Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><u>REPRESENTATION</u> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Olalekan Yusuf for the claimant.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Olumide Aju, with B.C. Akunya, C. J. Ndubisi for defendant.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><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"><u><o:p> </o:p></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The claimant filed this complaint against the defendant on the 15<sup>th</sup> of October 2014 seeking the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l26 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]-->a)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span><!--[endif]-->A declaration that the action of the defendant by unlawfully freezing the claimant’s account containing a credit balance of over N6,236,093.09 (Six Million, Two Hundred and Thirty Six Thousand, Ninety Three Naira, Nine Kobo Only) without any prior notification whatsoever is unlawful, unfair and amounts to injustice to the claimant.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l26 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]-->b)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span><!--[endif]-->An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from altering, removing, withdrawing or taking any sum of money from the claimant’s Bank account domiciled with it or anywhere else.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l26 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]-->c)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span><!--[endif]-->An order directing the defendant to immediately reverse and or remove any form of restriction or suspension imposed on the claimant’s account domiciled with the defendant.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l26 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]-->d)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span><!--[endif]-->A declaration that the refusal of the defendant to honour the Cheque number 506 dated 24<sup>th</sup> July, 2014 in the sum of N16,000.00 (Sixteen Thousand Naira Only) issued in favour of LG/Hassan El Moussa Allen Avenue, Ikeja, Lagos is defamatory and libelous of the claimant.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l26 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]-->e)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span><!--[endif]-->Damages in the sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) for maligning the character or reputation of the claimant by unlawfully refusing to honour the Cheque issued in favour of LG/Hassan El Moussa Allen Avenue, Ikeja, Lagos.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l26 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]-->f)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span><!--[endif]-->An order directing the defendant to pay to the claimant the sum of N10,000,000 (Ten Million Naira) as general damages for the unjustifiably depriving the claimant from utilizing the funds in her account and hardship suffered by the claimant due to the unreasonable restriction imposed on the claimant’s account by the defendant.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l26 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]-->g)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span><!--[endif]-->An order directing the defendant to pay to the claimant interest at the rate of 10% on the funds in the account of the claimant from 24<sup>th</sup> June 2014 until the claimant can access the funds in her Bank account.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l26 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]-->h)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span><!--[endif]-->Cost of the 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">Accompanying the complaint is the statement of facts, witness deposition and documents to be relied upon. The defendant entered appearance, filed its statement of defence and counterclaim, witness deposition and documents on the 27<sup>th</sup> of January 2015. The defendant counterclaimed as follows:<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:2.0pt;margin-right:3.1pt; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l24 level1 lfo21; mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none"><!--[if !supportLists]-->(a)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB">The sum of N301,000.00 (Three Hundred and One Thousand Naira) being the amount refunded its customer, Ohaeri Ijeoma Pricilla by the defendant’s P & L account (Fraud and Defalcation External Account 42470008), and which money was fraudulently withdrawn from the customer’s account due to the claimant’s negligence in issuing an instant debit card to a wrong person.</span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:2.0pt;margin-right:3.1pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:2.0pt;margin-right:3.1pt; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l24 level1 lfo21; mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none"><!--[if !supportLists]-->(b)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span><!--[endif]-->Interest at the prevailing commercial banking rate from 30 May 2014 until judgment and therefore at 7% until final liquidation.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:2.0pt;margin-right:3.1pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">The claimant filed a reply and a defence to the counter claim on the 4<sup>th</sup> of May 2015. The matter then went to trial.<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’s case on the pleadings is that she <span lang="EN-GB">was in the employment of the defendant until June 23, 2014.</span> She averred that during and subsequent to her employment with the defendant, she maintained a personal current account and a salary account with the defendant. The claimant pleaded that <span lang="EN-GB">she discharged her duties diligently during</span> the course of her employment and was promoted from the position of officer to the position Senior Banking Officer with an increased remuneration to N7,140, 956.01 (Seven Million, One Hundred and Forty Thousand, Nine Hundred and Fifty Six Naira One Kobo) per annum. She averred that <span lang="EN-GB">after working with the defendant for ten years, she resigned as the Customer Service Manager of Adebayo Akande Branch of the defendant by letter dated 23<sup>rd</sup> June, 2014. </span>That in compliance with her letter of appointment and in order for her resignation to take effect on June 23 2014, she directed the defendant to deduct one month salary in lieu of notice from her account which the defendant did. The claimant averred that she ceased to be a staff of the defendant upon the acceptance of her resignation and the deduction of the salary in lieu of notice.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:2.0pt;margin-right:3.1pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none">The claimant averred that it is the customary practice of the defendant to impose a temporary restriction and/or suspension of transactions on the account of an employee resigning from its employment pending clearance of the employee by the Human Resources Department of the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant suspended activities on her account subject to completion of the post-resignation clearance. The claimant averred that she completed the post resignation clearance on the 1<sup>st</sup> of July, 2014 and her gratuity in the sum of N6,051,960.22 (Six Million, Fifty One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Sixty Thousand Naira Twenty Two Kobo Only) was paid to her account. <span lang="EN-GB">She stated that she submitted her clearance to the Human Resources Department without any query or allegation of misconduct while she was in the employment of the defendant. The claimant</span> averred that on her exit clearance certificate, the Chief Inspector affirmed that there was no pending investigation/disciplinary issues against her at the time she resigned her appointment. <span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:2.0pt;margin-right:3.1pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:2.0pt;margin-right:3.1pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB">She pleaded that while going through the clearance document on the 6<sup>th</sup> July, 2014 she observed that the Human Resources Department indicated on her clearance paper that she had a matter pending before the disciplinary committee. </span>That upon enquiry from the Human Resources Department, she discovered that the alleged matter pending before the disciplinary committee was in relation to an alleged fraudulent ATM transaction on the account of one of the customers of the Bank in the sum of N301, 000.00 (Three Hundred and One Thousand Naira Only) sometime in February 2014. That the customer Ijeoma Pricilla complained about unlawful deductions from her account with the use of an ATM card to the sum of N301, 000.00 (Three Hundred and One Thousand Naira Only) and the defendant immediately commenced an investigation. In the course of the investigation, she was requested to provide written details of her knowledge of the alleged fraudulent withdrawal from the customer’s account and was also interviewed. <span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:1.2pt;text-align:justify;line-height: 14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none; text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:.5pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none">The claimant averred that she supervised the issuance of the debit card after other officials of the defendant had thoroughly scrutinized the person to ascertain that relevant information were supplied and that the photograph on the company database corresponds with the person that picked up the debit card. The claimant pleaded that she exercised due diligence<span lang="EN-GB"> and assiduousness in authorising the issuance of the debit card.</span><span lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB">She averred that the fraudulent transaction had been thoroughly investigated and concluded by the defendant as at May 2014 and thereafter the Managing Director approved the </span>repayment of the funds to the customer. She averred that the directive of the <span lang="EN-GB">Managing Director</span><span lang="EN-GB"> </span>and compliance with the directive finally disposed of the matter and on May 12 2014, Mr. Nwachukwu Chudi circulated an electronic mail wherein the report was approved exculpating her and the staff at the Adebayo Akande branch from any form of complicity or negligence in the transaction. The claimant pleaded that despite the conclusion of the investigation, the defendant has frozen her account since June 24, 2014 and unlawfully prevented her from access to her personal bank account and other banking services including mobile banking.<span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:1.7pt;text-align:justify;line-height: 14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none; text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:1.7pt;text-align:justify;line-height: 14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none; text-autospace:none">The claimant averred that despite several complaints to the officers of the defendant and promises made to resolve the unlawful and unjustifiable restrictions being placed on her account, all banking transactions and activities on her account remains suspended. She stated that she has been unable to use her Automated Teller Machine (ATM) card and she has also been unable to conduct transactions on the internet without any justifiable reason from the defendant. <span lang="EN-GB">The claimant averred that the cheques she issued to various third parties were returned unpaid on the ground that the <i>‘drawer’s attention is required’ </i>invariably representing to the third parties that she had no funds in the account to cover the value of the cheques issued to the third parties and/or that her account is under investigation for fraudulent activities.</span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:.95pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.9pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:14.0pt; mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace: none"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:.95pt;text-align:justify;line-height: 14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none; text-autospace:none">The claimant pleaded that she attended Yaba College of Technology and University of Lagos<b> </b>where she obtained HND in Estate Management and a BSC in Finance respectively and is currently pursuing a Masters Degree in Human Resources Management in the University of Leicester; and that she is hardworking, industrious and respected in the society. The claimant pleaded that the defendant without any reasonable explanation dishonoured her Ecobank cheque with number 506 dated 24<sup>th</sup> July, 2014 in the sum of N16,000.00 (Sixteen Thousand Naira Only) issued in favour of LG/Hassan El Moussa Allen Avenue, Ikeja, Lagos. The cheque was returned by the bank unpaid on the ground that the “drawer’s attention is required”. She pleaded that the defendant has maligned her and caused odium to her reputation and integrity by failing to honour her cheque and representing to third parties whom she gave her cheque to that she did not have sufficient funds in her account when this was not true. The claimant averred that she has been embarrassed and degraded in the eyes of right thinking members of the society, following the unjust refusal to honour various cheques issued to third parties despite the fact that her account is funded to cover the value of the cheques issued to third parties.<span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:.95pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.9pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:14.0pt; mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace: none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:.95pt;text-align:justify;line-height: 14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none; text-autospace:none">The claimant pleaded that the conduct of the defendant has damaged and injured her reputation and that the term “drawer’s attention is required” is subject to several interpretations in the minds of right and reasonable thinking persons in the society. That when she realised that the defendant was unwilling to reverse or lift the restriction on her account or offer any explanation as to the reason her account remained suspended, she instructed her Solicitors Messrs. Habeeb Oredola &<span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span>Associates to write the defendant a letter of demand. That despite acknowledging receipt of the letter dated 04 September 2014 the defendant has failed to offer any explanation or lift the restriction imposed on her account. The claimant stated that the defendant froze her account with a credit balance of over N6,236,093.09 in order to investigate the unlawful deduction of N301,000.00 (Three Hundred and One Thousand Naira Only); that the action of freezing her account is done in bad faith and in order to retain her money unlawfully.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:.95pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.9pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:14.0pt; mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace: none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB">The claimant averred that she is not liable to the defendant either by virtue of her employment with the defendant or on a banker and customer relationship</span> for which the defendant may impose permanent restriction on her account. She averred that the restriction imposed on her account by the defendant has occasioned severe inconvenience to her as she has been unable to utilize the funds in her account to settle her daily financial necessities and<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:.5pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none">has resorted to borrowing money from people to maintain herself and her family and to meet the basic needs of life. The claimant averred that she has been unable to fund and manage her business as the funds required to operate the business is stuck in the account frozen by the defendant under the pretence of investigation by the Disciplinary Committee of an already concluded investigation. She pleaded that the defendant has used her money in conducting its banking business and has earned interest on her money on a daily basis while she is rendered financially helpless. The claimant averred that the counterclaimant is not entitled to recover the sum of N301,000.00 (Three Hundred and One Thousand Naira) or any interest on the said sum as she had already been cleared of any negligence in respect of Ohaeri Ijeoma Pricilla’s debit card transaction.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none">The claimant testified in support of her case. Her evidence in chief was by witness statement on oath which she adopted. It was in terms of the pleadings. Under cross-examination she told the court that she resigned on the 23<sup>rd</sup> June 2014 and concluded the usual checks on resignation. She said she was given the exit form and that she had an exit interview with the zonal co-ordinator who thereafter signed off his portion on the form. The claimant told the court that as at the 23<sup>rd</sup> June 2014, all the units listed on the exit clearance certificate had not signed off. She said she was told to leave her form and the HR would complete it. The claimant said she was shocked to be told later that she did not complete her clearance and that she had a pending disciplinary case. She confirmed that the final clearance is to come from the Head of the Human Resources Department. She said that she did not go to the HR Department to find out if she had been cleared. The claimant told the court that she had a disciplinary matter that was resolved before her exit from the defendant bank. She confirmed to the court that the account of a staff is suspended until clearance is completed and that was why she began her clearance early. She said she was not aware that her account was credited before she began clearance. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none">The claimant stated that after she resigned, the defendant sent her two letters inviting her to appear before the disciplinary committee. She told the court that she did not attend the hearing because the first notice was not signed and she already had prior commitments in respect of the second notice. She confirmed that the sum of N301,000.00 was fraudulently withdrawn from the account of Ohaeri Ijeoma Priscilla a customer. She admitted that she authorized the issuance of another card to the account holder when one was still in existence. She said there is no way she could have known that one was still in existence. She agreed that the name of the person the card was released to was Priscillia Ohaeri but denied that she was negligent in not sporting the difference. She admitted that without her authorization, a customer cannot have a functional ATM card. The claimant told the court that she did not see the investigation report and is unaware that the Managing Director recommended that she appear before the disciplinary committee. She said she was aware that the Managing Director directed that the<span lang="EN-GB"> P & L account be debited. </span>The claimant then closed her case.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none">The defendant’s case on the pleadings is that the claimant was offered employment on April 7, 2004 as an Assistant Officer and later promoted to the position of Senior Banking Officer with an increased remuneration. She maintained a current account in the course of her employment into which her monthly salary and other entitlements were paid. The defendant averred that the claimant had unresolved issues even up to the point when she tendered a letter of resignation. T<span lang="EN-GB">he defendant averred that though</span><span lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB">the claimant tendered her letter of resignation dated 23 June 2014 with an instruction that her one month salary in lieu of notice be deducted from her Current Account No. 2112307805,<b> </b>the resignation did not take immediate effect but was subject to approval/acceptance of her exit clearance form by the Human Resources Department and this was not approved by the Head, Human Resources.</span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:1.2pt;text-align:justify;line-height: 14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none; text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:1.2pt;text-align:justify;line-height: 14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none; text-autospace:none">The defendant pleaded that it is a standard banking practice to place temporary restriction on the accounts of all resigning/exiting staff pending submission and approval of final exit clearance to the Human Resources Department upon which the restriction would be lifted if there are no pending issues. It averred that the claimant’s Account No. 2112307805<b> </b>was affected by this practice and was to be lifted only upon clearance by the Human Resources Department, which was not concluded before the claimant instituted this action. The defendant <span lang="EN-GB">averred that upon the claimant’s submission of her clearance form to the Human Resources Department, she was informed that she had a pending matter before the Disciplinary Committee in respect of fraudulent ATM transaction on the account of a customer Ohaeri Ijeoma Priscilla and the claimant was required to await the outcome of the Disciplinary Committee hearing.</span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:1.2pt;text-align:justify;line-height: 14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none; text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:2.0pt;margin-right:3.1pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:14.0pt; mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace: none">The defendant pleaded that<span lang="EN-GB"> on February 28 2014 whilst the claimant was the Customer Service Manager of Adebayo Makinde Branch, Oregun, she negligently issued an instant debit card to a non-customer in respect of Account No. </span>1361018890 belonging to Ohaeri Ijeoma Priscilla a customer which resulted in fraudulent ATM withdrawals totalling N301,000.00 (Three Hundred and One Thousand Naira) from the said Ohaeri Ijeoma Priscilla’s account. The defendant averred that the claimant had the photograph of the account holder in the system yet could not differentiate between her and the wrong person she issued debit card to. That the account holder at the material time was out of Lagos and could not have requested for an instant debit card. <span lang="EN-GB">The defendant averred that the claimant did not exercise professional skill and care in processing the</span><span lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB">request for instant debit card, and if she had exercised due diligence, she would not have authorised the issuance of an instant debit card to a person who is not the account holder.</span><span lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:2.0pt;margin-right:3.1pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:2.0pt;margin-right:3.1pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB">The defendant averred that following the customer’s complaint and the interim report submitted to the Managing Director, he directed the Adebayo Makinde Branch, Oregun, to debit its P & L account (Fraud and Defalcation External Account 42470008) with N301,000.00 and credit Ohaeri Ijeoma Pricilla’s Account No. 1361018890 pending the conclusion of the disciplinary committee procedure. The defendant denied that the interim report approved by its Managing Director absolved the claimant and other staff of the branch of liability or negligence or that it disposed of the matter. It averred that the Managing Director’s directive to debit its P & L account was a temporary measure to warehouse the loss it suffered.</span><span lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB">The defendant averred that shortly after the Managing Director’s approval of the interim report but before the conclusion of the disciplinary procedure, the claimant tendered her letter of resignation and requested the defendant to debit her Account No. 2112307805 with one month’s salary in lieu of notice.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:2.0pt;margin-right:3.1pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:2.0pt;margin-right:3.1pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none">The defendant stated that even if the claimant had ceased to be an employee at the time she was invited to the disciplinary hearing, it did not preclude it from proceeding with the hearing and concluding it. The defendant averred that the claimant was invited to the disciplinary committee hearing slated for September 5, 2014 but she failed to attend and was invited for the second time to attend another disciplinary committee hearing slated for 19 September 2014 but did not appear. <span lang="EN-GB">The defendant averred that it is entitled to recover the sum of N301,000.00 (Three Hundred and One Thousand Naira) which it refunded to the customer, Ohaeri Ijeoma Pricilla due to the claimant’s negligence and</span> is entitled to charge interest on the sum N301,000.00 (Three Hundred and One Thousand Naira) at the rate of 21% per annum being the prevailing commercial banking rate from 30 May 2014.<span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:2.0pt;margin-right:3.1pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:1.2pt;text-align:justify;line-height: 14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none; text-autospace:none">The defendant pleaded that the claimant was aware that the temporary restriction on her account applied to all forms of withdrawal or debit including use of ATM and cheques whether in favour of the claimant or third parties and denied freezing the claimant’s account unlawfully and without any justification. It stated that the temporary restriction placed on the claimant’s account was in line with the standard banking practice on resigning staff pending the conclusion of the clearance/discharge of the exiting employee. The defendant averred that <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:1.2pt;text-align:justify;line-height: 14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none; text-autospace:none"> it did not defame or libel the claimant; <span lang="EN-GB">that the claimant upon receipt of the letter inviting her to a disciplinary committee hearing instructed her Solicitors to write and it responded by a letter dated 25 September 2014.</span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:.5pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none"><b> </b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:.5pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none">The defendant called on witness Francis Fisayo Dehinbo (DW) a staff of the Human Resources Department. His evidence in chief was by his statement on oath which he identified and adopted. It was in terms of the pleadings. Under cross-examination DW informed the court that as at June 2014, the name of the defendant was Ecobank Nigeria Limited. He informed the court that the defendant has its employee handbook. He said the claimant maintained a current account with the defendant and that since June 2014 till date the defendant placed a restriction on the account. He confirmed that the claimant’s entitlements which is above N6 million was paid into this account. He told the court that the payment of entitlements means the severance of the employment relationship with the defendant. DW told the court that the claimant was notified that her clearance certificate had not been approved by the Head of Human Resources and that it had all along been with the Head of Head of Human Resources. DW told the court that he was not a party to the transaction in which a debit card was issued to the wrong person and neither was he a member of the team that investigated it. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:.5pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:.5pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none">DW told the court that other staff of the branch attended the disciplinary hearing. He said it was not true that the claimant’s account was debited in the sum of N301,000.00. He informed the court that Nwachukwu Chudi acted on the Managing Director’s instruction and that the mail did not state that the decision was temporary. He confirmed that the claimant informed the defendant that she would not be able to attend the disciplinary committee hearing. He admitted that the defendant informed the claimant by email that the restraint on her account would be lifted. The claimant then closed his case.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:.5pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:.5pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none">The parties were directed to file their final addresses. The defendant’s final address is dated 2nd November 2015 and is filed the same day. The claimant’s address is dated 24<sup>th</sup> November 2015 but filed on 10<sup>th</sup> December 2015. The defendant’s reply on points of law is dated 15<sup>th</sup> December 2015 and is filed the same day.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:.5pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:.5pt;text-align:justify;line-height: 14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none; text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB">Learned counsel to the defendant submitted two issues for determination as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:.5pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-right:.5pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l22 level1 lfo33;mso-hyphenate:none; text-autospace:none"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB">Whether the claimant has proved her entitlement to the reliefs sought in this suit against the defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-right:.5pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l22 level1 lfo33;mso-hyphenate:none; text-autospace:none"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB">Whether having regards to the claimant’s negligence whilst still in the employ of the defendant, the defendant is entitled to judgment on the counterclaim.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:.5pt;text-align:justify;line-height: 14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none; text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:.5pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none">He submitted that the claimant has failed to prove her claims by any credible evidence. He argued that the evidence before the court shows that the restriction placed on the claimant’s account is valid and justified having regards to the conditions governing the claimant’s employment. He submitted that in respect of claims (a), (b) and (c), the defendant concedes to an order of Court to the effect that the claimant be allowed access to her terminal benefits in her account upon completion of all her exit formalities less all outstanding sums due to the defendant from the claimant. <span lang="EN-GB">It was his submission</span> that reliefs (d) and (e) of the statement of facts are predicated on defamation which the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain. He submitted that by the provisions of section 254C (1) of the Constitution (Third Alteration) Act 2011 No. 3, the National Industrial Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain any action founded on libel/defamation. Accordingly, he urged the Court to strike out the averments in paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22, 23<span style="font-size:11.5pt"> </span>and reliefs (d) and (e) citing <i>Zabusky v Isreali Aircraft Industries [2008] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1070) 109 at 134-135</i>. In the alternative, he submitted that the court should refuse claims (d) and (e) because the claimant was fully aware that the account was under temporary suspension and that the cheque would not be honoured, as the terms of employment permits the defendant to withhold payments of all terminal benefits due to the claimant having regards to the circumstances surrounding her resignation and the pending investigation. <span style="font-size:11.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:.5pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:2.0pt;margin-right:4.55pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;tab-stops:37.1pt 71.9pt;text-autospace:none">Learned counsel argued that the claimant is not entitled to the sum of N10,000,000.00 or any sum at all whether in the nature of general damages or otherwise from the defendant having failed to complete her clearance citing <i>Faloye v Omoseni [2001] 9 NWLR (Part 717) 190</i>, <i>Adekunle v Rockview Hotel Limited [2004] 1 NWLR (Pt. 853) 161 at 175-176</i>. He further submitted that having regards to the pleadings, the evidence led and the state of law, the defendant has proved the case of negligence against the claimant to entitle it to judgment citing <i>Hamza v Kure [2010] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1203) 630 at 634</i> for the definition of negligence. He argued that the claimant owed the defendant’s customer, Ohaeri Ijeoma Priscilla a duty of care and breached it citing <i>Ecobank Nigeria Plc v Elder Dominic Ekperikpe [2013] LPELR-20327</i>. He submitted that the defendant suffered injury as a result of the claimant’s breach of duty of care owed to its customer. He then urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s case and enter judgment in favour of the defendant in respect of its counterclaim. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate: none;tab-stops:39.9pt 77.35pt;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate: none;tab-stops:39.9pt 77.35pt;text-autospace:none">Learned counsel to the claimant submitted two issues for determination as follows:<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:13.0pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none;tab-stops:right 48.7pt left 69.85pt; text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:13.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-list: l32 level1 lfo40;mso-hyphenate:none;tab-stops:right 48.7pt left 69.85pt; text-autospace:none"><!--[if !supportLists]-->1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span><!--[endif]-->Whether this Honourable Court ought not to hold that the continuous restraint on the claimant’s account is unlawful and oppressive in the circumstance of this case thereby granting all the reliefs sought by the claimant in this suit?<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:13.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-list: l32 level1 lfo40;mso-hyphenate:none;tab-stops:right 48.7pt left 69.85pt; text-autospace:none"><!--[if !supportLists]-->2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span><!--[endif]-->Whether having regard to the nature of the counterclaim, the documentary and oral evidence before this Honourable Court, the defendant/counter claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in its counterclaim?<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:13.0pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none;tab-stops:right 48.7pt left 69.85pt; text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:13.0pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none;tab-stops:right 48.7pt left 69.85pt; text-autospace:none">He submitted that the claimant is entitled to all the reliefs sought having placed cogent and credible evidence before the court. He submitted that on the evidence of DW exhibit D1 is not applicable to the claimant as all employees are governed by the defendant’s staff handbook and not the Oceanic Bank staff handbook which was tendered. He argued that on the evidence before the court, the claimant completed all the procedures for resignation and was paid her gratuity which signifies severance of the relationship. It was his submission that by exhibit C4, the investigation into the fraudulent withdrawal had been concluded. Therefore the defendant is estopped from denying this fact and the restraint on the claimants account is unlawful citing<i> Ude v Nwara & Anor [1993] @ NWLR (Pt 278) 638, Joe Iga & Ors v Ezekiel Amakiri &Ors [1976] 11 SC 11, Nasser & Sons Nig Ltd v LEDB [1959] SCNLR 609. </i>He further submitted that exhibit D2 was deliberately procured to overreach the claimant by justifying the unlawful actions of the defendant as it was never forwarded to the claimant until after the commencement of trial and was not specifically pleaded. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:13.0pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none;tab-stops:right 48.7pt left 69.85pt; text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:13.0pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none;tab-stops:right 48.7pt left 69.85pt; text-autospace:none">Learned counsel submitted that this court has jurisdiction to entertain reliefs (d) and (e) of the statement of facts in the circumstances of this suit pursuant to the provisions of section 254C (1) (k) of the 1999 Constitution (Third Alteration Act) 2011 as they are matters incidental to the cause of action referring to <i>Onochie v Odogwu [2006] 6 NWLR (Pt 975) 65 at 88. </i> He submitted that the claimant has proved that the defendant injured her reputation by rejecting her cheque citing <i>Mai v STB Ltd [2008] ALL FWLR (Pt 339) 552 at 567, Afribank Nig Plc v Anuebunwa [2012] 4 NWLR (Pt 560) 579, Dike v ACB [2000] 5 NWLR (Pt 657) 441. </i>He submitted that on the evidence adduced, the claimant is entitled to general damages flowing from the act of the freezing of her account by the defendant and costs of the action citing <i>Shukka v Abubakar [2012] 4 NWLR (Pt 1291) 497 at 525.</i> He submitted that the claimant is entitled to pre judgement interest having pleaded its entitlement to it and also post judgement interest citing <i>I.T.B. Plc v K.H.C.Ltd [2006] 3 NWLR (Pt 968) 443, Fortune International Bank Plc v Pegasus Trading Office (Gmbh) [2002-2004] 11 NBLR 253 at 268-269. </i>On the counterclaim, learned counsel submitted that the defendant counter claimant has not established a case of negligence having failed to plead and prove the relevant facts and adduce credible evidence. He cited <i>NRC v J.C.Emeahara [1994] 2 NWLR (Pt 325) 206 at 218. </i>He then urged the court to dismiss the counterclaim.<i><o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:13.0pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none;tab-stops:right 48.7pt left 69.85pt; text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:13.0pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none;tab-stops:right 48.7pt left 69.85pt; text-autospace:none">Replying on point of law, learned counsel to the defendant submitted that a claim for interest must be specifically pleaded and proven. He cited <i>I.T.B. Plc v K.H.C.Ltd supra, Saeby Jernstoberi MF. A/s v Olaogun Enterprises Ltd [1994] 14 NWLR (Pt 637) 128, Ekwunife v Wayne (West Africa) Ltd [1989] 5 NWLR (Pt 122) 422. </i>He submitted that the claimant cannot raise the issue of contributory negligence for the first time in final address as it was not pleaded. He finally urged the court to rely on the sole evidence of DW and grant the counter claim.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate: none;tab-stops:39.9pt 77.35pt;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">I have carefully considered the processes filed, the evidence of the witnesses, written submissions and authorities cited. The issues for determination are: (i) whether on the pleadings and evidence the claimant ought to be entitled to the reliefs she is seeking; (ii) whether the defendant has proved the counterclaim. The claimant as required by law has put in evidence her letter of employment and other service documents. She has also put in evidence her letter of resignation of appointment. There is therefore no dispute between the parties on these facts. However, the defendant has put in evidence the employee handbook of Oceanic Bank International Plc (exhibit D1) as the document regulating the claimant’s employment. This the claimant disputes. The defendant in this suit is Ecobank Nigeria Ltd and has admitted in its pleadings particularly paragraph 6 that it is the claimant’s employer. Further more, DW under cross-examination told the court that the defendant has a handbook that governs all the employees as at June 2014. This handbook is not before the court. Consequently, exhibit D1 is hereby discountenanced for purposes of this judgement.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">Before I proceed further, I will address the issue of jurisdiction raised by the defendant in respect of reliefs (d) and (e). The defendant has argued that these reliefs are predicated on defamation and that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such. Section 254C (1) (a) and (k) of the Constitution 1999 (Third Alteration Act) 2011 provides as follows: <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify">254C – (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 251, 257, 272 and anything contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters – <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;mso-list:l40 level1 lfo47"><!--[if !supportLists]-->(a)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span><!--[endif]-->relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the condition of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in">(k) relating to or connected with disputes arising from payment or non-payment of salaries, wages, pensions, gratuities, allowances, benefits, and any other entitlement of any employee, worker, political or public office holder, judicial officer, or any civil or public servant in any part of the Federation and matters incidental thereto.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify">This is a matter arising from the claimant’s employment with the defendant. It is in respect of her gratuity which the defendant her former employer paid into her account and subsequently denied her access to and the funds placed therein. Reliefs (d) and (e) are related to and connected with the restraint and freezing of the account into which the claimant’s gratuity had been paid. The reliefs are ancilliary to relief (a) the main relief in this dispute. This complaint therefore falls squarely within the purview of section 254C (1) (a) and (k) of the Constitution 1999 (Third Alteration Act 2011). It has been the position that in earlier cases this court had held that it was not empowered to assume jurisdiction on matters of defamation on the grounds that the jurisdiction conferred on the court is subject matter based. Now, upon a careful consideration of section 14 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006, the earlier position of the court is reconsidered. Section 14 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 is reproduced as follows:<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:3.0pt">The Court shall, in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it by or under this Act in every cause or matter, have power to grant, either absolutely or on such terms and conditions as the Court thinks just, all such remedies whatsoever as any of the parties thereto may appear to be entitled to in respect of any legal or equitable claim properly brought forward by the Court so that as far as possible, all matters in dispute between the parties may be completely and finally determined and all multiplicity of legal proceedings concerning any of those matters avoided.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify"> In cases such as this instant case where the issue of defamation is inextricably intertwined with the cause of action and the main issue, there can be no doubt that the issue of defamation falls within “matters incidental thereto or connected therewith” for which this court alone has been given exclusive jurisdiction. If the submission of defence counsel is to be upheld, it would mean that the claimant would have to go forum shopping to file a fresh action in another court in her bid to seek a remedy for the alleged defamation that is rooted in a workplace dispute, stems from and is connected to her employment. This would go against the intention and spirit of section 14 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 on the need to avoid multiplicity of actions. Consequently, I hold that by the combined reading of Sections 7 & 14 of National Industrial Court Act, 2006<i> </i>together with the provisions of Section 254C (1) (a) & (k) of the Constitution 1999 (Third Alteration) Act, 2011<i> </i>this court is conferred with jurisdiction to entertain issues of defamation that arise and are inextricably intertwined with labour, employment, workplace disputes and/or are “matters incidental thereto’. This court is empowered to entertain reliefs (d) and (e) and I so hold.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">The evidence before the court is that the claimant properly resigned her employment on June 23, 2014 by paying one month’s salary in lieu of notice as provided in her contract of employment. She attended the staff exit interview on the 23<sup>rd</sup> June 2014 and she and the interviewer Adebayo Gabriel signed off the staff exit form (exhibit C8). Thereafter, the claimant’s gratuity in the sum of N6,051,960.22 (Six Million, Fifty One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Sixty Thousand Naira Twenty Two Kobo Only) was paid into her account. I find that the staff exit clearance certificate (exhibit C9) is a document in which the claimant is only required to fill in her personal details which she did on the 23<sup>rd</sup> June 2016 the day she resigned her employment. Thereafter, she has no role to play. The departments listed on the certificate are to fill their columns and sign off. Not surprisingly, the claimant’s uncontroverted evidence is that she was told to leave the form which would be completed. I find that the claimant had completed her own part of the exit clearance formalities on the 23<sup>rd</sup> June 2014 and I 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">The position of the law is that a notice of resignation takes effect from the date the letter is received by the employer. It is a unilateral act that requires no acceptance by the employer because there is an absolute power inherent in the employee under the contract of employment to bring the contract to an end. See <i>WAEC v Oshinebo [2006] 12 NWLR (Pt 994) 258, Benson v Onitiri [1960] NSCC 52 at 62, Adefemi v Abegunde [2004] 15 NWLR (Pt 895) 1.</i> I hold that the claimant’s resignation became effective on June 23, 2014 and the payment of her terminal benefits severed the employment relationship with the defendant. The defence is hinged on the issue of the claimant not being cleared by the Head Human Resource Department due to a disciplinary issue. The claimant’s evidence is that the purpose of clearance is to ensure that an employee who has issues with the defendant sorts it out; and that until this is done transactions on the staff account are suspended. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">Exhibit C9 shows that all the listed departments cleared the claimant and signed off apart from the HRU that indicated on June 30, 2014 that she had a pending disciplinary matter. It is instructive to note that on the next day July 1 2014, the Chief Inspector confirmed in writing on the clearance certificate that the claimant was not involved in any pending investigation or disciplinary issues and signed off. As at July 1 2014, all that was left was for the Head Human Resources to sign off on the form and lift the restriction placed on the claimant’s account. The officer did not do this. The evidence of DW is that where the Head Human Resources does not sign off and approve the clearance, the staff must be notified. There is no evidence that the claimant was ever notified that the clearance certificate had not been signed by the Head of Human Resources. She therefore had no reason to believe that transactions on her account were still suspended particularly after her gratuity had been paid and the employment relationship severed. After the severance of the employment relationship, the new relationship between the parties is a customer/banker relationship and I 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 the 24<sup>th</sup> July 2014, which is about four weeks after the claimant resigned and which I find to be more than enough time for the defendant to conclude its own part of the clearance formalities, the claimant as a customer gave a cheque for the sum of N16,000 to one Hassan El Moussa. The defendant without justification dishonoured the claimant’s cheque even though the claimant had sufficient funds in her account in the sum of N6,051,960.22 (Six Million, Fifty One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Sixty Thousand Naira Twenty Two Kobo Only) to cover the cheque. It was wrong for the defendant to refuse to honour the claimant’s cheque and write on the face of the cheque (exhibit C6) PND (Post no debit). I agree with the claimant’s counsel that the defendant’s action held the claimant out to third parties as someone whose account is being investigated or has insufficient funds or is not credit worthy. I find that the refusal to honour the claimant’s cheque impugns the integrity, honesty and character of the claimant. I hold that the defendant is liable to the claimant in damages for injury to her reputation and credit worthiness. See <i>Mai v STB Ltd [2008] ALL FWLR (Pt 339) 552, Access Bank Plc v MFCCS [2005] ALL FWLR (Pt 251) 305.<o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><i> </i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">. The claimant admitted that she had a disciplinary issue in respect of the issuance of an ATM card to a customer and insists that it was resolved before she resigned from the defendant by the Managing Directors directive communicated to her in exhibit C5 that <span lang="EN-GB">Adebayo Makinde Branch, Oregun, should debit its P & L account (Fraud and Defalcation External Account 42470008) with N301,000.00 and credit the customer Ohaeri Ijeoma Pricilla’s Account No. 1361018890. Exhibit C5 dated May 12, 2014 written by Nwachukwu Chudi did not state that the Managing Directors decision was in the interim pending her appearance before the disciplinary committee. There is no evidence that the claimant was queried on this incident and her reply found unacceptable; neither is there any evidence that she was invited to appear before the disciplinary committee before she resigned even though the defendant had ample time to do this between April 25, 2014 and June 23, 2014. The claimant’s counsel has objected to Exhibit D2 on the ground that it was not pleaded but procured for the counterclaim. Exhibit D2 is a memo dated 25, April 2014 sent to the defendant’s Managing Director by the Internal Audit Group. I find that this document was not pleaded, frontloaded or listed and was therefore wrongly admitted by the court. It is hereby rejected. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">After the claimant’s resignation the Head HR Operations invited her by an unsigned letter (exhibit WEO1) dated September 1, 2014 to attend a disciplinary hearing which she rightly in my view ignored. A second letter (exhibit WEO2) dated September 15, 2014 was sent to the claimant to appear on September 19, 2014 before the disciplinary committee. She informed the defendant that she would not be able to attend. Having resigned her employment and severed the employment relationship, it was erroneous for the defendant acting through the Head HR Operations to think that it still had the authority and right to invite the claimant to appear before its disciplinary committee. I am satisfied from the totality of the evidence adduced particularly exhibit C5 and the Chief Inspectors comment on exhibit C9 that the claimant did not have a pending disciplinary case. It was therefore very harsh and oppressive for the defendant to freeze the claimant’s account with a credit balance of over N6,000,000.00 (Six Million Naira) after her resignation and deny her access to her gratuity and other funds in this account since 2014 in order to investigate a fraud of N301,000.00 which had already been resolved by the Managing Director. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">It is also wrong and oppressive for the defendant to have applied the sum of N301,000.00 from the claimant’s account to restitute the loss as contained in its letter exhibit D3 to the claimant’s Solicitors when she had not been found guilty of wrong doing. This oppressive behaviour is totally unacceptable. I hold that the freezing of the claimant’s account containing a </span>credit balance of over N6,236,093.09 (Six Million, Two Hundred and Thirty Six Thousand, Ninety Three Naira, Nine Kobo Only) is unlawful, unfair and amounts to injustice which entitles the claimant to an award of damages. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none">The claimant has made a claim for damages. General damages are such that the court will presume to be the direct and natural consequence of the defendant’s wrong doing. There is no doubt that the claimant has been injured by the oppressive conduct of the defendant. She is entitled to an award of general damages pursuant to the provisions of section 19 (d) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006. Her reputation and integrity as an honest and credit worthy person has been impugned by the defendant who without justification dishonored her cheque. For this wrongdoing by the defendant, I award her the sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) as damages. The claimant has also been unjustifiably denied access to her account from 2014 till date. She was not involved in any wrongdoing or questionable financial dealings to warrant her account being frozen. This is the account in which her gratuity was paid into after ten years of service to the defendant. She has been deprived of utilizing the funds deposited in the account and has no doubt suffered undue hardship as a result of the unreasonable restriction imposed by the defendant on her account. I award the sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) as general damages for this wrongdoing.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">On the counterclaim, I find that the Managing Director had resolved the issues raised therein and directed the <span lang="EN-GB">Adebayo Makinde Branch, Oregun where the claimant worked to debit its P & L account (Fraud and Defalcation External Account 42470008) with N301,000.00 and credit the customer Ohaeri Ijeoma Pricilla’s Account No. 1361018890. The defendant has not led any evidence to show that after the P & L account (Fraud and Defalcation External Account 42470008) is debited, staff who handled the transaction that led to the loss and debit of the account are to personally refund the sum. The defendant has also not referred the court to any law that permits an employee and a former one at that to be punished by the employer in respect of a fraud she has not been found guilty of. I hold that the counterclaim has not been proved. It is dismissed in its entirety.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">For all the reasons given above, I hereby declare and make the following orders:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l35 level1 lfo46"><!--[if !supportLists]-->1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span><!--[endif]-->The freezing the claimant’s account containing a credit balance of over N6,236,093.09 (Six Million, Two Hundred and Thirty Six Thousand, Ninety Three Naira, Nine Kobo Only) without any prior notification whatsoever is unlawful and amounts to injustice to the claimant.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l35 level1 lfo46"><!--[if !supportLists]-->2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span><!--[endif]-->The refusal of the defendant to honour the claimant’s cheque number 506 dated 24<sup>th</sup> July, 2014 in the sum of N16,000.00 (Sixteen Thousand Naira Only) issued in favour of LG/Hassan El Moussa Allen Avenue, Ikeja, Lagos is wrongful and impugns the honesty and integrity of the claimant.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l35 level1 lfo46"><!--[if !supportLists]-->3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span><!--[endif]-->The defendant is ordered to immediately reverse and remove any form of restriction or suspension imposed on the claimant’s account domiciled with it.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l35 level1 lfo46"><!--[if !supportLists]-->4.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span><!--[endif]-->The defendant is to pay the sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) to the claimant as damages for impugning her reputation and integrity. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l35 level1 lfo46"><!--[if !supportLists]-->5.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span><!--[endif]-->The defendant is to pay the sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) as damages to the claimant for unlawfully freezing her account from 2014 till date and unjustifiably depriving her of utilizing the funds in her account. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l35 level1 lfo46"><!--[if !supportLists]-->6.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span><!--[endif]-->All sums are to be paid within 30 days from the date of this judgement. Thereafter, the sums shall attract interest at the rate of 25% per annum.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate: none;tab-stops:39.9pt 77.35pt;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l35 level1 lfo46;mso-hyphenate:none;tab-stops: 39.9pt 77.35pt;text-autospace:none"><!--[if !supportLists]-->7.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt;"> </span><!--[endif]-->Costs of N150,000.00 (One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) is to be paid by the defendant to the claimant.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate: none;tab-stops:39.9pt 77.35pt;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate: none;tab-stops:39.9pt 77.35pt;text-autospace:none">Judgement is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate: none;tab-stops:39.9pt 77.35pt;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate: none;tab-stops:39.9pt 77.35pt;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate: none;tab-stops:39.9pt 77.35pt;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate: none;tab-stops:39.9pt 77.35pt;text-autospace:none"> ___________________________<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate: none;tab-stops:39.9pt 77.35pt;text-autospace:none"> Hon Justice O.A.Obaseki-Osaghae <b><o:p></o:p></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:2.0pt;margin-right:4.55pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;tab-stops:37.1pt 71.9pt;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:2.0pt;margin-right:4.55pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;tab-stops:37.1pt 71.9pt;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:2.0pt;margin-right:4.55pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;tab-stops:37.1pt 71.9pt;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:2.0pt;margin-right:4.55pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;tab-stops:37.1pt 71.9pt;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:2.0pt;margin-right:3.1pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:2.0pt;margin-right:3.1pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:3.0pt;margin-right:3.85pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:14.0pt; mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace: none"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:1.2pt;text-align:justify;line-height: 14.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-hyphenate:none; text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p>