Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Representation</span></u></b><b><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">C. C. Okoroafor; with him, K.O. Ahamba for the Claimant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">M. U. Ogwumike for the Defendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 3in; text-align: justify;"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-US">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">The Claimant on the 13<sup>th</sup> day of February, 2014 commenced this action seeking the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 39.2pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">A declaration that the claimant did not commit any misconduct or gross misconduct in his duties as officer in the defendant bank with regards to MSEC Nig. Ltd account No. 101323663 domiciled in Okokomaiko branch and Everfresh Ltd account No. 1015625422 domiciled at Lagos State University (LASU) Branch or any other account at the stated branches, or any other account in the defendant's Bank.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 39.2pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">A declaration that the dismissal of the claimant from the defendant bank through a letter dated May 17, 2013 on the basis of gross misconduct is wrongful, unconstitutional, malicious, null and void. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 39.2pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">An order of Court that the said letter of dismissal dated May 17, 2013 be set aside.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 39.2pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US">4.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Special and general damages made up as follows: </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 57.2pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -57.2pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span>i.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">The value of unpaid emoluments calculated at the rate of <s>N</s>7,200,000.00 (Seven Million, Two Hundred Thousand Naira) from the date of the dismissal to the date of final determination of this suit. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 57.2pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -57.2pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span>ii.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><s><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE">N</span></s><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE">220,000,000 (Two Hundred and Twenty Million Naira) being special damages for loss of anticipated earnings of the claimant in the banking industry.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 57.2pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -57.2pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span>iii.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><s><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE">N</span></s><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE">500,000,000.00 (Five Hundred Million Naira) </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 112%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">being </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">general damages for wrongful dismissal. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">The complaint was accompanied by other necessary processes which were duly served on the defendant who also filed defence processes. Hearing commenced on 16/3/2015. The claimant testified as his only witness, while Mr Agwu Okorie a human resources officer in the defendant testified as the defendant’s only witness. Hearing ended on 14/1/16, Counsels adopted their respective Final written addresses on 13/4/16. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">In the </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-US">defendant's final written address filed on 5/2/2016, counsel</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> formulated two issues for determination to wit: </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Whether the dismissal of the Claimant from the services of the Defendant was not justified at all times material to this Suit?</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:106%;mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Assuming the dismissal of the Claimant was not justified, what is the quantum of damages available to him in law? </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">With respect to issue one, counsel submitted that the dismissal of the Claimant from the services of the Defendant was justified at all times material to this Suit. He submitted further that</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 106%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> the Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct. The Courts reserve a wide discretion to decide what acts amount to misconduct. Counsel contended that the latitude of the Court's discretion has been made manifest in a number of decisions in which they have held certain acts to justify dismissal. Counsel referred to the case of <b>STOCCO vs. MAJA (1968) NMLR 372</b>, where a breach of duty of fidelity by the employee was justified as a ground for the dismissal of the employee. Similarly, unauthorized borrowings as in <b>SINCLAIR vs. NEIGHBOUR (1966) 3 All ER 988</b>, theft as in <b>ABUKUGBO vs. AFRICAN TIMBER </b></span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">& PLYWOOD LTD (1966) 2 All NLR 87</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 106%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">, and negligence as in <b>USEN vs. B.W.A. LTD (1965) 1 All NLR 244</b> have all been held by the Courts to be misconducts justifying dismissal. Thus, it is Counsel’s opinion that what constitutes misconduct is a question of fact alone and not governed by any rigid standards. Counsel referred the court to the English case of <b>CLOUSTON </b></span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">& CO. LTD. vs. CORRY (1906) AC 122 at 129</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 106%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">, where it was held that there is no fixed rule of law defining the degree of misconduct which will justify dismissal. In the same vein, counsel submitted that a single isolated act of sufficient gravity can justify dismissal. See <b>BOSTON DEEP SEA FISHING CO. vs. ANSELL (1888) 3 Ch. 339 at 363.</b><i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel submitted that in the present case, the DW1 gave evidence that the Claimant recommended a loan of Thirty Million Naira (<s>N</s>30,000,000.00) to MSec Nig. Ltd., and <s>N</s>2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) to Everfresh Ltd which turned out to be bad loans because the Customers were unable to repay the loans. The crucial requirement of “Know Your Customer” (KYC) and due diligence were not carried out on the Customers by the Claimant thereby abusing the Credit Processes of the Defendant. Counsel contended that the claimant also disclosed information in the Customer's Account to a third party, Chukwudi Goodness of Chuddy Goodness Investment Limited. Furthermore, the DW1 gave evidence that Chuddy Goodness Investment Ltd. to whom the bad facilities were granted and later restructured had not been able to collect and pay the sum of <s>N</s>37,000,000.00 from the Defendant's debtors including the sum of <s>N</s>10,450,000.00 due and owing by Msec Nigeria Limited at times all material to this Suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Remarkably, it was Chuddy Goodness that introduced all the following defendant’s Customers: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">1. Msec Nigeria Limited <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">2. De-Deribs Royal Ltd. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">3. Chuddy Co. Investment Ltd. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">4. Chrishummy Nig. Ltd. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">5. Anyidone Nig. Ltd. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">6. Isiebu International. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">It is the further submission of counsel that the Claimant and other officers of the bank not named in the Suit recommended and disbursed loans to these customers listed above without conducting due diligence and ‘Know Your Customer’ in breach of the Defendant's Credit Policy. Again, counsel submitted that the defendant’s Regional Office Disciplinary Committee at its session of the 2<sup>nd </sup>day of May, 2013 established, </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">inter alia, </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE"><span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span>i.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">A case of connivance was established against the Claimant and the customer Chuddy Goodness in compromising the credit portfolio of the Bank by using different names of the customer's relations to collect loans from the Bank that all turned out to be bad and doubtful debts. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE"><span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span>ii.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">The Claimant availed facilities to the customer Chuddy Goodness using different names knowing that the customer had no capacity to pay back the loans and thereby manipulated the Bank unto misfortune. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE"><span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span>iii.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">The Claimant also used his subordinates Mercy Ebitigha and Olubukola Kuyoro to accomplish his aims even though Mercy Ebitigha and Olubukola Kuyoro benefited in promotions by reason of the accounts opened. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE"><span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span>iv.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">The Claimant deliberately did not appear before the Disciplinary Committee and was consequently dismissed from the employment of the Defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Similarly, counsel argued that the Claimant under Cross Examination admitted recommending the aforesaid facilities granted to MSec Nig. Ltd. which went bad because the Customer could not fully repay the loan. He further argued that the recommendation of the loans that turned out bad, particularly in the case of MSec Nigeria Limited, is an act of gross misconduct. Consequently, the Defendant was justified in dismissing the Claimant from the services of the Bank. It is counsel’s argument that t</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">he opportunity given to the Claimant by the Defendant to appear before the Regional Office Disciplinary Committee was rebuffed by the Claimant. Thus, the Claimant is therefore precluded from complaining that his dismissal was purportedly wrongful, unconstitutional, malicious, null and void. Counsel urged the Court to resolve issue one against the Claimant and to dismiss the suit in entirety. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Regarding issue two, counsel submitted that the position of the Law is that a Master or Employer is entitled to suspend, retire, terminate or dismiss his servant or employer's appointment for good or bad reason or for no reason at all. Counsel referred the Court to the case of <b>COMMISSIONER FOR WORKS, BENUE STATE vs. DEVCON LTD (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 83) 407 at 425</b>. He also cited the case of <b>ANNAM vs. B.S.J.S.C. (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 296) 843 at 858 PARAS F-G</b>,where it was held thus: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">“It has been stated and restated by this court and the apex court of the land in a plethora of decided authorities, that a master or employer, is entitled to suspend/retire/terminate/ dismiss his servant/employee's appointment for good or bad reason or no reason at all. Period! See Commissioner for Works, Benue State vs. Devcon Ltd. (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 83) 407 at 425.”<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">It is the argument of counsel that the employment of the Claimant was not governed by statute. It was a master/servant relationship that existed between the Claimant and the Defendant. Consequently, in the unlikely event that the Court finds that the dismissal of the Claimant was not justified, the Court can only declare the dismissal wrongful. It cannot declare the dismissal as "unconstitutional, malicious, null and void." Counsel cited the case of <b>BENIN ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY PLC. vs. MR. NAPOLEON ESEALUKA (2015) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1440) 411 at 436 - 437 PARAS F –A</b>, as authority for his preceding argument where it was held as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">“There is no doubt that there is a vast difference between an employment with statutory flavor in which case the terms of employment of that staff is governed by the statute creating that organization and any infraction of the terms of employment and discipline as guaranteed by the statute is bound to be declared null and void. That is illegal dismissal, where it occurs. In such situations the employee is restored to the position as if no disciplinary measures had been taken at all. See </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Dr. Taiwo Oloruntoba-Oju </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">&Ors. vs. Prof Shuaib O. Abdul-Raheem & Ors. (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) pg. 290. However, where the relationship is not governed by statute and there is infraction of the terms of employment and dismissal by the employer such infraction is merely wrongful and not null and void. The employee can only claim damages for breach of contract and cannot claim arrears of salary and reinstatement. See Eze vs. Spring Bank (2011) 12 SC (Pt. 1) pg. 173, (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 113; Joseph Ifeta vs. S.P.D.C. Nig. Ltd. (2006) 8 NWLR Pt. 983) pg. 585.”<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Similarly, counsel submitted that where the termination of employment or dismissal of an employee or servant from his employment is found to be wrongful, the employee would be entitled to damages which isdetermined by the period of Notice. Counsel referred the court to the following cases:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 39.2pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">ISIEVWORE vs. N.E.P.A. (2002) F.W.L.R. (Pt. 124) 398 at 411 PARAS C-D; <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 39.2pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">ANNAM vs. B.S.J.S.C.(SUPRA) at 858 PARAS G - H; <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 39.2pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">IMOLOAME v. W.A.E.C. (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 303 at 319 PARAS E-G.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 39.2pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">4.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">WESTERN NIGERIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">vs. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">JIMOHABIMBOLA </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">(1966) 1 All NLR 159; <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 39.2pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">5.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">G. B. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">OLLIVANT (NIGERIA) LIMITED </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">vs. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">AGBABIAKA </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">(1972) 2 SC 137 <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 39.2pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">6.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">NYONG EMMANUEL OBOT</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> vs. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">CENTRAL BANK </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">OF </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">NIGERIA </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">(1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 310) 140 at 162.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">It is the argument of counsel that the period of Notice provided for in this case is contained in the Offer of Employment dated </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:92%;mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">13<sup>th </sup></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">December, 2007 which was admitted as Exhibit A. The said Exhibit specifically provided as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">"PROBATION/TERMINATION <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> You will be employed on a probationary basis for an initial period of six months, if at the end of that period your performance is considered satisfactory, you will receive confirmation of your appointment in writing. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">During the probationary period, termination of appointment by either party will be subject to two (2) weeks’ notice in writing and in the case of a default, a payment of two (2) weeks basic salary in lieu of notice is mandatory. </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:114%;mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Subsequently, one month notice or one month salary in lieu of notice shall be required." </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">From the foregoing, counsel submitted that it is clear that the period of Notice provided in this case is one month notice or one month salary in lieu of notice. The salary of the Claimant per month is the sum of <s>N</s>1,271,468.14 as provided in the table attached to Exhibit A. It is the further submission of counsel that in the event that the Court finds that the dismissal of the Claimant was wrongful, the damages payable to the Claimant is the sum of <s>N</s>1,271,468.14 being his one month salary and not the pecuniary relief sought by the Claimant in this action. Counsel cited <b>SHENA SECURITY CO. LTD vs. AFROPAK (NIG.) LTD (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 426) 1850-1851 PARAS H-B</b> where the Supreme Court held thus: <u><o:p></o:p></u></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">“The damages recoverable usually in cases of wrongful dismissal/termination have well been pronounced upon by our courts in several decided cases. Such damages are said to be the losses reasonably foreseeable by the parties at the time of the contract as inevitably arising if one breaks faith with the other. Certainly, they do not include or take account of speculative or sentimental values. The court in awarding damages will certainly not include compensation for injured feelings or the loss that may have been sustained from the fact that the employee having been dismissed makes it more difficult for him to obtain fresh employment: </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Ajolore </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 90%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">vs. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Kwara State College </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 109%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Technology </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 92%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">& </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Anor. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">(1980) FNLR 414.”<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel urged the court to resolve issue two in the defendant’s favour.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:92%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">In the final written address of the claimant filed on 26/2/2016, counsel distilled four issues </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">for determination: <u><o:p></o:p></u></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Whether by the state of pleadings and preponderance of evidence led in this case, the claimant is entitled to the reliefs claimed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Whether the uncontroverted evidence and admitted facts of the claimant’s case by the defendant stand proved before this Honourable Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Whether from the evidence led in this matter, the claimant committed any 'gross misconduct'.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">4.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Whether the purported dismissal of the claimant was not wrongful and unconstitutional.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">For brevity, counsel argued the first three issues together as they relate incontent. In this regard, counsel submitted that the claimant did not accept the defendant's offer as Assistant Manager until he was offered the position of Deputy Manager. It is Counsel’s submission that it was due to the claimant's refusal of offer of Assistant Manager that the defendant gave in and posted him to a non-existent branch and tied it to almost impossible targets and later posted him to school environment to go and achieve a foreign exchange target only to turn back to issue him letters of displeasure and subsequently suspension. It is in evidence of DW1 that the Volkswagen branch to which the claimant was posted and set targets given in Exhibit 'B', has not been opened up till date. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">It is counsel’s argument that it is the evidence in-chief of the claimant and his cross examination that the purpose of the claimant's dismissal was based on his recommendation for approval of a loan </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:108%;mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">of <s>N</s>30,000,000.00 to MSec Nig Ltd. and was also activated by series of suspensions and recalls by the defendant to claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:108%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:108%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">It is counsel’s submission that at the claimants employment level with the defendant, he held no terminal position on grant of loans in the defendant bank. The DW1 in his evidence admitted that the claimant recommended but did not approve any loan to anybody including MSec’s loan. Under cross examination </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">DW1 admitted that granting of loan is not the responsibility of only one officer, and MSec’s loan was approved by the Regional Director, Mr. Sokumbi Kunle and Regional Bank Head Mrs. Lizzy Osunde. From the preceding submissions, counsel argued that the defendant by its own evidence under cross-examination admitted the facts pleaded in the claimant’s statement of facts in paragraph 8 to the effect that: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">“During the course of the claimant's duties at Okokomaiko branch, a loan of Thirty Million Naira (<s>N</s>30,000,000.00) was granted to Msec Nig Ltd which loan was only disbursed on 7th June, 2011 with the approval of the Regional Manager of the defendant. This turned out to be a bad loan. At the claimant's employment level with the defendant, he held no terminal position on grant of loans in the defendant bank, and granted no loan without approval by the Regional Manager or other superior officers of the defendant. Every facility recommended by the claimant had to pass through a number of higher scrutiny by Superior Officers designated for such functions". It is counsel’s opinion that the defendant having admitted that the claimant did only what he needed to do in this transaction was not responsible for the bad loans on which he was dismissed. The claimant carried out the crucial requirement of “know your customer” (KYC) and due diligence. He had no authority over the approving official and exercised no authority over their approval of the loan. It is counsel’s further submission that any evidence or pleading which is unchallenged, uncontroverted or admitted is deemed to be proved. See OSAKWE vs. GOVERNOR OF IMO STATE (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 191) P. 318 @ 339; AMADI vs. NWOSU (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 241) P. 293 @ 284 G-H.” <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel submitted that the Court has no alternative but to accept the case of the claimant on this point as proved, the evidence being worthy of belief. See OLUJINLE vs. ADEAGBO (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt.75) P. 238 </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 110%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">@ </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 106%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">254H-255A(SC); NWABUEZE vs. OTII (1961) 1 ALL NLR P. 487.<u><o:p></o:p></u></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Further, it is counsel’s submission that both in pleadings and in evidence, the defendant did not deny the fact that granting of loan is not the responsibility of a single officer but involves the account officer, the recommending officer, the credit unit who finally recommends to the approving authority, and the approving authority. The defendant is bound by its pleading. It is trite that a party is expected to deny the facts contained in the pleadings filed in the suit against him. This is to enable the claimant join issues with the adversary in order to evoke the burden of proof by the party who asserted those facts. Counsel submitted that where no such denial is filed, as in this case, it amounts to admission. See OGUNLEYE vs. ONI (1990) 2 NWLR (PT 135) P. 475.</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">It is counsel’s opinion that in the instant case, it was clear that the claimant, in the normal course of banking businessconcurred to the loan process initiated by the account officer in line with the credit process of the defendant. It is also in evidence that this loan process was initiated at the International Airport Road Branch where the account was domiciled before it was transferred to Okokomaiko branch at the instance of the customer. Counsel argued that the claimant did further KYC and due diligence on loan availment. These facts were pleaded in paragraph 7 of the claimant’s Reply to the statement of defence and were never denied in evidence. Counsel submitted that any evidence proffered by the claimant in proof of those uncontroverted facts in the statement of facts would suffice to prove the claimant's case before this Honourable Court. See <b>OROGAN vs. SOREMEKU (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 44) P. 688 @700</b>. Similarly, counsel contended that DW1 under cross-examination admitted that the collateral used for obtaining the loan by MSec Ltd was part of the documents that passed through the credit unit of the defendant to the approving authority and after investigation by the credit unit and the approving authority, the loan was subsequently approved. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:108%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">From the above evidence of DW1 it is crystal clear that the claimant has not done anything to deceive the defendant in the loan transaction. Again, counsel is of the opinion that</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> w</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 108%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">ith respect to the accounts and facilities pleaded in paragraph 16 of the statement of facts there was evidence to show that the claimant neither initiated nor approved the said facilities in those accounts. The bad loans were added to the restructured loan to Chuddy Goodness Investment Ltd as loans granted by the claimant to ensure that the claimant is called a bad name. More so, counsel submitted that it was the evidence of DW1 that “</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE; mso-bidi-font-style:italic">at the time the claimant was dismissed Chuddy Goodness had paid a substantial part of the loan. Consequently, </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 108%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">it is factual that while the claimant was acting in accordance with the recovering suspension guidelines, he was dismissed from his work by the defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:108%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:108%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel also submitted that the essence and purport of loan restructuring is that the responsibility on the loan has been taken over by a named undertaker who entered a fresh agreement with the defendant. This new arrangement exonerates the claimant from any liability. In view of the above, counsel submitted that </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">the claimant was not the account officer of MSec but a Branch Manager who concurred with the initiation of loans by the account officer. It is also in evidence that the MSec account was not opened at the claimant's branch but a transferred account from International Airport Road Branch to Okokomaiko branch after the loan process had commenced. It is counsel’s submission that this is a material contradiction on the part of the defendant and urged the court to hold as such. It is trite that no matter how impressive a party’s pleadings might be, it is of no consequence if not supported by concrete and credible evidence in proof thereof, particularly where it is in sharp contract with his pleadings. See <b>NEW NIGERIAN BANK PLC vs. DENGLAC LTD (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 228) 606</b>; <b>AJI vs. CHAD BASIN DEV. AUTHORITY (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 237) P. 424</b>. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 106%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">It is counsel’s submission that every piece of evidence given by the claimant was not controverted by the defendant. Counsel submitted that the evidence of the claimant remains </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 108%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">unchallenged that the claimant attended all invited disciplinary committee meetings of the defendant. This is in line with pleadings at paragraphs 15 and 16 of the reply to statement of defence. All through the defendant’s evidence, nothing was tendered to show that the claimant was ever invited to the Regional Office Disciplinary Committee Meeting of the defendant purportedly held on 2<sup>nd</sup> May, 2013. It is counsel’s submission that no such meeting was ever held. In the event that such meeting was ever convened, it is counsel’s submission that the claimant was not privy to such meeting and therefore not bound by a decision therefrom as the defendant deliberately denied the claimant the opportunity of attending the meeting just to deny him the opportunity or option of appealing to the Human Resources and Management of the bank which opportunity lapsed after 10 days as the claimant knew about the purported Regional Office Disciplinary Committee Meeting after he received his letter of dismissal. This fact was uncontroverted in evidence </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 106%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">by the defence. Counsel submitted that by the preponderance of the evidence led by the parties in this case, the claimant has proved that he is entitled to his reliefs. Counsel urged the court to resolve issues 1, 2, and 3 in the affirmative and grant the reliefs sought by the claimant in his statement of facts. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:108%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">It is counsel’s submission that the dismissal of the claimant from the service of the defendant is wrongful unconstitutional, malicious, null and void. He maintained that both CW1 and DW1 gave evidence to the effect that the purpose of the claimant’s recovery suspension was to recover and pay up the loans in order that the claimant might in Claimant’s Counsel words, </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE; mso-bidi-font-style:italic">'buy back' </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:108%;mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">his job. Counsel argued that prior to the claimant’s dismissal; he had </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE">substantially met the conditions for recall. And it is in evidence that the claimant was not sent on recovery suspension because he personally authorized the loans in question but because it is the normal bank policy to send the Manager on recovery suspension whenever any loan goes bad in his branch. In this case, he had been transferred out of the branch before the loan went bad but was mandated to assist the manager of his former branch to recover the loans. Thus, a dismissal instead of recall was wrongful in law. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">It is counsel’s submission that the defendant who pleaded that the claimant did not conduct KYC and due diligence in recommending loans did not give any piece of evidence showing that the claimant failed to conduct the KYC or due diligence. In controverting this allegation, the claimant under cross-examination proved that he conducted KYC and due diligence in loan recommendation. There was no challenge or rebuttal thereof. Counsel argued further that the claimant’s dismissal was not hinged on any particular misconduct but ambiguously hinged </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 92%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">'for gross misconduct’ not proved</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE">. At paragraph 11 of the statement of defence, it was alleged that the claimant disclosed information in the customer’s account to a third party Chukwudi Goodness of Chuddy Goodness Investment Ltd. It is counsel’s submission that this allegation was not in any way substantiated in the course of trial. It is counsel’s submission that there is no way a </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-US">company can restructure a loan without the account of the loan being disclosed to it. Thus, </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:108%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">from the evidence by the defendant itself, the claimant did not disclose information to a third party. The information disclosed to Chuddy Goodness was purely in the normal course of business, and invoked by the defendant. It is counsel’s further submission that it was the defendant who disclosed the account of MSec Nig. Ltd. to Chuddy Goodness in the course of restructuring agreement between them. From the foregoing, counsel submitted that the claimant did not disclose information on customer account to a third party as erroneously alleged in the defendant's pleadings.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:108%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:108%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">In direct reply to the defendant’s final address, counsel repeated a series of arguments already captured in his address. Counsel submitted further in this respect that the series of recovery suspensions and recall imposed by the defendant to the claimant in the course of his duties are sanctions or disciplinary measures. Counsel submitted that the claimant had </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">already been punished for the purported offences as enumerated in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the statement of defence. Counsel referred to the case of <b>MISS AYATUNDE ARIJENJA GEORGE vs. FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC</b> (unreported) Suit No. <b>NIC/LA/54/2011</b> sitting at Lagos and delivered on </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:92%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">2 </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">December, </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">2013, where this Court held that in such a circumstance, a plea of estoppel will be available to the employee. See <b>UDEGBUNAM vs. FCDA (2003) 10 NWLR (Pt. 829) 487.</b> See also <b>EKUNDAYO </b><b>vs. UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN (2000) 12 NWLR (Pt. 681) 220</b>. It is counsel’s further submission that an employer cannot at will dismiss the claimant on incidents in the past. It is counsel’s submission that the defendant having based the claimant’s dismissal on paragraphs 8 and 9 of their statement of defence, the court has no option than to declare this dismissal as wrongful and malicious, unconstitutional, null and void. It is counsel’s submission that the claimants' employment with the defendant is statutory and pensionable. The claimant's pleading in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the statement of facts goes to show that the conditions of employment are statutory in nature. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:109%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Although the Court may not force an employee on an unwilling employer, it has unfettered discretion/powers to order that the claimant be paid all benefits accruable to him up to the age of retirement. The claimant’s employment is a pensionable one. This is contained at page 10 of the defendants staff hand book titled </span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 92%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">UBA GROUP STAFF HAND BOOK </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 109%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Policy Document No. HRG: 001 dated June; 2010. This document is very relevant for the just determination of this case. In view of the above submission, and by virtue of </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Section 254(1)(f)</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 109%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> of the Constitution and </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Section 15 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 and <b>CHARLES OGBAZUAYE vs. FIRST BANK PLC Suit No. </b></span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 92%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">NIC/LA/186/2011</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 92%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">, counsel urged </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 107%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">the Court to apply the principles of justice, equity and good conscience when adjudicating on the rights and wrong of a claim. Counsel urged the court to exercise the discretion by granting all the reliefs sought in this claim and resolve issue four in favour of the claimant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">In the Defendant’s Reply on Points of law filed on 15/3/2016, counsel submitted in response to paragraphs 4.05 and 4.16 of the Claimant’s final written address, that the issue of the claimant securing employment with Main Street Bank (now Skye Bank Plc) as Deputy Manager and the termination of the same position as well as the UBA GROUP STAFF HANDBOOK policy Document were neither pleaded nor evidence led thereon. Thus, a final written address cannot be a substitute for pleadings and evidence. See <b>NWABODE vs. NWOKEDI (1973) 3 ESCLR (Pt. II) 633</b> and <b>USMAN DAN FODIO, SOKOTO vs. BALOGUN (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 325) 166 at 179 paragraphs B-C</b>. Counsel urged the court to disregard the submissions of the claimant in these paragraphs. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">In response to paragraphs 4.17, 4.18, 4.19 and 4.20 of the Claimant’s final address, counsel submitted that the law on the dismissal of an employee has been long decided by the appeal and Supreme Court, to the effect that he who has a right to hire also has a right to fire. Counsel further submitted that the termination of an employment brings the master-servant relationship to an end, subject to the payment of appropriate damages were found to be wrongful by the court. See <b>CHUKWUMAH vs. SHELL PETROLEUM DEVT. CO (NIG.) LTD (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 289) 512</b>. Counsel urged the court to apply the doctrine of stare decisis and apply the decision of the higher courts as cited in the Defendant’s final written address and dismiss this suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 2in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">Court’s Decision<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Before I proceed to examine the issues involved in this case, it is necessary that I first examine the facts of the case as presented from the angle of both parties. The claimant’s case, as stated by him in his evidence, is that he was employed by the defendant on 1/2/2008 as Assistant Manager by a letter dated 13/12/2007, which he put in evidence as Exhibit A. He refused the post of Assistant Manager offered to him because he was in that post in his previous employment with the bank now known as Sterling Bank but the defendant, in a letter dated 18/1/2008, promised to promote him to the position of Deputy Manager on confirmation of his appointment. Upon his employment, he was posted to the defendant’s Volkswagen branch, Lagos but pending the completion of the branch, he was placed in the Ojo-Igbede Alaba branch as an Account Officer while monitoring the take-off of the Volkswagen branch. He received his letter of confirmation of appointment on 30/10/2008 but the defendant refused to fulfill its obligation to promote him. He was later posted to the Lagos State University (LASU) branch as Branch Manager where he discharged his duties excellently and attracted many customers to the branch. He was transferred from there to the defendant’s Okokomaiko branch. He handed the LASU branch to one Fagbemi Olarewaju under the supervision of Shokunbi Olakunle.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">At his employment level in the defendant, he granted no loan without approval by the defendant’s Regional Manager or other superior officers of the defendant. Also, every facility he recommended had to go through a superior officer’s scrutiny. At the Okokomaiko branch, he granted a loan of <s>N</s>30,000,000.00 to Msec. Nig Ltd and disbursed same on 7<sup>th</sup> June 2011 with the approval of the defendant’s Regional Manager which loan turned out to be a bad loan. He also granted a temporary overdraft of <s>N</s>2,000,000.00 to Everfresh Ltd which facility was recovered in full. When the loans at the LASU branch were not performing, the Regional Director asked him to assist the manager of the branch to recover some of the loans since he managed some of the customers while he was in that branch. He accepted the assignment as service to the defendant and not because he committed any wrongdoing. While the recovery was going on, the defendant suspended and placed him on half salary for a period of 3 months vide a letter dated 10/4/2012. He was also informed in the letter that failure to recover the loans within the 3 months will result in forfeiture of withheld salaries. He embarked on the recovery of the bad loans in the Msec. Nig Ltd and Everfresh Ltd accounts, which accounts were no longer under his management, in order to save his job and not that he was liable for them. Between February 2012 and October 2012, he recovered the sum of <s>N</s>19,550,000.00 from the Msec Nig. Ltd account and the responsibility for payment of the outstanding balance was taken by one of the defendant’s customers, Chuddy Goodness in an agreement/offer letter dated 21/12/2012. In line with the agreement, the defendant restructured the loans and other ones into Chuddy Goodness Investment Ltd account. This restructuring was done to facilitate his recall from suspension. None of the facilities in LASU branch, 6 in number, which were added to the restructured loan of Chuddy Goodness were prepared, recommended or approved by him. Chuddy Goodness has been able to collect <s>N</s>37,000,000.00 from the defendant’s debtors, which sum include the balance of <s>N</s>10,450,000.00 from Msec, and paid the sum to the defendant. On the Everfresh Ltd account, the overdraft facility of <s>N</s>2,000,000 was fully recovered.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">While still assisting the defendant to recover a bad loan granted under the supervision of the defendant’s Regional Director, he received a letter dated 17<sup>th</sup> May 2013 dismissing him from employment for gross misconduct. Before the dismissal, he was invited to face the defendant’s Disciplinary Committee where he was asked questions about none performance of loans in some accounts at the LASU branch where he was previously the Branch Manager. He explained to the Committee that all accounts in LASU branch were functional while he was there and they are not under his supervision. During the recovery exercise, he was invited to other Disciplinary Committee meetings of 7<sup>th</sup> July 2012, 18<sup>th</sup> December 2012 and 21<sup>st</sup> January 2013 and he attended all meetings. The decision of the Committee was that he should assist in the recovery of the bad loans in LASU branch as a condition for his recall. It was based on this condition he approached Chuddy Goodness to assist him. The scenario in which he was dismissed show that he was a target of victimization because the superior officers, such as the Regional Director, who approved the loans in LASU and Okokomaiko branches were re-instated while he, who merely implemented the directives of the Regional Director was dismissed. The acts of the defendant amounted to malicious discrimination and unfair labour practice. By reason of his wrongful and unlawful dismissal, he lost the benefits of future services in the defendant and any other bank and also suffered loss of wages and allowances. The claimant said at the time of his dismissal, he was on salary of <s>N</s>7,200,000.00 per annum and he was entitled to work in the defendant’s employment till he attained the age of 60 years. In the remaining years of work, he would have earned enhanced emoluments and promotion to higher posts within the period. His wrongful dismissal has caused him loss of these benefits and has also ruined his image, exposed him to unemployment and emotional stress. He is consequently entitled to compensation in damages for the wrongs done to him.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">In his further evidence, the claimant stated that the process of granting loan is that the loan is initiated by the Account Officer, the Branch Manager concurs, the Regional Director recommends for approval and the Regional Bank Head approves. The credit team reviews the credit to meet the Risk Asset Criteria of the bank. The Head of Credit recommends to the Executive Director for final approval. The Msec account was opened at International Airport Road branch but later transferred to Okokomaiko branch by the customer. He concurred to the loan initiated by the account officer. He was made to understand that checks and searches were conducted in the previous branch and based on that, his branch did further “Know Your Customer” and due diligence on loan availment. He also carried out proper KYC and due diligence in the <s>N</s>2,000,000.00 loan under Chuddy Goodness Investment Ltd. He did not personally approve loans as he had no such authority. He was redeployed to LASU branch and he handed all assets, liabilities, and accounts over to the branch. He was not involved in any misconduct with respect to Msec as it was not his duty to approve loans. He did not disclose any customer’s account to a third party including Chuddy Goodness except during the restructuring of loans to Chuddy Goodness Investment Ltd and it was done with the agreement of the defendant. He did not violate the policies of the defendant and did not commit the allegations leveled against him. The claimant also stated that no Regional Office Disciplinary Committee meeting held on 2<sup>nd</sup> May 2013 and he was never invited to appear before such a meeting. He was not privy to the meeting and its decision is not binding on him. As a result of the restructuring, Chuddy Goodness Investment Ltd has paid the sum of <s>N</s>138,800,000.00 out of the <s>N</s>194,687,793.62 restructured loan.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">During his cross examination by the defendant’s counsel, the claimant stated that </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">on 15<sup>th</sup> July 2010</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">, he </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">was issued a letter of displeasure for breach of the defendant’s policy and on 16<sup>th</sup> October 2010, he was placed on recovery suspension and recalled on 3<sup>rd</sup> November 2010. He was again placed on another recovery suspension on 25<sup>th</sup> February 2011 for failure to regularise a term loan facility he granted to a customer and was recalled on 12<sup>th</sup> April 2011. On 12<sup>th</sup> April 2012, he was also placed on another recovery suspension for failure to regularise Past Due Obligations. He subsequently appeared before the Disciplinary Committee due to his prolonged stay on suspension. He recommended the Msec Nig Ltd loan of <s>N</s>30,000,000.00 and Everfresh Ltd loan of <s>N</s>2,000,000.00 after initiation by the Account Officer. He<u> </u>carried out due diligence and “Know Your Customer” on the customers before recommending the loans. The loan to Msec went bad because the customer did not repay fully while the loan to Everfresh did not go bad as it was fully repaid. The claimant stated that the loan process involves 7 stages and explained that after initiation by the Account Officer, he recommended as branch manager to the Regional Director who concurs and sends to the Regional Head for approval. The Regional Head forwards to the Credit Unit for review. If the Unit is satisfied with the documents and processes, the Credit Unit recommends to the Head of Credits who upon further review forwards to the Executive Director for approval. After approval, offer letter is sent to the customer. The Legal Unit and Credit/Disbursement Unit confirms if the requirements and documentations are met in line with the approval. The claimant also said he was satisfied that the customers met the criteria for loans when he made his recommendations. He did not disclose information relating to Msec to a 3<sup>rd</sup> party or Chukwudi Goodness or Chuddy Goodness Investment Ltd except with the consent of the defendant during the restructuring process. The restructuring led to the transfer of the loan to Chuddy Goodness, a customer of the defendant and the restructuring was approved and authorised by the defendant. He was transferred from LASU branch to Okokomaiko branch in July 2010. He did not initiate or approve any loan after he left LASU branch. Msec account was domiciled at Okokomaiko and that was the only loan he recommended out of the 6 accounts alleged by the defendant. The accounts of the 6 customers were opened at LASU branch while he was there but he did not personally open the accounts. Account Officers open and manage the account and he complied with bank’s policy for opening accounts. He did not face any Disciplinary Committee between January and May 2013 nor was he invited to any meeting of 2<sup>nd</sup> May 2013.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The defendant’s witness, Agwu Okorie, confirmed that the claimant was employed by the defendant on 17/12/2007 via the letter dated 13/12/2008 as assistant manager and his appointment was confirmed with effect from 24/10/2008 vide the letter dated 30/10/2008. Although it is true that the defendant wrote the letter dated January 18, 2008 to promote the claimant upon confirmation, but the defendant’s offer in the letter to review the claimant’s position of Assistant Manager to Deputy Manager on confirmation of appointment was conditional on the claimant meeting some monthly monetary targets. The claimant was not promoted to Deputy Manager till the time of his dismissal because he could not meet the targets. DW1 referred to letters dated 30/1/2009, 11/3/2009 and 25/11/2009 on this point. After the claimant was posted to the LASU branch, he was issued a letter of displeasure vide e-mail for breach of the defendant’s policy on 15/7/2010. Following this, the claimant was placed on recovery suspension on 16/10/2010 but was recalled on 3/11/2010. On 25/1/2011, the claimant was again placed on recovery suspension for his failure to regularise short term loan facility he granted to a customer and he was recalled from suspension on 12/4/2011. On 10/4/2012, the claimant was placed on another recovery suspension for failing to regularise Past Due Obligations (PDOs). Because of his prolonged suspensions, the claimant faced the defendant’s Disciplinary Committee several times. It was on account of the suspension of 10/4/2012 that resulted in the dismissal of the claimant on 17/5/2013<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The loan of <s>N</s>30,000,000.00 granted to Msec and the temporary overdraft granted to Everfresh at the Okokomaiko branch were recommended and disbursed by the claimant without carrying out the requisite Know Your Customer and due diligence thereby abusing the credit process of the defendant. These facilities turned out to be bad facilities and it was the reason the claimant was suspended on 10/4/2012 and directed to recover the facilities. The claimant accepted responsibility for recommending the bad facilities and embarked on recovering them. The claimant also disclosed information in the customer’s account to a chuddy Goodness, a third party. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The defendant agreed to restructure the bad facilities to Chuddy Goodness Investment Ltd because it was the Obligor. It was Chuddy Goodness who introduced Msec Nig Ltd, De-Debris Royal Ltd, Chuddy Co. Investment Ltd, Chrischummy Nig Ltd, Anyidone Nig Ltd and Isiebu International as customers to the defendant. The claimant and some officers of the defendant recommended and disbursed loans to these customers in breach of the defendant’s credit policy of due diligence and KYC. T</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">he six accounts were personally opened in LASU branch by the claimant when he was the Business Manager of the branch. He had the responsibility to ensure that defendant’s policies and banking practices are satisfied by the accounts. The claimant later ceded the accounts to relationship managers to manage but did not allow them to meet the customers. When the claimant was posted out of LASU branch to Okokomaiko branch, the Relationship Managers had to continue to liaise with him to reach the customers granted the facilities. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The restructuring of the loan was done to enable the defendant recover the bad loans and not for the purpose of recall of the claimant from suspension.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Since the restructuring, Chuddy Goodness has not collected the sum of <s>N</s>37,000,000.00 from the debtors nor did it pay any such sum to the defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Before the claimant’s dismissal, he appeared before a Disciplinary Committee set up by the defendant and he was asked questions about the non performing loans. The claimant could not provide meaningful explanation but was asked to participate in the recovery of the loans. The claimant was also invited to appear before the Regional Office Disciplinary Committee meeting on 2/5/2013 on allegation of impropriety in the opening of the said accounts but the claimant did not appear. It is the defendant’s policy that where a staff has notice of a Disciplinary Committee meeting but fails to appear, the meeting shall proceed and the decision of the Committee shall be binding on the staff. Accordingly, the Committee proceeded in the absence of the claimant and found him to have committed some infractions of the defendant’s policies. The defendant dismissed the claimant on the recommendation of the Regional Disciplinary Committee. The claimant failed to exercise his right to appeal his dismissal within the 10 days stipulated for the purpose. DW1 concluded that the claimant was involved in acts of gross misconduct and violated the defendant’s policies with respect to Msec, Everfresh and other loan accounts at LASU and Okokomaiko branches. The dismissal of the claimant was therefore justified.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Under cross examination by the claimant’s counsel, DW1 confirmed that the Disciplinary Committee made recommendations after its deliberations but the proceedings of the Committee is not before the court. The claimant was on suspension on 2<sup>nd</sup> May 2013 when he was tried by the Committee and the decision of the Committee was passed verbally to the claimant through the Audit and Control Unit. There was no communication from the claimant admitting liability for the bad loans. The loan to Msec and other loans were restructured in Chuddy Goodness account as agreed between the defendant and Chuddy Goodness for the purpose of repaying the outstanding balance of Msec loan and the others. The claimant was on suspension during the restructuring. After the restructuring, the claimant paid money into Chuddy Goodness account to clear the Msec loan and the Everfresh loan has been fully repaid. Chuddy Goodness has paid substantial part of the loans as at the time of the claimant’s dismissal. Msec account was at LASU branch but the complaint about Msec bad loan was brought when the claimant was at Okokomaiko branch. DW1 also stated that granting of loan involve several processes. The Msec loan was recommended by the claimant but was approved by the Regional Director and Regional Bank Head. Msec applied for the loan through the claimant as account officer, the application went to Credit Unit who reviewed it and recommended to the approving officers for approval. DW1 stated further that if Credit Unit does not recommend for approval, then the approving officer will not approve the loan. According to DW1, the claimant deceived the bank by not disclosing material facts as to the collateral for the loan. The claimant concealed facts relating to the shipping documents used as collateral. The said shipping documents were part of the documents that passed through Credit Unit to the approving authority. DW1 stated finally that the company taking over a restructured loan, which is Chuddy Goodness, is expected to know the details of the account involved.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The 1<sup>st</sup> issue formulated by the claimant’s counsel in his final written address is:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Whether by the state of pleadings and preponderance of evidence led in this case, the claimant is entitled to the reliefs claimed</span></i></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">In view of the facts of this case, it seems to me that the determination of the issue will resolve this matter adequately. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">I therefore adopt it as the sole issue for determination in this case.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The first relief sought by the claimant is for a</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> declaration that the he did not commit any misconduct in his duties as officer in the defendant bank with regards to MSEC Nig. Ltd account and Everfresh Ltd account or any other account in the defendant bank. In his evidence, the claimant said h</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">e was not involved in any misconduct with respect to Msec and Everfresh loans as it was not his duty to approve loans. He only recommended the Msec Nig Ltd loan of <s>N</s>30,000,000.00 and Everfresh Ltd loan of <s>N</s>2,000,000.00 after initiation by the Account Officer. Besides that he carried out due diligence and “Know Your Customer” on the customers before recommending the loans, the facilities went through the scrutiny of superior officers before it was approved. The said facilities were approved by the defendant’s Regional Manager before it was disbursed by him. The claimant also said he did not personally approve loans as he had no such authority and he did not violate the policies of the defendant or commit the allegations leveled against him with respect to the said accounts.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><u><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></u></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">It is observed from the case of the defendant that t</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">he defendant made some other allegations against the claimant which culminated in the convening of the Regional Office Disciplinary Committee meeting of 2/5/2013 and dismissal of the claimant. The allegations are that-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">1. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The claimant abused the credit process of the defendant when he recommended and disbursed a loan of <s>N</s>30,000,000.00 to Msec and a temporary overdraft of <s>N</s>2,000,000.00 to Everfresh at the Okokomaiko branch, which facilities eventually went bad, without carrying out the requisite Know Your Customer and due diligence.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">2. The claimant also disclosed information in the customer’s account to one chuddy Goodness, a third party.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">It is on account of these allegations the defendant pleaded specifically in paragraph 33 and 34 of the statement of defence that the dismissal of the claimant was justified because he was involved in acts of gross misconduct with respect to Msec Nig. Ltd and Everfresh Ltd and other loan accounts in LASU and Okokomaiko branches of the defendant. While giving evidence on these allegations made against the claimant, DW1 stated that t</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">he loan of <s>N</s>30,000,000.00 granted to Msec and the temporary overdraft granted to Everfresh at the Okokomaiko branch were recommended and disbursed by the claimant without carrying out the requisite KYC and due diligence thereby abusing the credit process of the defendant. These facilities turned out to be bad facilities and it was the reason the claimant was suspended on 10/4/2012 and directed to recover the facilities. The claimant accepted responsibility for recommending the bad facilities and embarked on recovering them. DW1 also stated that the claimant and some officers of the defendant recommended and disbursed loans to De-Debris Royal Ltd, Chuddy Co. Investment Ltd, Chrischummy Nig Ltd, Anyidone Nig Ltd and Isiebu International in breach of the defendant’s credit policy of due diligence and KYC. In addition, DW1 said t</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">he claimant disclosed information in the customer’s account to Chuddy Goodness who is a third party.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The question raised in the claimant’s first relief is whether any wrong doing was established against him with respect to the granting of the Msec and Everfresh loan or any other loan to justify his dismissal. Although DW1 stated in his evidence-in-chief that </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">the claimant accepted responsibility for recommending the bad facilities, </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">he however backtracked under cross examination when he said </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">there was no communication from the claimant admitting liability for the bad loans. T</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">he allegation against the claimant is that he did not observe due diligence and KYC before recommending the loans which eventually went bad. But the claimant said he performed these tasks and that he did not violate the policies of the defendant in recommending the loans. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">To my mind, the defendant, who founded the dismissal of the claimant on these allegations, is expected to satisfy this court that the allegations were true. What I find however is that besides merely saying the claimant did not observe due diligence or conduct KYC, the defendant did not go further to substantiate the allegation at trial. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">No piece of evidence was given by the defendant to show that the claimant failed to conduct the KYC or due diligence. The defendant merely made a general allegation without proof to justify same.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">In any case, evidence is clear that the claimant only recommended the loans and did not approve them. After his recommendation, other processes were involved up to approval. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">In his further evidence, the claimant stated that the process of granting loan is that the loan is initiated by the Account Officer, the Branch Manager concurs, the Regional Director recommends for approval and the Regional Bank Head approves. The credit team reviews the credit to meet the Risk Asset Criteria of the bank. The Head of Credit recommends to the Executive Director for final approval. Under cross examination, the claimant also explained that the loan process involved 7 stages. After initiation by the Account Officer, he recommended as branch manager to the Regional Director who concurs and sends to the Regional Head for approval. The Regional Head forwards to the Credit Unit for review. If the Unit is satisfied with the documents and processes, the Credit Unit recommends to the Head of Credits who upon further review forwards to the Executive Director for approval. After approval, offer letter is sent to the customer. The Legal Unit and Credit/Disbursement Unit confirm if the requirements and documentations are met in line with the approval. DW1 confirmed these facts when he stated under cross examination that </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">granting of loan involved several processes and that the Msec loan was recommended by the claimant but was approved by the Regional Director and Regional bank Head. Msec applied for the loan through the claimant as account officer, the application went to credit Unit who reviewed it and recommended to the approving officers for approval. DW1 also stated that if the credit unit did not recommend for approval, then the approving officer will not approve the loan. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The question therefore is whether merely recommending the loan is sufficient to put the blame on the claimant when the loans went bad. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">From the facts, recommendation by the claimant is not the end of the matter. The process went through other higher stages for review and scrutiny. If the other officers had been diligent in their functions or duties, the allegation that the claimant did not carry out KYC or due diligence should have been noticed and the loan refused. Rather, the loan process passed all stages until it was approved by the approving officer. The defendant has not given this court reason to believe its allegation that the claimant did not carry out due diligence or KYC before recommending the loans. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">I did state earlier that the defendant did not substantiate in this suit its allegation that the claimant did not observe due diligence in recommending the loans. DW1 has however stated under cross examination that the breach related to the collateral for the loan. He said t</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">he claimant deceived the bank by not disclosing material facts as to the collateral for the loan and that the claimant concealed facts relating to the shipping documents used as collateral. DW1 </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">failed however to tell the court what was the material facts on the shipping documents or the collateral that was not disclosed. Interestingly, the same witness stated further </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">under cross-examination that the collateral used for obtaining the loan by MSec was part of the documents that passed through the credit unit of the defendant to the approving authority and after scrutiny and review by the credit unit and the approving authority, the loan was approved. It is thus clear that the role of the claimant was limited to recommendation. The buck of the process was on the higher review and approving officers who had the responsibility to examine the documents and the claimants recommendation then refuse approval if necessary. In this situation, because the loans went bad, the claimant was made the scape goat. It is my view that the Credit Unit, </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Regional Director</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">, </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Regional Bank Head</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> and even the approving officer are not absolved from the alleged breach of process arising from the said loans which went bad.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language: HE">In any case, as at the time the claimant was dismissed, the said bad loans were restructured by the defendant to Chuddy Goodness Investment Ltd who was said to have introduced the companies to the defendant as customers and the outstanding sum of the loans were being recovered. The claimant said in his evidence that </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">between February 2012 and October 2012, he personally recovered the sum of <s>N</s>19,550,000.00 from the Msec Nig. Ltd account and the outstanding balance of the loans was restructured by agreement between the defendant and Chuddy Goodness into Chuddy Goodness Investment Ltd account. Chuddy Goodness has been able to remit the sum of <s>N</s>37,000,000.00, which include the balance of <s>N</s>10,450,000.00 from Msec, to the defendant while the Everfresh Ltd facility of <s>N</s>2,000,000.00 was fully recovered. It was while the recoveries were going on that he was dismissed. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE">What DW1 said under cross examination supports the claimant’s case. DW1 said that </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">the loan to Msec and other loans were restructured in Chuddy Goodness account as agreed between the defendant and Chuddy Goodness for the purpose of repaying the outstanding balance of Msec loan and the others. The claimant was on suspension during the restructuring and after the restructuring, the claimant paid money into Chuddy Goodness account to clear the Msec loan, and the Everfresh loan has been fully repaid. Chuddy Goodness too has paid substantial part of the loans as at the time of the claimant’s dismissal.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE">From this evidence, it is clear to me that arrangements were on ground to ensure the recovery of the outstanding loans and sums have been and were being recovered when the defendant dismissed the claimant. If by agreement of the defendant such arrangement was entered into, and which was yielding results, then what justification was there to dismiss the claimant? I think none.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">In </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">respect of the defendant’s allegation that the t</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">he claimant disclosed information in the customer’s account to Chuddy Goodness who is a third party, this has also not been proved. The defendant did not mention which customer’s account or what information from the account that was disclosed by the claimant. The circumstances which founded the defendant’s belief that the claimant disclosed a customer’s information to Chuddy Goodness was also not explained to this court. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The issue raised in relief (a) </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">sought by the claimant on the Complainant </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">is the justification of the defendant to have dismissed the claimant. The cause of dispute in this suit was the dismissal of the claimant vide the letter dated 17<sup>th</sup> May 2013. The letter is in evidence as Exhibit A. The reason for the claimant’s dismissal was stated in the 1<sup>st</sup> paragraph of the letter thus: <b><i>“</i></b></span><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">This is to advice that you have been dismissed from the service of the bank with immediate effect for gross misconduct.” </span></i></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">It is clear from this content of the dismissal letter that the claimant was dismissed for “gross misconduct”. It is trite that a</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">n employer has the right to dismiss or terminate the appointment of an employee with or without reason, but where the employer gives reason for dismissal, he must prove the reason at trial otherwise the dismissal will be considered wrongful. See </span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">SPRING BANK vs. BABATUNDE (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 609) 1191</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Although the dismissal of the claimant was on ground of gross misconduct, the dismissal letter did not mention the particular act of gross misconduct for which the claimant was dismissed. But in his evidence, DW1 stated that the claimant was dismissed by the defendant on the recommendation of the Regional Office Disciplinary Committee which sat on 2/5/2013. DW1 stated that t</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">he claimant was invited to appear before the said meeting of the Regional Office Disciplinary Committee but the claimant did not appear. The Committee proceeded in the absence of the claimant and established some misconduct against him. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The misconducts found against the claimant for which the </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Disciplinary Committee</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> recommended his dismissal are contained in paragraph 1.26 of the evidence of DW1 as follows: </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">“<i>a. A case of connivance was established against Tochukwu Okere (Claimant) and the customer Chuddy Goodness in compromising the credit portfolio of the Bank by using different names of the customer's relations to collect loans from the Bank that had all gone bad. <o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">b. Tochukwu Okere (Claimant) availed facilities to the customer Chuddy Goodness using different names knowing that the customer had no capacity to pay back the loans. He took undue advantage of the system and manipulated the bank.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> c. Tochukwu Okere (Claimant) used his subordinates Mercy Ebitigha and Olubukola Kuyoro to accomplish his aims even though Mercy Ebitigha and Olubukola Kuyoro benefited promotions from all the accounts opened. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">d. Tochukwu Okere (Claimant) deliberately did not appear before the Disciplinary Committee.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Consequently, the claimant was dismissed by the Defendant”. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">From the evidence of DW1, the above were the misconducts for which the Committee recommended the claimant’s dismissal and for which the claimant was dismissed. In paragraphs 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the statement of facts, the claimant pleaded that he never did any of the allegation leveled against him in the letter of dismissal and put the defendant to proof of the allegations for which he was dismissed. In paragraph 15 and 16 of the claimant’s reply to the statement of defence, the claimant also averred that he was not aware of the allegations for which he was dismissed because he was not in the meeting of 2/5/2013 as he was not invited. These pleadings of the claimant shift the burden on the defendant to justify the allegations for which the claimant was dismissed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">DW1, other than merely setting out the misconducts the Committee allegedly found against the claimant in its meeting of 2/5/2013, did not show this court facts or evidence to justify the findings of the Committee. An examination of the facts pleaded by the defendant in this case and the evidence of DW1 in this matter reveal that nothing is shown by the defendant to support the said findings of the Committee. It is also odd that the defendant failed to show the report of the Committee to this court. Under cross examination, DW1 who confirmed that </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">the Committee made recommendations after its deliberations, also stated that the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee is not before the court. The defendant has not been able to justify to this court the allegations of the Committee against the claimant for which the claimant was dismissed.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The defendant alleged that the claimant was invited to appear before the Regional Office Committee meeting of 2/5/2013 but the claimant did not appear. In paragraph 28 of its statement of defence, the defendant averred that where a member of staff fails to appear before a Disciplinary Committee after a formal notice has been sent to him, </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">the defendant’s policy is that the meeting shall proceed and the decision of the Committee shall be binding on the staff.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> The claimant averred in paragraphs 15 and 16 of his reply to the statement of defence that he was not invited to appear before the meeting of the Regional Office disciplinary Committee held on 2/5/2013. The claimant also said in his evidence that </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">no Regional Office Disciplinary Committee meeting of the defendant held on 2<sup>nd</sup> May 2013 and he was never invited to appear before such meeting. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">From the averments of the defendant on the said meeting of 2/5/2013, it is clear that it is only when the claimant has notice of the meeting that the meeting can proceed in his absence. It is also obvious that the claimant did not attend the meeting of 2/5/2013 which resulted in his dismissal. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The averment of the claimant has therefore cast a </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">burden on the defendant to prove that the claimant had notice of the meeting but deliberately refused to attend. Evidence from both parties is clear on the fact that the claimant was on suspension as at the date of the meeting. This is the more reason the defendant must establish its allegation that the claimant received invitation for the meeting. Upon a perusal of the defendant’s case however, I find that the defendant did not discharge the burden of proof. The defendant did not show the manner the claimant was communicated or invited nor is there evidence of the invitation. Evidence that the claimant received the invitation was also not shown to this court. In the result, there is nothing to show that the claimant had notice or was invited to the meeting. The implication is that the claimant was tried for the allegations for which he was dismissed in his absence. He was not afforded an opportunity to be present or to be heard. To top it all, the defendant could not justify the allegations on account of which the claimant was tried on 2/5/2015 and dismissed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">From all I have said so far, I find that the allegation of misconduct against the claimant in respect of the loans to </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">MSEC Nig. Ltd, Everfresh Ltd and the other accounts </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">was not established by the defendant. T</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">he claimant should not have been held responsible for the eventual turn out of the said loans.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> It is also my finding that the defendant could not also justify the allegations leveled against the claimant by the Regional Office Disciplinary Committee for which he was dismissed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Having found that the defendant was not justified in the dismissal of the claimant from employment, what is left is to consider the effect on the dismissal of the claimant. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The import of reliefs b and c sought by the claimant on the Complaint is that his dismissal should be declared </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">wrongful, unconstitutional, null and void and be </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">set aside. Let me mention that the claimant’s relief’s b and c have the tone of an employment with statutory flavour. A declaration that dismissal is </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">unconstitutional, null and void </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">and an order setting aside the letter of dismissal have the effect of reinstatement to employment or specific performance of the employment contract. Usually, this remedy is available to employment governed by statute. In his final written address, the learned counsel for the defendant submitted that </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">the employment of the Claimant was not governed by statute but an ordinary master and servant relationship. In which case the claimant’s dismissal, if found unjustified, can only be declared wrongful but not unconstitutional, null and void.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> In response to this issue, the claimant’s counsel submitted that </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">the claimants' employment with the defendant is statutory and pensionable and the facts pleaded in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the statement of facts go to show that the conditions of employment is statutory in nature. These submissions of counsels make the </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">determination of the nature of the claimant’s employment necessary. The nature of the claimant’s employment will also determine whether he is entitled to the reliefs he sought. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">It is a settled principle of law that where the terms and conditions of a contract of employment are specifically provided for by statute or regulations made there under, it is said to be an employment with statutory flavour or contract protected by statute. Where this is not the case, the employment will be that of master and servant. See<b> OLANIYAN vs. UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599; BAMGBOYE vs. UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN (2001) FWLR (Pt. 32) 12. </b>As a rule, the question whether a contract of employment is governed by statute or not depends on the construction of the contract itself or the relevant statute. In this case, the claimant pleaded in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the statement of facts that the defendant is a registered bank and he was employed by the defendant on 1/2/2008. The claimant’s employment letter, dated 13<sup>th</sup> December 2007, is in evidence as Exhibit A. It contains at its 2<sup>nd</sup> page that </span><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">“Your employment shall be governed by the company’s policies and procedures as contained in the UBA Employee handbook as may be amended from time to time.” </span></i></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">It is observed from this provision of the employment letter that the claimant’s employment was made subject to the defendant’s Employee Handbook. The said </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Employee </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Handbook is in evidence as Exhibit X.</span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">From the facts of the claimant’s case, t</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">he defendant is only a private organization and that it was not established by any Law or Statute. The defendant is not a statutory body. I have also examined the claimant’s employment letter and the Employee Handbook but I find that they do not have the character of an employment under statute. From my assessment of the nature of the claimant’s employment, I have no doubt that it has no statutory flavour but an employment of master and servant. Therefore, the claimant’s employment is that of master and servant and not one governed by statute. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Where the relationship is purely that of master and servant, as in this case, infraction of the terms of employment in the dismissal of the servant amounts merely to wrongful dismissal and not unconstitutional or null and void as the claimant would want this court to hold. In </span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">ESIEVWORE vs. NEPA (2002) FWLR (Pt. 124) 398 at 408, </span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">it was held that-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">“<b><i>Employment with statutory backing must be terminated in the way and manner prescribed by the relevant statute and any manner of termination inconsistent therewith is null and void and of no effect. But in other cases governed by only agreement of parties and not by statute, removal by way of termination of appointment or dismissal will be in the form agreed. Any other form connotes only wrongful termination or dismissal but not to declare such dismissal null and void.<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">See also </span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">BENIN ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY PLC. vs. MR. NAPOLEON ESEALUKA (2015) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1440) 411 at 437. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Furthermore, the claimant’s claim for a declaration that his dismissal is unconstitutional, null and void and an order to set aside the dismissal have the effect of pronouncing the continuance of the contract or re-instatement of the claimant or the specific performance of the contract.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> These remedies are not the appropriate remedies for wrongful dismissal or termination of master and servant employment. Since the e</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">mployer is entitled to terminate or dismiss his servant’s appointment for good or bad reason or for no reason at all, o</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">nce there is such a purported termination of the employment or dismissal, the law is settled that the court will rarely make an order that the employment still subsists or should be specifically performed. This is on the principle that the court cannot force a servant on an unwilling master. See <b>TEXACO NIG. PLC vs. KEHINDE (2002) FWLR (Pt. 94) 143 at 164</b>; <b>JIRGBAGH</b> <b>vs. U.B.N PLC (2000) FWLR (Pt. 26) 1790 at 1807; U.B.N LTD V. OGBOH (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 380) 647. </b>The point must also be emphasized that in master and servant relationship, once any of the parties have exercised his right under the contract to terminate the employment, whatever perceived defect exists in the manner of termination of the contract is irrelevant, the employment remains terminated. The Supreme Court made this point in <b>ESIEVWORE vs. NEPA (supra) at 408,</b> when it held that-</span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">“The principle is that where there has been a purported termination of a contract of service, a declaration to the effect that the contract still subsists will rarely be made.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Similarly, it was held in <b>IKHALE</b> <b>vs. FAAN (2003) FWLR (Pt. 181) 1726 at 1742 </b>that-<b> </b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">“I<i>t is the law that in ordinary cases of master and servant, a repudiation of the contract of employment by wrongful dismissal of the servant by the master puts an end to the contract</i></span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">”. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">In the result, I find only that the dismissal of the claimant from the defendant’s employment was wrongful. The dismissal is neither unconstitutional nor null and void. The order to set aside the letter of dismissal sought by the claimant cannot therefore be granted.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Since the claimant’s dismissal is found to be wrongful, the task at this point is to consider which of the other remedies or reliefs he is entitled to. In relief (d), the claimant sought the following claims, which he termed special and general damages: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">(i) The value of <u>unpaid emoluments</u> calculated at the rate of <s>N</s>7,200,000.00 <u>from the date of the dismissal to the date of final determination of this suit</u>. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">(ii) <s>N</s>220,000,000.00 being <u>special damages for loss of anticipated earnings </u>in the banking industry.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">(iii) <s>N</s>500,000,000.00 </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">being </span><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">general damages for wrongful dismissal</span></u><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Each of these claims will be examined to see if the claimant is entitled to any or all of them. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The claimant’s claim for t</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">he value of unpaid emoluments at <s>N</s>7,200,000.00 is stated to be from the date of his dismissal to the date of judgment in this suit. It is clear from the relief that the sum is supposed to cover his emoluments from the time of his dismissal to the date of judgment. Evidence in this matter is clear to the fact that the claimant is no longer in the defendant’s employment between the periods of dismissal to the date of judgment. The emolument sought by the claimant is for the period he was not in the defendant’s employment nor did he render any </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">service to the defendant within the period. Notwithstanding that the dismissal of the claimant was wrongful, the dismissal nonetheless put an end to the contract from the date of the dismissal. An employee, who has been dismissed, whether lawfully or otherwise, cannot claim for wages or be paid salaries for service he never rendered.<b> </b>The Supreme Court in <b>OBOT vs. CBN (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 310) 140</b> held that-</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">“<b><i>An employee dismissed in breach of his contract of employment cannot choose to treat the contract as subsisting and claim for salaries and entitlements he would have earned up to the end of the contractual period</i></b>”.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">See also <b>SPRING BANK vs. BABATUNDE (supra) 1205</b>. The claimant cannot be entitled to salaries for the period he was no longer in the employment. It is my view and I so hold that the claimant is not entitled to his claim for emoluments for period he was no longer in the defendant’s employment. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The principle of law on claim for anticipated earnings in employment contract has been stated by the Supreme Court in</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> <b>SHENA SECURITY CO. LTD vs. AFROPAK (NIG.) LTD (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 426) 1850-1851</b> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">as follows-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">"The damages recoverable usually in cases of wrongful dismissal/termination have well been pronounced upon by our courts in several decided cases. Such damages are said to be the losses reasonably foreseeable by the parties at the time of the contract as inevitably arising if one breaks faith with the other. <u>Certainly, they do not include or take account of speculative or sentimental values. The court in awarding damages will certainly not include compensation for injured feelings or the loss that may have been sustained from the fact that the employee having been dismissed makes it more difficult for him to obtain fresh employment”</u></span></i></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">This statement by the Supreme Court does not need elucidation. It has clearly explained that the claimant’s claim for anticipated earnings cannot be granted. Therefore, the sum of <s>N</s>220,000,000.00 claimed by the claimant for special damages for loss of anticipated earnings fails.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><u><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></u></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The claimant also claims the payment of <s>N</s>500,000,000.00 as general damages for his wrongful dismissal. In this case where it has been determined that the dismissal of the claimant was wrongful, </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">the defendant is liable to pay damages for breach of the contract. See <b>NEPA vs. ENYONG (SUPRA) at 474; CBN vs. ARCHIBONG (SUPRA) at 1047; ARINZE vs. FIRST BANK (2000) 1 NWLR (Pt. 639) 78</b>. However, the measure of damages to be awarded in contract of service cases for wrongful dismissal or termination of employment is the salary for the period of notice which the employer would have given as notice to terminate the employment and any other entitlement outstanding to the credit of the employee.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> See<b> ISIEVWORE vs. N.E.P.A. (supra); IFETA vs. S.P.D.C. (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 314) 305. </b>That being the position of the law, it appears to me therefore that t</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">he general damages sought by the claimant in this case is not one for damages for wrongful dismissal from employment but one for injuries he allegedly suffered as a result of the wrongful dismissal. Notwithstanding that the manner of the claimant’s dismissal was wrongful, the principle of law applicable in such situation is settled. An employee cannot be awarded general damages, in the nature sought by the claimant, in an action between him and his master. See <b>P.Z & CO. LTD vs. OGEDENGBE (1972) All NLR 206 at 210; PIONEER MILLING CO. LTD. vs. NANSING (2003) FWLR (Pt. 151) 1820 at 1827-1828. <o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Therefore, the sum sought by the claimant as general damages cannot be granted.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The damages the claimant is entitled to in this case is </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">limited to the amount he would have been earned over the period of notice and what other sum is due to him as terminal benefits. The claimant’s employment letter contain that after confirmation of employment, </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">one month notice or one month’s salary in lieu of notice shall be required to terminate the contract. That is to say</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> the </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">amount the claimant is entitled to as damages in this case is his</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> one month salary to be paid in lieu of notice. The claimant pleaded in paragraph 28 of his statement of facts that at the time of his dismissal, his salary per annum was <s>N</s>7,200,000.00. The claimant’s monthly salary will therefore be <s>N</s>600,000.00. This is the sum the claimant is entitled to as damages being one month salary in lieu of notice. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Let me also say that the pronouncement of this court that the claimant’s dismissal is not justified and the finding that the claimant is entitled to payment of salary in lieu of notice have the effect of conversion of the dismissal to termination. The defendant’s Staff Handbook, Exhibit X, provides at pages 64/65 that an employee whose employment has been terminated shall be entitled to receive benefits determined in line with the compensation policy. The claimant is consequently entitled to be paid terminal benefits or compensation accruing to him</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> as if the cessation of his employment was by way of termination.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">In the sum of this judgment and for the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby ordered as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo11"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">a.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The claimant’s relief (a) succeeds. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo11"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">b.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Relief (b) succeeds only to the extent that the claimant’s dismissal was wrongful. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo11"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">c.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Reliefs (c) and (d) fail. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo11"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">d.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">In the stead of reliefs (c) and (d) however, the sum of <b><s>N</s>600,000.00</b>, being the claimant’s one month salary in lieu of notice, is awarded to the claimant as damages for his wrongful dismissal. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo11"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">e.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The defendant is also ordered to forthwith compute and pay to the claimant whatever terminal benefits accrues to him on account of <b>termination</b> of his employment. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo11"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">f.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Cost of <b><s>N</s>200,000.00</b> is also awarded to the claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo11"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">g.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The defendant is hereby ordered to effect all the monetary payments ordered in (d), (e) and (f) above within 30 days from the date of this judgment, failing which it will begin to accrue an interest of 10% per annum until it is fully liquidated. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Judgment is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Judge<o:p></o:p></span></p>