Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><u>REPRESENTATION<o:p></o:p></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">I. O. Layade-Dada, for the claimant.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">Isaac M. Boro, for the defendant.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u>JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">This action was filed in this Court on 10<sup>th</sup> August 2012 by way of a complaint against two defendants with the accompanying statement of facts, list of witnesses, written statement on oath of the claimant, list of documents and copies of the documents. These processes were later amended given the order of Court made on 5<sup>th</sup> June 2013 striking out the name of the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant upon a notice of discontinuance against the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant filed by the claimant. By the amended originating processes, the claimant is claiming for the following reliefs –<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]-->1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span><!--[endif]-->The sum of N4,416,000.00 (Four Million, Four Hundred and Sixteen Thousand Naira) being the total salary (including allowances) due to the claimant from the defendant from November 2006 – March 2012.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]-->2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span><!--[endif]-->Interest on the said sum of N4,416,000.00 from November 2006 till judgment is delivered.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]-->3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span><!--[endif]-->Cost of this action.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">The defendant had filed its defence processes (statement of defence, list of witnesses, statement on oath of the witness, list of exhibits and copy of the document), which were later equally amended.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">At the hearing of the case, the claimant testified on his own behalf as CW, while Joseph Omotunde, the Regional Coordinator, South West, of the defendant company, testified for the defendant as DW. At the close of trial, parties (starting with the defendant) were asked to file and serve their respective written addresses. This they did. The defendant’s written address is dated and filed on 19<sup>th</sup> May 2015, while the claimant’s is dated and filed on 10<sup>th</sup> May 2016. The defendant did not file any reply on points of law.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">The case of the claimant is that he was employed by the defendant as a transaction officer on 14<sup>th</sup> December 2001 and seconded to Guaranty Trust Bank where he worked in the Customer Service Department of the Bank. While working with the Bank, there was an alleged fraud committed in the Customer Service Department of the Bank, which resulted in the arrest and detention of the claimant at the Bar Beach Police Station for 2 nights before he was handed over to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) at Ikoyi Lagos for further investigation. That the investigation by the Police and the EFCC continued till January 2007, but at the end nothing incriminating was found against the claimant. That the claimant asked the Bank to reinstate him to work but the Bank refused and on 27<sup>th</sup> March 2012 based on the advice of his solicitor, he wrote a letter to the defendant resigning his appointment. The defendant did not accept the claimant’s resignation and instead dismissed him from service on 30<sup>th</sup> April 2012, hence this suit.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">The case of the defendant on the other hand is that the claimant is its employee and was seconded to GT Bank as a Transaction Officer. That while he was there from 14/12/2001 till 12/4/2012 when he tendered his letter of resignation, the claimant never complained of non-payment of salaries. That the claimant absconded from work since October 2006 and has been receiving salaries since then without complain. That upon the receipt of the claimant’s letter of resignation, the defendant made enquiries and found that the claimant was alleged to have committed fraud in GT Bank where he was seconded sometime in 2006 without reporting same to the defendant as his employer. That the claimant’s appointment was terminated vide a letter of dismissal dated 30/4/2012 as the defendant did not accept the claimant’s resignation.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">The defendant framed two issues for the determination of the Court, namely –<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]-->1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span><!--[endif]-->Based on the claimant’s writ of summons and statement of claim, whether the claimant is entitled to judgment.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]-->2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span><!--[endif]-->Whether the claimant has established any claim before the Court to enable the defendant offer a defence and if so whether the defendant has indeed offered a defence.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">Regarding issue 1, the defendant submitted that the claimant did not plead how much salary he receives per month as at October 2006 and when last he was paid; neither did he plead his allowances. Also, that in his claim for interest, the claimant did not specify the rate of interest. That the claimant does not expect this Court to do work for him by speculating how much the claimant earns as salaries and allowances as at October 2006 to enable the Court determine whether the claimant is entitled to the sum of N4,416,000.00 as claimed from November 2006 – March 2012. That the claimant did not even state whether the claim is from the first day of the month or end of the month of either November of March. That it is trite that a claimant succeeds or fails in his/her claim and not on the weakness of the defence. That in the instant case, the claimant did not make out a case for the defendant to proffer a defence, urging the Court to so hold.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">On issue 2, the defendant submitted it was the Bank that suspended the claimant, not the defendant. That the claim by the claimant that he was exonerated by the EFCC after investigation of the alleged fraud at GT Bank was a ruse as no documentary evidence was tendered to prove this fact. That EFCC will not exonerate a suspect from an alleged crime without doing so in writing. That the fact that the claimant admitted that he has since been engaged in buying and selling of clothes since October 2006 confirms the defendant’s claim that the claimant absconded from work. The defendant then asked whether this same claimant should be asking this Court to order the defendant to pay him salaries and allowances for work not done for the defendant at the relevant time. That this is most unconscionable.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">The defendant continued that counsel to the claimant tried to establish that the defendant cannot dismiss the claimant from work without first establishing that the claimant actually committed the alleged fraud and that the claimant has been found guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction as held in <i>Garba v. Unimaid</i> [1986] 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 550. To the defendant, this line of argument is not relevant because at the time the claimant’s appointment was terminated through dismissal, the claimant had already resigned his appointment. That it is elementary law that resignation of appointment is not subject to acceptance by an employer. That it is a constitutional right which any employee is entitled to exercise as the Constitution frowns at enslavement of any employee, referring to section 40 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, <i>Benson v. Onitiri</i> [1960] SCNLR 177 at 189 – 190 and <i>Adefemi v. Abegunde</i> [2004] All FWLR (Pt. 203) 2109 at 2129.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">That applying the principles enunciated in these judicial authorities to the facts of this case, the claimant resigned his appointment on 27/3/2012 and same was received by the defendant on 12/4/2012 whilst the claimant’s letter of dismissal is dated 30/4/2012. That the letter of dismissal, which postdates the letter of resignation is, therefore, of no moment whatsoever in accordance with the principles laid down in <i>Benson v. Onitiri</i> (<i>supra</i>).<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">On whether the claimant is entitled to his salaries and allowances from October 2006 to 12/4/2012 when he resigned his appointment, the defendant replied that the claimant cannot be so entitled because throughout that period he was working for himself as he admitted under cross-examination. That he cannot have the best of two worlds at the same time. And that even if he so entitled, he has not provided in his pleadings and evidence how such an entitlement can be calculated. That the Court cannot speculate on how much the claimant’s salaries and allowances are for the period in contention. The defendant then submitted that the claimant’s case must fail on all fronts, urging the Court to dismiss this case with substantial cost.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">The claimant on his part also framed two issues for the determination of the Court, namely –<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]-->a)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span><!--[endif]-->Whether the claimant has put in enough or sufficient evidence before the Court to entitle him to the claims in his writ of summons.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]-->b)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span><!--[endif]-->Whether the claimant is entitled to interest.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">In respect of issue a), the claimant submitted that his letter of appointment contains the terms of the contract between the parties, which terms include the salaries and other allowances of the claimant. That in paragraph 5 of his written statement on oath, he indicated that he accepted the said offer and worked for the Bank in the Bank’s Customer Service Unit. The claimant then submitted that based on these facts, the Court should hold that there was a binding contract between the claimant and the defendant and the terms are as contained in the letter of appointment. That because the defendant did not object to the letter of appointment, it must be deemed to have admitted same and its content; as such there is no need for the claimant to prove the contents of the letter or re-state the contents in his pleadings or written statement on oath. That the amount being claimed is the total of salaries including allowances, which are spelt out in the letter of offer of appointment. That the defendant, being the author of the letter, cannot claim not to know what the claimant’s case is all about. The claimant then urged that the defendant’s argument that the claimant ought to have pleaded his salaries and allowances be discountenanced as his claims do not fall within the scope of claims that must be specifically pleaded. In any case, that since this is a civil suit, he is to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, not prove his case beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases. The claimant urged the Court to hold that the claimant has proved his case.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">As for issue b) i.e. whether the claimant is entitled to interest, the claimant submitted that the position of the law is that the basis for award of interest could be the fact that the plaintiff has been kept out of his money for a period and the defendant who had use of the money for himself ought to compensate the plaintiff for the deprivation, referring to <i>International Offshore Construction Ltd v. S.I.N. Ltd</i> [2003] 16 NWLR (Pt. 845) 157 and <i>Kano Textile Printers Plc v. Tukur</i> [1999] 2 NWLR (Pt. 589) 78. That the claimant has been kept out of work due to suspension on an alleged fraud for years, which fraud was never proved. That during the period he was deprived of the money he would naturally have earned, urging the Court to grant his claim for interest. In conclusion, the claimant urged the Court to grant his claims in this suit.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u>COURT’S DECISION<o:p></o:p></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">I heard learned counsel and considered all the processes filed in this suit. The simple issue before the Court is whether the claimant is entitled to the claims he made in this case. Relief 1 is a claim for Four Million, Four Hundred and Sixteen Thousand Naira (N4,416,000.00) being the total salary (including allowances) due to the claimant from the defendant from November 2006 – March 2012. In addressing this claim, I need to clarify a thing or two. The claimant indicated that he was kept out of work due to suspension on an alleged fraud for years. I must state that the case of the claimant before this Court is not one against his suspension. The claimant is merely asking for backlog of his salaries and allowances; and the question is whether he so entitled.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">In proof of his case, the claimant frontloaded only two documents: the letter of offer of employment dated 14<sup>th</sup> December 2001 (Exhibit C1) and his letter of resignation dated 27<sup>th</sup> March 2012 (Exhibit C2). By Exhibit C2, the claimant resigned his appointment with immediate effect, requesting in the process for his entitlement. He rationalized this on the ground of his suspension and hence assumption that his services were no longer needed by the defendant. The defendant, citing <i>Benson v. Onitiri</i> [1960] SCNLR 177 at 189 – 190 and <i>Adefemi v. Abegunde</i> [2004] All FWLR (Pt. 203) 2109 at 2129, rightly stated the law that an employer cannot reject a letter of resignation sent in by an employee as the right of an employee to resign from an employment is absolute. See<i> Yesufu v. Gov. Edo State</i> [2001] 13 NWLR (Pt. 731) 517 SC and <i>Taduggoronno v. Gotom</i> [2002] 4 NWLR (Pt. 757) 453 CA. So when the defendant wrote to the claimant vide a letter dated 30<sup>th</sup> April 2012 (Exhibit D1) intimating the claimant that “the resignation letter you submitted is not acceptable by Management”, the defendant was thereby acting <i>ultra vires</i> as it had no power to reject the claimant’s resignation. What this means is that the dismissal of the claimant by the defendant coming after the claimant’s letter of resignation is null and void and of no effect whatsoever; I so find and hold. Note that by <i>Jombo v. PEFMB</i> [2005] 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) 443 SC, it is elementary that an employee cannot be dismissed from an employment that had ceased to exist.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">This leaves out the status of the claimant’s letter of resignation, which is valid anyway. By Exhibit C2, the claimant resigned his appointment with immediate effect. What is the legal effect of this? By <i>WAEC v. Oshionebo</i> [2006] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1994) 258 CA, tendering of a letter of resignation by an employee carries with it the right to leave the service automatically without any benefit subject to his paying any indebtedness to his employer. This means that in the instant case, while the claimant has the right to resign with immediate effect, as he did in this case, that right is not without its burden, which is that he can leave but without any benefit. He is the one that is even expected to pay off any indebtedness to his employer. The rationalization for this is not farfetched. The consideration to be left to go with immediate effect is the benefit forfeited, which benefit may be monetary or the fact that the wrongdoing being investigated is thereby dropped. For present purposes, therefore, the claimant leaving with immediate effect means that he is not entitled to any benefit. This means that there is no basis for the claim for N4,416,000.00 by the claimant; and I so find and hold. Relief 1 accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">Since relief 1 failed, relief 2 cannot even be considered. However, because the claimant’s claim for interest is actually one for pre-judgment interest, it needs to be noted that this Court does not grant pre-judgment interest. See <i>Mr. Kurt Severinsen v.</i><i> Emerging Markets Telecommunication Services Limited</i><span lang="EN-GB"> [</span>20<span lang="EN-GB">12]</span><span lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB">27</span> NLLR (Pt. <span lang="EN-GB">78</span>) <span lang="EN-GB">374 NIC. Accordingly, relief 2 of the claimant cannot be granted even if all else were to be proved.</span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">On the whole, the claimant’s case lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">Judgment is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">……………………………………<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD<o:p></o:p></p>