. Whether on pleadings and evidence there is a legal basis for the award of damages or in the alternative whether the Claimant discharged the burden of proof required to succeed in his claim for damages. 3. Whether the Claimant has put any sufficient evidence before this Honourable Court or whether the circumstances of this case warrants the Court to order for the Defendant to write a letter of apology to him. In arguing these issues learned Counsel submitted that by virtue of Exh. C1 & Exh. C2, Claimant's employment has been effectively terminated; that the Court will not impose a willing employee on an unwilling employer citing Longe v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc (2006)3 NWLR (Pt. 967) 228 at 265; that although the Claimant was invited to come forward to convert the termination of his employment to resignation he failed to take up the option and that the law is trite that where there has been a purported termination of contract of service, the Court will not make a declaration that the contract subsists citing Bankole v. NBC (1968)2 All NLR 371 & Olaniyan v. University of Lagos (1985)2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599 at 612. Learned Counsel further urged the Court to hold that the Defendant is not liable to the Claimant in damages submitting that the Defendant has committed no wrong against the Claimant, that damages are compensation in money for loss or for injury or harm done a party citing Ativie v. Kabel Metal Nigeria Limited (2008)5-6 S.C (Pt. II) 47; that Claimant failed to plead and strictly prove the special damages sought. On the relief sought by the Claimant for an order of Court directing the Defendant to issue an unconditional letter of apology to the Claimant to be published in 2 national newspapers, learned Counsel submitted that the case did not generate any negative publicity and that what transpired in Court was what the P.M Newspaper merely reported in Exh. C4. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant as a mere gold digging exercise. On 23/5/19, a 16-page final written address was filed on behalf of the Claimant. the lone issue submitted for determination is - Whether the Claimant has discharged the evidential burden on him that would warrant the grant of the reliefs sought before the Court. In arguing this lone issue, learned Counsel submitted that the employment of the Claimant was merely put on suspension by Exh. HT2; that by Exh. HT5 which absolved him of any criminal culpability he wrote the Defendant for the suspension to be lifted and paid all the remuneration due to him; that a suspension cannot in any way be equated to a dismissal and that a suspended staff deserved to be paid his outstanding dues upon being exonerated of the reason for the suspension. Counsel urged the Court to hold that having been exonerated of the reason for his suspension the Defendant should recall him to his duties. On Exh. CO1 (Letter of Termination of Employment) Counsel urged the Court not to place any reliance on it; that the Claimant became aware of same when the Defendant raised same in its defence referring to Exh. HT6 & Exh. HT7; that when the Defendant filed its amended statement of defence on 14/1/16, it neither pleaded nor include the letter of termination of employment in its list of documents to be relied on at trial; that the said letter was also not included in the witness deposition of Kingsley Akujuobi who was the initial witness listed by the Defendant but that somehow the document was brought in when the Defendant substituted its witness; that there was no acknowledgment of service of the letter on the Claimant; that a notice of termination ought to and must be served personally with proof of such service citing Ekanem v. N.N.M.C (2004)1 N.L.L.R (Pt. 2) 357 at 394 and that a letter of termination of employment becomes effective from the date it is received by the employee citing N.I.I.A v. Ayanfalu (2007)2 NWLR (Pt. 1018) 246 at 270 and that the Defendant having failed to communicate/inform the Claimant of the termination of his employment prior to the institution of this suit, the Claimant is therefore entitled to the claims of salaries and emoluments under reliefs 2, 3 and 4 as his employment will be deemed not to have been terminated citing N.B.C Plc v. Edward (2015)2 NWLR (Pt. 1443) 201 at 235. Learned Counsel urged the Court to find for the Claimant and enter Judgment accordingly. 5. Decision I have carefully read all the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side in this case and I have a clear understanding of all the argument raised and issues canvassed. I listened patiently and attentively to all the witnesses who testified and watched their demeanor as well. In addition, I heard the oral argument of the both learned Counsel at the point of adopting their final written addresses. Having done all this, I narrow the issues for the just determination of this case to the following - Whether the employment of the Claimant was terminated by the Defendant by Exh.CO1. The simple facts of this case as I garnered from the pleadings and evidence led before me are that the Claimant, an employee of the Defendant, was informed of a fraudulent transfer of some funds of the Defendant to another account. The evidence showed that the Claimant successfully reversed the fraudulent transfer and thereby saved the Defendant from huge financial loss. Claimant was subsequently placed on an indefinite suspension without pay. It is the evidence of the sole witness for the Defendant under cross examination that the fact that the Claimant successfully reversed the fraudulent transfer showed that the Claimant did not have any criminal intention. However a complaint was lodged with the Police which arrested the Claimant and some other employees of the Defendant and charged them to Court. Claimant was discharged by the Court but not recalled. It is the argument of the Defendant that the employment of the Claimant had been terminated and that he was paid his terminal benefit accordingly. Claimant contends that he has been on suspension since; that he was not served any notice or letter of termination of employment and that he remains an employee of the Defendant. The crux of this case revolves on the determination of whether or not the employment of the Claimant has been terminated. Immediately the Claimant was released on bail by the Police, he was placed on an indefinite suspension by Exh. HT2 dated 1/2/12. Paragraph 2 of the exhibit states that - ''Please be informed that management has directed that you should proceed on indefinite suspension without pay with immediate effect pending the conclusion of investigation on the case''. In other words, the case of alleged fraudulent transfer which was reported to the Police was the basis of the indefinite suspension of the Claimant. Let it be noted that suspension whether for a stated period or for an indefinite period of time does not amount to termination of employment. It is simply, as defined in Longe v. FBN Plc. (2006)3 NWLR (Pt. 967) and reiterated by Nwodo JCA (as he then was) in University of Lagos & Ors. v. Uche (2008) LPELR-5073 (CA) "a temporary deprivation cessation or stoppage of or from the privilege and rights of a person." Thus until an employee on suspension is recalled he remains on the nominal roll of the employer and entitled to all the entitlements of an employee until former cessation of his employment. Now the Defendant averred that shortly after the Claimant was placed on suspension, it embarked on a Staff rationalization exercise which affected the office of the Claimant; that however the Defendant invited the Claimant like all other staff affected in the rationalization to convert his termination to resignation but the Claimant refused to take the option and thus it had to terminate the employment of the Claimant on the 14th February 2012. It appears to me that staff rationalization exercise is usually a major exercise in any organisation or government establishment. Being a major exercise therefore, it is not an exercise that will just come up suddenly. In the instant case, Claimant was suspended on 1/2/12 and between 2/2/12 and 14/2/12 there was staff rationalization which affected the Claimant culminating in a letter of termination of appointment Exh. CO2. Again the Claimant was alleged to have been invited to come forward to convert his termination to resignation of appointment but that he refused to take the option. I have no evidence of such invitation before me. While being cross examined, the sole witness of the Defendant Chinasa Odum in answer to a question said the Claimant was invited by a phone call. She has no answer as to who placed the call and when. Even respecting Exh. CO1- the letter of termination of appointment, DW1 could also not tell the Court whether or not the letter was served on the Claimant and how it was served. The law is trite that a notice of disengagement or termination of the employment of an employee must be brought to the attention of the employee. Indeed, such a notice can only take effect from the date of receipt of the same. This is the state of the law respecting letter of resignation. See WAEC v. Oshionebo. The same is applicable with regards to letter of termination. This makes simple common sense. For, a person whose employment has been terminated ought to be informed so as to enable him readjust himself and plan his life accordingly. See Akinbola v. Ministry for FCT & Anor. (2018) LPELR (CA). See also WAEC v. Oshionebo (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 994) 258. l find and hold that no letter of termination of employment was served on the Claimant by the Defendant. I further find and hold that Exh. CO1 was never served on the Claimant. I thus resolve the lone issue set down for determination in favour of the Claimant and against the Defendant. Claimant has been on suspension since 1/2/12 by Exh. HT2. Even after Exh. HT5 exonerated the Claimant from the criminal allegations against him, and notwithstanding Exh. HT6 & Exh. HT7, he was not recalled by the Defendant thus culminating in the filing of this case on 12/11/14. I hold that the employment of the Claimant is deemed terminated by the Defendant without notice effective from 2/11/14 being the date of the institution of this case against the Defendant. Having so found, it is imperative that some consequential orders must necessarily follow. There is power inherently conferred on a trial Court to make consequential order the purpose of which is simply to give effect and meaning to the finding and Judgment of the Court. In Dr. Dalhatu Araf v. Mr. v. Onyedim (2010) LPELR-3797(CA), the Court of Appeal per Yahaya JCA following Atoyebi v. Bello (1977) 11 NWLR (Pt 528) 268; Liman v. Mohammed (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt 617) 116 and A.G. Federation v. A.I.C. (2000) 2 SC 142 explained consequential order as an order which flows naturally and directly from the Judgment so that it can give effect to the Judgment even if it was not specifically asked for provided it relates to the main relief asked for and which was fought for by the parties and pronounced upon by the Court. Firstly, this Court has found and held that the employment of the Claimant was not terminated by the Defendant. Secondly, I have also found and held that Claimant's employment is deemed terminated by the Defendant without notice on 12/11/14 the date of filing this suit. Thus it meant that up and until 12/11/14, the Claimant remained an employee of the Defendant placed on suspension without pay. The right to suspend an employee is available to an employer in order to effect proper investigation of allegation or during the process of a disciplinary action. See Udemah v. Nigerian Coal Corporation (1991) 3 NWLR Pt. 180 P. 479 at 486. Not having been recalled notwithstanding judicial finding in his favour (Exh. HT5), I hold that the Claimant is entitled to his salary and other emoluments from the date of his suspension 1/2/12 to the date of filing this suit 12/11/14 that is a period of 34 months. By Exh. HT1, the annual total package of the Claimant is =N=7,191,222.38 which comes to =N=599,268.53 a month. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =20,375,130.02 being the Claimant's outstanding salary and other emoluments from 1/2/12 to 12/11/14 when Claimant filed this action. Secondly, the employment of the Claimant was deemed terminated without notice or payment in lieu effective from 12/11/14. Under Exh. HT1, Claimant's employment became effective from 5/8/11 and by Clause 3 of that exhibit Claimant's employment was subject to a probationary period of six months during which the Bank shall have the opportunity of assessing your competence with our organization. Please note that during probation, the contract of employment may be terminated by either party subject to a notice of one (1) week or payment in lieu of notice. I have no evidence that the employment was confirmed by the Defendant before this action was filed. Thus, the Claimant is only entitled to payment for one week in lieu of notice. The Defendant is here ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=149,817.13 being the Claimant's one week salary in lieu of one week notice of termination as provided under the contract of service Ex. HT1. What is left of the claims of the Claimant are reliefs 1, 4-6. The relief 1 is for an Order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant Bank to issue an unconditional recall to the Claimant to resume his official duties with it, having been discharged and acquitted of a charge of conspiracy and attempt and removal of a sum of =N=400,000,000.00 (Four Hundred Million Naira only) pursuant to the Ruling of the Chief Magistrate Court of Lagos State sitting at the Yaba Magisterial District delivered on the 17th day of February, 2014. In view of the finding and holding that the employment of the Claimant is deemed terminated by the Defendant without notice effective from the date of filing this suit, this prayer for an order for the Defendant to recall the Claimant is refused and dismissed. In any event, it is apparent that the Defendant has evinced an intention not to retain the Claimant in its workforce. To therefore grant this relief will amount to foisting a willing employee on an unwilling employer. This Court has no power to so act. Indeed, no Court has power to so act. See Obaje v. Nigeria Airspace Management Agency (2013) LPELR-19958 (CA) following Union Bank Of Nigeria Ltd v Ogboh (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 380) 647 at 664and Ziideeh v Rivers State Civil Service Commission (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 554; (2007) LPELR-3544(SC). The Claimant sought payment to him of the sum of =N=5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) as general damages for the physical, emotional and psychological distress which he was made to suffer due to the false allegation levied against him by the Defendant. I have patiently perused the pleadings of the Claimant and the evidence led by him. There is no where the Claimant pleaded any allegations levied against him by the Defendant. Of a truth, I note the averment of the Claimant that he was questioned by an Officer of the Defendant on his alleged culpability in the fraud and that he denied any involvement in the alleged fraud. Methinks any reasonable employer in the shoes of the Defendant would have done the same including lodging a complaint with the Police for proper investigation. I find no basis for this head of claim. i refuse and dismiss same accordingly. The final relief sought is for an Order directing the Defendant to issue an unconditional letter of apology to the Claimant which should be published in two (2) national newspapers so as to clear the good name of the Claimant which was adversely affected by the Defendant's false and negative publicity against the Claimant before and during the pendency of the criminal case which the Defendant instigated against him i.e Charge No: B/7c/2012. In support of this head of claim, Claimant tendered Exh. HT4 a publication of the PM News of 5/3/12 with particular reference to a story by one Paul Iyoghojie titled Ex-Bank Staff on Trial for Fraud. I read the story as reported by the writer. There is nothing in the story line to support the view that the Defendant contracted the Journalist to write the story. There is indeed also nothing in the story to suggest that the content of the story was not correct. For, all that the newspaper reported was simply what transpired in Court on the day the Claimant and 2 others were arraigned in Court. Was the Claimant arrested with 2 other staff of the Defendant? Yes. Was the Claimant along with 2 others the accused persons in Charge No. B/7/2012 for fraud and stealing? Again I answer in the affirmative. If at all the trial of the Claimant generated a lot of negative publicity, the Defendant is certainly not the one to be held responsible. For, the public has the right to know and the Newspaper houses have the right to disseminate information. The Newspaper house in the instant case had simply discharged its responsibility to the public. I hold that that responsibility was fairly discharged. Without much ado, I refuse and dismiss this relief there being no basis to grant same. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment - 1. l find and hold that no letter of termination of employment was served on the Claimant by the Defendant and that Exh. CO1 was never served on the Claimant. 2. I hold that the employment of the Claimant is deemed terminated by the Defendant without notice effective from 12/11/14 being the date of the institution of this case against the Defendant 3. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =20,375,130.02 being the Claimant's outstanding salary and other emoluments from 1/2/12 to 12/11/14 when Claimant filed this action. 4. The Defendant is here ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of=N=149,817.13 being the Claimant's one week salary in lieu of one week notice of termination as provided under the contract of service Ex. HT1. 5. The sums due under 3 and 4 above shall be paid with interest at the rate of 20% per annum effective from the date of this Judgment till final liquidation. 6. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of Three Hundred Naira (=N=300,000.00) as cost of this action. 7. This Judgment shall be complied with within 30 days from today. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge