Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Representation:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Comic Sans MS"">R. E. Aibangbee for the Claimant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Comic Sans MS"">J. D. Morka for the Defendant</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">JUDGMENT</span></u></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">This action was originally commenced by way of writ of summons filed at the Rivers State High Court on the 4<sup>th</sup> day of June 2009 before it was subsequently transferred to this court by an order of transfer made by His Lordship Hon. Justice B. A. Georgewill dated the 15<sup>th</sup> day of October 2012. By an amended complaint filed at the Registry of this court on the 18<sup>th</sup> day of November 2014, the Claimant claimed against the Defendant as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">A Declaration that the purported dismissal of the Claimant vide the Defendant’s letter dated 25/03/2009 from the employment of the Defendant was mala fide, unjustified, null and void and of no effect whatsoever and reinstating the Claimant as an employee of the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">An order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant all his salaries, entitlements and allowances from April 2009 until final judgment and continuing.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><s><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">N</span></s><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) as special, exemplary and aggravated damages for wrongful dismissal.<o:p></o:p></span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">The amended complaint was accompanied by</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> an affidavit in verification of the endorsement on the complaint, the Amended Statement of Facts and the Claimant’s Written Statement on Oath. The Claimant placed reliance on the earlier List of Witnesses, List of Documents and copies of the documents to be relied upon, which he had filed along with his Complaint on the 8<sup>th</sup> day of November 2013. The Claimant also filed a Reply to Statement of Defence on the 3<sup>rd</sup> day of December 2014. The Defendant had filed its Statement of Defence together with a List of Witnesses, the Witness Statement on Oath, List of Documents and copies of the documents to be relied on at the trial. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel for the Defendant on the 20<sup>th</sup> day of January filed a Motion wherein he sought to amend the Statement of Defence, for which leave was granted on the 15<sup>th</sup> day of July 2016.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">Hearing commenced on 2<sup>nd</sup> February 2015. The Claimant gave evidence for himself as CW1 while Mr. Joseph Abiodun Oluwatosin gave evidence for the Defendant as DW1. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">Hearing </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">was concluded on 12<sup>th</sup> November 2015 and parties were ordered to file their Final Written Addresses in accordance with the Rules of Court. Addresses were filed and regularized, and Counsels adopted their respective Addresses on 15<sup>th</sup> July 2016. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">In the Defendant’s final address</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> filed on 8<sup>th</sup> March 2016</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">, counsel identified one issue for determination, which is: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs as per his amended complaint and Statement of Facts. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Counsel submitted that in an action for wrongful termination, the primary duty of the trial court is to determine the nature of the Claimant’s employment in order to ascertain whether he is entitled to the reliefs sought. Counsel submitted further that in the extant case, the Claimant failed to lead evidence that the nature of his employment had statutory flavour or that it was protected by statute. In this regard, it is counsel’s argument that the court can conclude correctly that from the exhibits proving the Claimant’s employment that the employment in issue in this present case is a contract of service. On this note, counsel argued that in a contract of service, the primary document that the court needs to look at is the contract itself. See <b>OCEANIC BANK vs. UDUMEBRAYE (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 430) 769</b>. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">It is counsel’s contention that by Section 6(4), Part 2 of Exhibit B, the Defendant may dismiss an employee for act that amounts to serious misconduct. Counsel also referred to Section 6(4)(a) of the said Exhibit B, which reads as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Notwithstanding anything contained in this handbook, the company shall not be under obligation to give notice to a person found to be in breach of the company’s condition of service or rules and regulations for which reason he may be summarily dismissed from the employment of the company without notice. However, every employee is assured of a fair hearing before such disciplinary action is taken.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Section 6(4)(b) further states that any employee dismissed for serious misconduct will receive his salary up to the date of dismissal but all other benefits will be forfeited. It is counsel’s further submission, that from Exhibit B one of the grounds for serious misconduct upon which an employee may be dismissed is fraud. Furthermore, counsel submitted that from the evidence elicited during the cross examination of the Claimant on 16/2/2015, the pleadings of the Claimant that he was not given an opportunity to be heard before being dismissed, is not supported. Rather, it supports the Defendant’s case that the Claimant knew and understood the nature of allegations against him, and was given an opportunity to respond to same. Counsel submitted further that DW1’s evidence in this regard remains unshaken to the fact that the entire process of requisitioning the AGO began from the Claimant’s office and with the Claimant. More so, counsel is of the opinion, that the Claimant’s complaint that he was not given a copy of his indictment report is unnecessary in the face of his ability to give a 4-page response without sighting the report. Counsel submitted that by Paragraph 2 of Exhibit C2, the Claimant made a copious admission that he was fully aware of his indictment report. In his own words, he was given <i>“the opportunity to say all I know about the procurement of AGO/Lubricant from our supplier.”</i><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Thus, the Claimant was afforded fair hearing even if oral representation was not afforded. See <b>LAKE CHAD RESEARCH INSTITUTE vs. MOHAMMED (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 225) 40</b>. Counsel urged the court to hold that the Claimant was given fair hearing.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">It is counsel’s contention, that the Defendant called DW1, its internal auditor at the time of the Claimant’s fraud to prove its allegation against the Claimant. In doing so, Exhibits D1-D3 were tendered. Exhibit D2 shows the actual price per litre of Oando AGO at <s>N</s>116 (One Hundred and Sixteen Naira) while D3 shows the inflated price of <s>N</s>132 (One Hundred and Thirty-Two Naira). According to counsel, DW1 in his testimony averred that it was the sole responsibility of the Claimant to ascertain the price of AGO, a fact that was not rebutted in the Claimant’s evidence. On the other hand, counsel argued that the Claimant’s Reply to the Statement of Defence stated that there were instances where the ascertained prices were renegotiated by the Defendant’s commercial director. Counsel argued that by Section 136 of the Evidence Act it is the Claimant’s responsibility to prove the assertion and having failed to do so, the court is left with the only option of using Exhibit H as the tool to determine whether to believe the Claimant. See <b>SOLOMON vs. MONDAY (2014) LPELR 22811 CA</b> and <b>FASHEUN vs. ADEKOYA (1974) 6 SC 83</b>. At this juncture, counsel submitted that having shown that the Claimant’s Exhibit H supports the Defendant’s case, the court is bound to believe the Defendant to the effect that it was the sole responsibility of the Claimant to ascertain the price of AGO. Counsel argued further that Exhibit D2 shows that the Defendant was initially charged the sum of Three Million, Eight Hundred and Twenty-Eight Thousand Naira (<s>N</s>3,828,000.00) for 33,000 litres of Oando AGO at the rate of <s>N</s>116 per litre. Exhibit D3 charged the Defendant of <s>N</s>4,356,000.00 (Four Million, Three Hundred and Fifty-Six Thousand Naira) for the same 33,000 litres of AGO, thereby giving the defendant a loss of <s>N</s>528,000.00. Counsel submitted that the Claimant’s failure to provide a plausible explanation as to what caused the discrepancies between the two invoices, which resulted in huge avoidable losses for the Defendant can only lead the court to one conclusion: the Claimant was solely responsible for inflating the price from <s>N</s>116 to <s>N</s>132. Moreso, counsel submitted that owing to the fact that the Claimant was solely responsible for the process of requisitioning the price of AGO, he would still be found negligent and derelict in duty, an act which in itself is a misconduct that can form the basis of a dismissal. See item No.1 in Section 6(4)(b) of Part 7 Exhibit B. it is counsel’s submission that the Defendant was right to dismiss the Claimant. Counsel relied on the case of <b>EZE vs. SPRING BANK (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 60) 1076 at 1090</b> where it was held that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Gross misconduct is a conduct that is of a grave nature and character as to undermine the confidence which should exist between an employee and the employer. Also, working against the deep interest of the employer amounts to gross misconduct entitling the employer to summarily dismiss the employee. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Similarly, counsel urged the court to hold that the Defendant’s dismissal of the Claimant is proper, in light of the fact that the latter was dismissed for fraud, an act constituting serious misconduct. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">On the issue of reinstatement, counsel argued on the authority of <b>OSISANYA vs. AFRIBANK (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 360) 1460</b> that the court cannot impose a willing servant on an unwilling master. Counsel went further to argue that the relief of reinstatement can only avail an employee whose employment has statutory flavour. Counsel referred to the case of <b>FIRST BANK vs. BAM (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 59a) 1189</b> where the court held that an employer under a master/servant relationship has the right to hire and the right to fire at any time. Where the termination is wrongful, the remedy of the employee lies in damages and not reinstatement. See also <b>ADEFEMIWA vs. OSUN STATE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 456) 1860</b>. Counsel urged the court to hold that the Claimant is not entitled to reinstatement because his employment is not statutorily flavoured, and the Claimant has also failed to prove that he is entitled to the relief. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">With respect to the Claimant’s second and third reliefs; counsel referred to <b>OSISANYA vs. AFRIBANK (supra) at 1494</b> where it was held that the damages for wrongful termination is prima facie the amount the employee would have earned had the employment continued according to contract. Counsel argued that the Defendant in this case is not entitled to give the Claimant notice, and any of its employees dismissed because of serious misconduct will receive his salary up till the date of dismissal but shall forfeit all other entitlements. Furthermore, it is counsel’s opinion that the Claimant, having admitted under cross examination on 16/2/2015 that he was paid his salary up to March 2009, the claimant is not entitled to any other salary, benefit or entitlement as stated by the conditions of service which he consented to upon his employment. It is counsel’s submission that to hold otherwise would have the consequence of the court seeking to rewrite the terms of the contract of service between the parties to this suit, an act that the court lacks the jurisdiction to do. Counsel drew the court’s attention to <b>ATIFE vs. KABEL METAL NIG LTD (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 230) 667 at 677</b> where the Supreme Court held as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">In cases of ordinary contract of employment, where the terms provide a specific period of notice before termination of salary in lieu thereof, the only remedy available to the employee whose employment is wrongfully terminated, is the award of salary for the period of notice and other legitimate entitlements due to him at the time the employment was brought to an end…in such cases the award of damages is appropriate, nor is the employee entitled to reinstatement, the rationale being that no servant can be imposed by the court on an unwilling master or employer. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Also, counsel submitted that the Claimant failed to specifically plead and prove the special damages he sought for, a failure that makes him not entitled to the said special damages. See <b>SPDC vs. OKONEDO (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 308) 1104</b>. Counsel also argued that the Defendant has successfully proven that the Claimant’s employment was successfully terminated. Therefore, the claimant does not have any cause of action. See <b>SPDC vs. IFETA (2001) All FWLR (Pt. 80) 1614</b>. Counsel urged the court to hold that the Claimant has failed to prove his case on the preponderance of evidence and dismiss this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:8.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">In the Claimant’s final address filed on the 14<sup>th</sup> day of July 2016, counsel identified two issues for determination thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo4"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Whether the Claimant’s dismissal by the Defendant on the ground of fraud or commission of crime is proper and/or in accordance with the Defendant’s Condition of Service (contractual document guarding their relationship).<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo4"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">That in the event that the Honourable Court finds that the Claimant’s dismissal was in breach of the Condition of Service regulating their relationship and/or constitutionally guaranteed right of fair hearing, whether the Claimant is not entitled to all or substantial part of his claims.</span></i></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%; mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Counsel submitted that it is common ground between the parties that the Claimant was employed vide Exhibit A on 5<sup>th</sup> January 2005. As an admitted fact between both parties, it needs no further proof. See Section 123 of the Evidence Act 2011. Counsel submitted further that a Claimant alleging wrongful dismissal must show two points, which are:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo5"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Place before the court the terms of the contract of employment and therefrom;<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo5"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Prove to the satisfaction of the court in which manner the terms were breached by the employer in dismissing/terminating his employment.<o:p></o:p></span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Alternatively, counsel argued that the Claimant may also rely on the provisions of the constitution; which supersedes and nullifies the provisions of any contractual relationship in the event of conflict. Parties cannot by consent contract outside the law. </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Counsel referred to the case of </span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">NIGERIAN PRODUCE MARKETING BOARD vs. ADEWUMI (1972) 11 SC 111</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> where it was held that where there is a contract of service agreement, both parties are to be guided by the terms of such agreement, none of them can operate outside the terms and conditions. Counsel argued further that the court should not look outside the terms stipulated in the contract of service agreement. Counsel urged the court to hold that by Exhibit B, the Claimant has fulfilled the first requirement of the first issue as formulated above. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">On the second element, counsel contended that an employer has unfettered powers to dismiss/terminate his employee at will, with or without reason but the law demands that the employee be given opportunity to defend himself or be fairly heard. See <b>BABA vs. CIVIL AVIATION (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 515) ratio 6</b>. Similarly, counsel contended that an employer in dismissing/terminating the employee shall do so in strict compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract relationship, else it is bound to be pronounced wrongful by the Courts of Law. It is the further submission of counsel that when the employer and employee execute any employment contract, and any of the terms are inconsistent with or ultra vires the provisions of any existing law, such terms are to the extent of such inconsistency, void; and no claim or action can be predicated on it. Furthermore, counsel submitted that irrespective of the fact that an employment contract is the bedrock of a master/servant relationship; parties to a contract are not allowed by consent, act, omission, commission and/or ignorance to contract outside the law. See Sections 1(3) and 36(1) and (2) of the Constitution. Again, counsel submitted that in deciding on the propriety of the Claimant’s dismissal as contained in Exhibit D, counsel urged the court to place Exhibits D and D1 alongside the provisions of Section 36(1) and (2) of the Constitution, as well as the Claimant’s testimony that no query/warning was issued to him regarding the allegation of fraud levied by the Defendant. It is counsel’s opinion that the internal memo issued to the Claimant does not meet the requirements of a query. However, notwithstanding the lapses, the Claimant replied to the memo vide Exhibit C2 and was dismissed in spite of his reply detailing his involvement in the Defendant’s allegation. It is therefore the submission of counsel that the Claimant was not afforded fair hearing in accordance with the Defendant’s condition of service. And particularly in light of the fact that the report that indicted the Claimant, on which the Defendant relied heavily on in dismissing the Claimant was not attached to the memo. Similarly, counsel contended that the Claimant led evidence showing that the Defendant did not follow the disciplinary procedure laid down in its condition of service before the Claimant’s dismissal. Also, that the Claimant’s dismissal was discriminatory and done mala fide because the Claimant was not issued a warning or query as stipulated in the condition of service. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Further, counsel submitted that contrary to Section 6(4)(e) of the condition of service that provides that the power of dismissal rests with the operations manager or acting operations manager; the Claimant’s dismissal letter was by the Group General Manager. Thus, counsel argued that in so far as the dismissal letter was signed by a person other than the operations manager or acting operations manager; the Claimant’s dismissal is wrongful, null and void. See <b>MOMOH vs. CBN (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 359) 420</b>. Again, counsel argued that from the tenor of Exhibit B, fair hearing is contemplated by its Section 6. However, DW1 admitted under cross-examination that while Exhibit D1 was the pivot of the Claimant’s dismissal; the input of the Claimant was not gotten. Thus, in counsel’s opinion, the Claimant was denied fair hearing, and for the Defendant to dismiss the Claimant outside the provisions of the conditions of service, makes the Claimant’s dismissal wrongful. It is counsel’s further argument that Exhibit D1 admitted in evidence goes to no issue because same was admitted in error and ought to be expunged; in light of the fact that it was made by an interested party during the pendency of this suit. Another reason for counsel’s argument is derived from the fact that, counsel stated that the document frontloaded and attached to the Statement of Defence is not the same as Exhibit D1 in this case. The frontloaded document was not signed by the author, an unsigned document is worthless. Counsel argued further that if Exhibit D1 was existent at the commencement of this suit, it would have been frontloaded, thus the said Exhibit having been made during the pendency of this suit offends Section 83(3) and (4) of the Evidence Act. Counsel urged the court to expunge Exhibit D1, a situation that will crumble the defence to this suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Counsel submitted that Exhibits D2 and D3 are the same documents, which were made by the Defendant for the purpose of establishing a case of fraud/forgery against the Claimant. This is owing to the fact that the Defendant who is in custody of the original documents failed to tender same without giving credible reasons to the whereabouts of the originals; to enable the court compare the photocopies with the originals. Also, counsel stated that DW1 was unable to show that the authorizing signatures on these two exhibits were forgeries. Again, counsel submitted that putting in focus DW1’s admission that it is impossible to make payment to Oando without an invoice; the Defendant was unable to prove the manner and mode in which the Claimant’s fraud was perpetrated. Similarly, the invoices that were allegedly forged by the Claimant was not brought to the Claimant’s attention prior to his dismissal, it was not investigated to ascertain the complicity of the Claimant. With respect to the foregoing, counsel submitted that the Defendant has been unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Claimant forged Exhibits D2 and D3. See <b>OMODELE ASHABI EYA & ORS vs. ALHAJA RISIKATU OLOPADE & ANOR (2011) 5 SCNJ 98</b> and <b>OLUFUMISE vs. FALANA (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 136) 1</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Furthermore, counsel contended that the Defendant’s counsel wrongly equated the criminal offence of fraud with misconduct under Exhibit B. this is owing to the fact that both concepts are not synonymous and have different legal implications. In counsel’s opinion, where an allegation of the commission of a criminal offence has been made against an employee, and the employee has denied the crime, the employer is bound to satisfy the constitutional requirement by establishing the employee’s guilt according to law. See the cases of:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo6"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">SOFEKUN vs. AKINYEMI (1980) 5-7 SC 1<o:p></o:p></span></b></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo6"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">DENLOYE vs. M.D.P.D.C. (1968) 1 All NLR 306<o:p></o:p></span></b></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo6"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">EKPEROKUN vs. UNILAG (1986) 3 NWLR) Pt. 34) 162<o:p></o:p></span></b></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo6"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">OLATUNBOSUN vs. NISER (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 25<o:p></o:p></span></b></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo6"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">FCSC & 2 ORS vs. LAOYE (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 106) 652</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Similarly, counsel argued that the burden on the employer making an accusation of crime can only be discharged by proving the accusation of crime beyond reasonable before a court of competent jurisdiction. See <b>GARBA vs. UNIMAID (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 550</b>. Further, counsel relied on the case of <b>UNION BANK vs. SOARES (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt. 3112) 550</b> and submitted that the Defendant is required to give notice for the dismissal of the Claimant. Although, an employer is not bound to give reasons for terminating a contract of service, he must give reasons for a summary dismissal of an employee. The Defendant is also obliged to state reasons for terminating a contract of employment, where he gives one; the burden rests on the employer to establish that reason. See <b>GEORGE ABOMELI vs. NIGERIAN RAILWAY CORPORATION (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt. 372) 451 </b>and<b> UBA vs. ORANUBA (2014) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1390) 1</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">With respect to issue two, counsel submitted that the Claimant has proved his case on the preponderance of evidence, upon a review of Exhibits D1, D2, and D3 alongside Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution. Counsel submitted further that with Exhibits D1, D2, and D3 expunged, the court may easily conclude that Exhibit D was issued in bad faith and unsustainable especially in view of the fact that the Defendant did not deny or controvert the Claimant’s testimony that he was not brought before any panel and was not given an opportunity before he was dismissed on the allegation of the commission of the crime of fraud/forgery. Also, counsel argued that the formulation of the Defendant’s issue for determination is misleading because the crux of the instant suit is the propriety of the Claimant’s dismissal in light of the Defendant’s condition of service. Counsel argued further that the Defendant or its counsel is not allowed in law to use any means to alter the Claimant’s case/claim. See <b>ADESOKAN vs. ADGOROLU (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 293) 677</b>. Counsel is of the opinion that there is a big difference between termination and dismissal, and Section 6(4) of Exhibit B assures the employees of the Defendant fair hearing before any disciplinary action is taken. Counsel urged the court to take notice of the fact that fair hearing is a condition precedent before the Defendant can take steps to dismiss its employee. Counsel urged the court to discountenance all the Defendant’s arguments because admitted facts need no proof to the effect that DW1 never stated that the Claimant was solely responsible for procuring AGO as canvassed by the Defendant’s counsel. More so, the Claimant’s deposition that he was not accorded fair hearing was not contradicted by the Defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">In conclusion, counsel urged the court to hold that the Claimant has proved his claims and is entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> <b><u>COURT’S DECISION <o:p></o:p></u></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Before I proceed to determine this case, it is necessary to set out the facts of the case first. The facts of the Claimant’s case are that he was employed by the Defendant on 5<sup>th</sup> January 2005 as Deputy Technical Manager. In the course of his employment, he was issued an internal memorandum dated March 2009 requesting him to explain his role in a report concerning OANDO AGO/LUBRICANT for the period 01/01/2008 to 02/02/2009. The said memo was not signed by the operations manager or the acting operations manager and it does not qualify as a query stipulated in the Defendant’s condition of service. The memo was vague and no copy of the alleged report in which he was indicted was given to him. He did respond to the memo however in his reply to same dated 20<sup>th</sup> March 2009 and addressed to the GMD. He was not involved in the OANDO AGO/LUBRICANT fraud and there was no report indicting him in connection with the OANDO AGO/LUBRICANT issue. The Branch Internal Auditor, Group Internal Auditor, Chief Security Officer, Chief Accountant and the Branch Manager/Legal/Commercial Manager were all involved in the procurement of OANDO AGO/LUBRICANT. After his reply to the memo, he received a dismissal letter dated 25<sup>th</sup> March 2009 dismissing him from the Defendant’s employment. His dismissal was without regard to laid down procedure and without giving him opportunity to defend himself. He protested his dismissal through his solicitors’ letter dated 6<sup>th</sup> April 2009 but the defendant refused to reply the letter or review his dismissal. His dismissal is unjustified and was done malafide, for the reason that the alleged report indicting him was not made available to him and no prior warning was issued to him contrary to the condition of service. At the time of his dismissal, he was earning the following: basic salary- <s>N</s>261,760.00 per annum; housing allowance- <s>N</s>222,000 per annum; transport allowance- <s>N</s>261,000 per annum; responsibility allowance- <s>N</s>132,000 per annum; Entertainment allowance –<s>N</s>180,000 per annum; and ex-gratia allowance- <s>N</s>360,000 per annum. The Claimant then repeated what he claims against the Defendant in this suit to be the following:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">a.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> A Declaration that the purported dismissal of the Claimant vide the Defendant’s letter dated 25/03/2009 from the employment of the Defendant was mala fide, unjustified, null and void and of no effect whatsoever and reinstating the Claimant as an employee of the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">b.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">An order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant all his salaries, entitlements and allowances from April 2009 until final judgment and continuing.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">c.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><s><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">N</span></s><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) as special, exemplary and aggravated damages for wrongful dismissal.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In his further evidence, the Claimant stated that his dismissal was not done in compliance with the Defendant’s condition of service and that the internal memo was not a query. He was not given fair hearing as he was not invited to any disciplinary committee or a body set up by the Defendant to investigate the alleged fraud. Under cross examination, the Claimant stated that he was not queried before his dismissal. Only a memo in Exhibit C1 was written to him to explain his role in the OANDO AGO/LUBRICANT issue. He understood the allegation against him and he replied in Exhibit C2 wherein he explained himself. He was dismissed 5 days after his response was received and considered by the Defendant. The memo was signed by the GMD but in the condition of service, it is not the GMD that should sign. He was aware he was indicted in the OANDO AGO/LUBRICANT issue and the indictment was in respect of over-invoicing. He does not know who investigated the case. He was paid salary up to March 2009.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The Defendant’s side of the story was told this court by DW1 who said he is an employee of the Defendant as the </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">auditor. He admitted that the Claimant was an employee of the Defendant but was dismissed on 25<sup>th</sup> March 2009. The internal memo of 18/3/2009 requested for the Claimant’s explanation with respect to report on OANDO AGO/LUBRICANT for the period 01/01/2008 to 02/02/2009. The memo was signed and issued in accordance with standard company practice. The terms of the memo conveyed essentials of a query seeking explanation from the Claimant and to which the Claimant responded. The report on the OANDO AGO/LUBRICANT indicted the Claimant in the fraud that was why he was given the query. The Defendant dismissed the Claimant in due compliance with its rules, condition of service and the law; and the Claimant was also given opportunity to defend himself. The Claimant made representation in his defence through his reply to the query. The Claimant was aware of the case against him and he was afforded opportunity to make written representation. The Claimant was validly dismissed by the Defendant. Under cross examination, DW1 further explained that the audit report, Exhibit D1, was the basis for the Claimant’s dismissal. The exhibit already existed before the query in Exhibit C1 was issued to the Claimant, but he does not know if the report was attached when the query was given to the Claimant. DW1 also said that he carried out the reconciliation alone based on documents obtained from various departments. He did not call for the Claimant’s input, as there was no need for it. The Claimant was indicted in the report which report he forwarded to management. The Claimant’s dismissal letter was signed by the Group Managing Director.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Having heard the facts, and having also considered the submissions of the counsels to the parties in their final written addresses, I shall adopt the sole issue formulated by the Defendant’s counsel in his final written address in deciding this case. The issue is whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs he sought in this matter?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">It is now a settled principle in employment cases that the terms of the contract of service are the foundation or the basis for a claim for unlawful or wrongful termination or dismissal from employment. Therefore, where an employee is asking the court to declare his dismissal wrongful or null and void, the consideration of the claim is based on the terms of the employment. In other words, whether the claim will succeed or fail depends largely on the terms and conditions of the employment. It then behoves of the employee to bring his case on the terms of the condition of service which he must plead and prove, and also plead and prove the manner in which the terms and conditions of the contract were breached by the employer in his dismissal. See the cases of <b>UZONDU vs. U.B.N PLC (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 443) 1389; W.A.E.C vs. OSHIONEBO (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 370) 1501 at 1512</b> on these general principals. The Claimant’s grievances against his dismissal, as stated in his evidence are that his dismissal was done without regard to laid down procedure and without giving him opportunity to defend himself. He also said that the alleged report indicting him was not made available to him and no prior warning was issued to him contrary to the condition of service. He pleaded the condition of service in paragraph 5 of his amended statement of facts and contended that both the memorandum issued to him and the subsequent dismissal was not done in accordance with the condition of service. The said condition of service was tendered in evidence by the Claimant. The document is Exhibit B on record. When the Claimant’s case is considered wholly, he appears to found his case on the terms of the condition of service and also stated the specific non-compliances with the condition of service. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In its defence, the Defendant too agrees that there is a condition of service regulating the employment. The Defendant did not raise any issue or object to the fact that Exhibit B is that condition of service. According to the Defendant, the Claimant’s dismissal was done in due compliance with the rules and condition of service of the Defendant. In view of this dispute as to whether or not the terms of the condition of service was complied with in the Claimant’s dismissal, I shall consider the complaints of the Claimant in line with the provisions of the condition of service to see whether his dismissal can be faulted.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">First, let me itemize the issues he said were wrong with is dismissal. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo9"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Bookman Old Style", serif;">i.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The internal memorandum issued to him was not signed by the operations manager or the acting operations manager. <u><o:p></o:p></u></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo9"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Bookman Old Style", serif;">ii.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">No query was issued to him and the memo does not qualify as a query stipulated in the condition of service. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo9"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Bookman Old Style", serif;">iii.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The alleged report in which he was indicted was not made available to him and no prior warning was issued to him contrary to the condition of service.<u><o:p></o:p></u></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo9"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Bookman Old Style", serif;">iv.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">His dismissal was done without regard to laid down procedure. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo9"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Bookman Old Style", serif;">v.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">He was not given opportunity to defend himself.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">I have read the condition of service, that is Exhibit B, and I notice that the whole Section 6 of it contains the provisions for disciplinary process in the Defendant’s employment. Section 6 (4) </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">spelt out the procedure for dismissal. It contains the following:</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the handbook, the company shall not be under obligation to give notice to a person found to be in breach of the company’s condition of service or rules and regulations for which reason he may be summarily dismissed from the employment of the company without notice. However, every employee is assured of a fair hearing before such disciplinary action is taken.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(b) Examples of serious misconduct which might result in dismissal include:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:1.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">i.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Dereliction of duty<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:1.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">ii.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">disobedience or refusal to obey a reasonable order or <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:1.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent: .25in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">instruction <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:1.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">iii.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">theft or misappropriation of company or personal <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:1.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent: .25in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">property <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:1.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">iv.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">sleeping on duty<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:1.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">v.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">consuming or being under the influence of alcohol<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:1.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">vi.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Gross insubordination or disrespect to a superior <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:1.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">vii.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">injury to third parties or some other employees through <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:1.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent: .25in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">gross negligence, or conduct likely to cause such injury<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:1.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">viii.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">fighting on duty <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:1.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">ix.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">corruption or attempted corruption <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:1.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">x.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Malicious damage to or deliberate misuse of Company <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:1.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent: .25in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">property. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:1.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">xi.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Conviction of any criminal offence<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:1.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">xii.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> unauthorized and unjustified absence from duty <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:1.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">xiii.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Disloyalty <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:1.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">xiv.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Fraud <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:1.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">xv.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">False statement made on employment application or in official reports, whether written or oral <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:1.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">xvi.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Inciting or participating in either strike or ‘slow down’ action.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(c) The power of dismissal rests with the Operations Manager or Acting Operations Manager only<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(d) Any employee dismissed because of serious misconduct will receive his salary up to the date of dismissal. All other benefits of whatever nature shall be forfeited.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">As seen from Section 6 (4)a, once the Defendant finds that an employee is</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> in breach of the company’s condition of service or commits any of the misconducts in Section 6 (4)(b)</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">, the Defendant is entitled to summarily dismiss the employee without notice or any explanation to the employee. Thus, the Claimant’s allegation that he was not given report of his indictment or written any letter or given any warning is not supported by the condition of service. The Claimant also complained that he was not given any query. He said that the memo in Exhibit C1 does not qualify as query. Let me mention that issuance of query is not a requirement in the procedure for dismissal in the condition of service. Under the condition of service, the Defendant can dismiss summarily and it does not need to give any notice, query or prior warning to do that. Nonetheless, I think Exhibit C1 is a query. It reads-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent: .25in"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Internal Memorandum <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent: .25in"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">To: The Technical manager (Portharcourt0<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> From: The GMD<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> Date: 18<sup>th</sup> March 2009<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Subject: REPORT ON THE RECONCILIATION OF OANDO AGO/LUBRICANT FOR THE PERIOD 1/01/2008 T 2/02/2009<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;tab-stops:96.3pt"><b><i><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Management has received a report on the subject reconciliation which contains a damning indictment of the role you played in oando ago/lubricant purchase over the period under review.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Consequently, you are hereby required to give a written explanation before 20<sup>th</sup> March 2009 as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent: .25in"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Signed<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">BEN OKONKWO ATIAH</span></i></b><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">A query is a form of question expressing doubt about something or seeking for authoritative information. See the online version of Oxford Dictionary. Usually, the nature of query in employment relations alleges an offence against the employee and asks the employee for explanation to avoid disciplinary action. This was the terms of Exhibit C1. In my view, it is not a mere memo as the Claimant wants it to look like. By its contents, Exhibit C1 is a query. Although the Defendant was not required to issue query or warning before dismissing an employee, it actually did issue a query to the Claimant which the Claimant responded to before he was dismissed. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The only duty the Defendant is expected to discharge in Section 6 (4) (a) of the condition of service before dismissing an employee is to give the employee fair hearing. The question at this point is whether the Claimant was given fair hearing before he was dismissed? Although the Claimant said he was not given fair hearing nor given opportunity to defend himself, he did however say he was issued Exhibit C1 to explain his role in the OANDO AGO/LUBRICANT issue. The Claimant also said he submitted a response, which is Exhibit C2, to the query and it was after his reply to the query that he received the dismissal letter. Under cross examination, the Claimant told this court that he understood the allegation against him in Exhibit C1 and he replied in Exhibit C2 wherein he explained himself. He also said he was dismissed 5 days after his response was received and considered by the Defendant. On the other hand, the Defendant said the report on the OANDO AGO/LUBRICANT indicted the Claimant in the fraud, and that was why he was given the query. The Claimant was given opportunity to defend himself and he made representation in his defence through his reply to the query. The Defendant also averred that the Claimant was aware of the case against him and he was afforded an opportunity to make written representation. In master and servant employment, fair hearing is no more than disclosing the allegation to the employee and giving an opportunity to the employee to answer to the allegation. See <b>UZONDU vs. U.B.N PLC (supra) at 1399. </b> The principle was stated in <b>NATIONAL BANK OF NIGERIA vs. OMOTAYO (2002) FWLR (Pt. 114) 454 at 466, </b>thus<b>:</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“T<i>o satisfy the rule of natural justice and fair hearing, a person likely to be affected by a disciplinary proceeding must be given adequate notice of the allegation against him to enable him make a representation in his own defence</i></span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">”.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Further, at the same page of the report, the court commented thus- <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“In this case, the plaintiff was given fair hearing when the defendant issued him a query which was answered by the plaintiff/respondent before a decision was taken against him”</span></i></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Again, in <b>NEPA vs. ENYONG </b></span><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(2003) FWLR (Pt. 175) 452 </span></b><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">at 472</span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">, it was held as follows- <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“W<b><i>here an employee is confronted with an allegation of crime by the employer and the former is given an opportunity of explaining himself; then he cannot later turn around to say he was not given a fair hearing”</i></b> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Accordingly, it is clear that once the employee is confronted with the allegation and opportunity is given to him to react to same, the requirement of fair hearing is satisfied. In this case, the Claimant was given a query to explain his role in the OANDO AGO/LUBRICANT issue. He replied the query after which he was dismissed. The Claimant did say in his evidence that </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">he understood the allegation against him in Exhibit C1, and he replied in Exhibit C2, wherein he explained himself. He was dismissed 5 days after his response was received and considered by the Defendant. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">That is to say the Claimant was aware of the allegation against him, he was given opportunity to react to it and he did make a written representation in his defence. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In my view, the Defendant afforded the Claimant the level of fair hearing required in the condition of service before dismissing him.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Section 6(4)(c) of the condition of service provides that the power of dismissal rests with the Operations Manager or Acting Operations Manager only. In effect, apart from Operations Manager or Acting Operations Manager, no other person in the Defendant has power to dismiss staff. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The Claimant was dismissed vide Exhibit D dated 25/03/2009. The content of the letter is as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:4.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: .5in"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">25/03/2009<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Mr. Asemota A.A.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The Technical Manager,<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Brawal Shipping Nigeria Limited<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Onne Port,<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Portharcourt, Rivers State.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Dear Sir,<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">DISMISSAL</span></u></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Further to your response to the query of March 18, 2009, we wish to convey management’s decision to dismiss you from the service of the company with effect from March 25, 2009.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Please, handover before you leave the company’s premises, all properties of the company under your control, to the branch Manager.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">By a copy of this letter to the Chief Accountant, Audit and Group Internal Auditor and the IT Manager, they are requested to take necessary action.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Yours faithfully<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">BRAWAL SHIPPING NIGERIA LIMITED <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Signed:<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Ben Okonkwo-Atiah<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Group Managing Director.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The dismissal letter was signed by a person who stated his designation as “Group Managing Director”. The first paragraph of the dismissal letter explained that the Claimant’s dismissal was the decision of “management”. That is to say the Claimant was dismissed by “management” and the dismissal was communicated to the Claimant by the “Group Managing Director”. Now, the question is whether Management or GMD are the Operations Manager or Acting Operations Manager who have power to dismiss? In paragraph 5 of statement of facts, the Claimant referred to Exhibit C1 and said the person who signed it is not Operations Manager or Acting Operations Manager. Exhibit C1 was signed by Ben Okonkwo-Atiah. This is the same person who signed Exhibit D dismissal letter. What the Claimant is saying in effect is that Ben Okonkwo-Atiah is not<b><i> </i></b>Operations Manager or Acting Operations Manager. The Defendant, in paragraph 5 of its amended statement of defence, claims that Exhibit C1 was signed and issued in accordance with internal company standard but nowhere in its statement of defence did it mention that the person who signed Exhibit C1 or D is Operations Manager or Acting Operations Manager. DW1 confirmed under cross examination that the Claimant’s dismissal letter was signed by the Group Managing Director. The Defendant has not been heard to say that management who dismissed the Claimant or the GMD who signed the dismissal letter may have any correlation with the offices of Operations Manager or Acting Operations Manager. From the totality of the facts, it is clear to me that the GMD or management is different from Operations Manager or Acting Operations Manager. The implication is that the Claimant’s dismissal was not effected by the appropriate body recognized to do so under the condition of service. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">It actually occurred to me that “management”, being a description of the overall administrative and decision making body of a company, or the Group Managing Director of a company, have actual and implied power to discipline staff including power to dismiss erring staff. However, the law has clearly stated the implication of the agreed terms in a condition of service. That condition of service is what regulates the employment and its terms are binding on the parties. The duty of the court is only to interpret and apply the terms of the condition of service and cannot go outside the agreed terms and conditions. See </span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">NIGERIAN PRODUCE MARKETING BOARD vs. ADEWUMI (1972) 11 SC 111;</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">TEXACO NIG. PLC vs. KEHINDE (2002) FWLR (Pt. 94) 143. </span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In this case, I find that the Claimant was not dismissed by the authority given the power under the condition of service. The Claimant’s dismissal is therefore not in compliance with the condition of service on this account.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The Claimant pleaded in paragraph 14 of his amended statement of facts that his dismissal was unjustified. In relief 1, he sought the dismissal to be declared, among other, unjustified. Let me mention that the Defendant did not state the reason for dismissal in the dismissal letter. But it is clear from the facts that the dismissal was consequent on the OANDO AGO/LUBRICANT issue. From the facts explained by both parties on the incidence, I have no doubt that the Defendant had justification to have taken the disciplinary action against the Claimant. The audit carried out by the Defendant revealed that fraud was perpetrated within the period reviewed in the AGO/LUBRICANT purchases. The Claimant was involved in the procurement process of the commodity in the review period. The Claimant himself admitted under cross examination that he was indicted in the OANDO AGO/LUBRICANT issue and his indictment was for over-invoicing. It is settled principle in master and servant relationship that where an employee omits to do something or commits an act which is injurious to the business of his employer and is incompatible with the faithful discharge of his duties, it is justifiable for the employer to dismiss him. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">I</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">n the case of </span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">YUSUF vs. NATIONAL TEACHERS INSTITUTE (2002) FWLR (Pt. 129) 1509 at 1526,</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> it was held that-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“There are no fixed rules of law defining degree of misconduct which would justify a dismissal. It is enough that the conduct of the servant is of grave and weighty character as to undermine the confidence which would exist between him and master. Working against the deep interest of the employer clearly amounts to gross misconduct, entitling the employer to peremptorily dismiss the employee irrespective of the condition of service”. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">See also </span><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">EZE vs. SPRING BANK PLC (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 609) 1076 at 1090. </span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The Claimant’s allegation that his dismissal is not justified is pointless.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">From the foregoing, it is obvious that the dismissal of the Claimant was done by a person not recognised in the condition of service with power to dismiss. Thus, the dismissal letter did not emanate through a process known to the condition of service. On this ground, I find and hold that </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">the Defendant did not comply with the condition of service in the dismissal of the Claimant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">I shall </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">now consider the propriety or merit of the 1<sup>st</sup> claim sought by the Claimant. The Claimant’s 1<sup>st</sup> relief is seeking a declaration that his dismissal from the service of the Defendant is null and void and of no effect. In the same relief, the Claimant sought to be reinstated as an employee of the Defendant. Let me mention that a declaration that a dismissal is null and void and of no effect has the effect of setting aside the dismissal. Once a dismissal is set aside, the consequent order to follow is reinstatement. Perhaps, that is the reason the Claimant added an order for his reinstatement. Usually, this remedy is available to employment governed by statute. It is 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 is merely 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 paragraph 2 of the statement of facts that the Defendant is a registered limited liability company and he was employed by the Defendant vide the letter of employment dated 5<sup>th</sup> January 2005, which is in evidence as Exhibit A. The employment letter made reference to the Defendant’s condition of service. The Claimant pleaded the condition of service which is in evidence as Exhibit B.</span><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">From the facts of this case, t</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">he Defendant is only a private organization. It was not established in or by any law or Statute. I have also examined the Claimant’s employment letter and the condition of service but find that they do not have the character of 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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">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 null and void as the Claimant is seeking this court to declare. In </span><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">ESIEVWORE vs. NEPA (2002) FWLR (Pt. 124) 398 at 408, </span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">it was held that-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“<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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">See also </span><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Furthermore, the Claimant’s claim for a declaration that his dismissal is null and void and an order to reinstate him has the effect of seeking specific performance of the contract.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> Reinstatement or specific performance is not the appropriate remedy for wrongful dismissal or termination of master and servant employment. Since the e</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">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 vs. 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 was held that-</span><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">”. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In the result, I hold that the dismissal of the Claimant, although wrongful for non-compliance with the condition of service, is not null and void. The order for reinstatement sought by the Claimant cannot be granted.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Since it is found in this judgment that the Claimant’s dismissal did not comply with the terms of the condition of service, the dismissal is clearly wrongful. The Claimant has sought some other reliefs in consequence of the wrongfulness of his dismissal. In reliefs 2 and 3 of the amended statement of facts, the Claimant sought the following claims:</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><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: "Comic Sans MS";">i. An order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant all his salaries, entitlements and allowances from April 2009 until final judgment and continuing.<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: "Comic Sans MS";">ii. <s>N</s>50,000,000.00 as special, exemplary and aggravated damages for wrongful dismissal.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The claim for salaries, entitlements and allowances is stated to be from April 2009 until final judgment and beyond. The evidence given in this case, as well as in Exhibit D shows that the Claimant was dismissed from the Defendant’s employment with effect from 25<sup>th</sup> March 2009. That is to say from April 2009, the Claimant was no longer in the Defendant’s employment. When the Claimant was cross-examined by the Defendant’s counsel, he told this court that he was paid his salary for March 2009. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The salaries, allowances or entitlement sought by the Claimant is for period he was no longer in the Defendant’s employment and he did say he had rendered any </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">service to the Defendant from the date of dismissal to today. Notwithstanding that the dismissal of the Claimant was wrongful; the dismissal nonetheless puts 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-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“<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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">See also <b>SPRING BANK vs. BABATUNDE (supra) 1205</b>. The Claimant cannot be en</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">titled to salaries for the period he was no longer in the employment. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">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="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The Claimant also claims the payment of <s>N</s>50,000,000.00 as special, exemplary and aggravated damages for his wrongful dismissal. The Claimant did not plead or prove special, exemplary or aggravated damages. This claim fails. In any case, </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">where it is established that a servant’s employment has been terminated or dismissed wrongfully, the servant is entitled to damages. This is on the principle that equity does not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy. In this case</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> where it has been determined that the dismissal of the Claimant was wrongful, </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">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.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> See<b> ISIEVWORE vs. N.E.P.A. (supra); IFETA vs. S.P.D.C. (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 314) 305. </b>The effect of the pronouncement that the Claimant’s dismissal is wrongful is that the dismissal is converted to termination; since performance of the contract is no longer possible.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> Therefore, the damages the Claimant is entitled to in this case is </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">the amount he would have earned over the period of notice to lawfully terminate his employment. The Claimant’s employment letter contains that after probation, three </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">months’ notice in writing or three month’s salary in lieu of notice shall be required to terminate the contract. That is to say</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> the </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">amount the Claimant is entitled to as damages in this case is his</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> three months’ salary to be paid in lieu of notice. The Claimant pleaded his payslip in paragraph 15 of his amended statement of facts and also tendered his payslip for January 2009 in evidence as Exhibit F. The pay slip shows that the Claimant’s gross salary for the month of January 2009 was the sum of <s>N</s>124,000.00. In the absence of any contrary evidence from the Defendant, I will take this sum to be the Claimant’s monthly salary. The Claimant’s three months’ salary amounts to <s>N</s>372,000.00. This is the sum the Claimant is entitled to as damages for his wrongful dismissal. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In the sum of this judgment, save to say the Claimant’s dismissal was wrongful for non-compliance with the terms of the condition of service, all the reliefs sought by the Claimant fail. Notwithstanding, </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">since I found in this judgment that the Claimant is entitled to be paid </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">three month salary in lieu of notice as damages for his wrongful dismissal, I shall award this sum to him. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Section 14 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 empowers this court to grant such remedies which any of the parties may appear to be entitled to in respect of the claims brought before the Court so that all matters in dispute between the parties may be completely and finally determined. It is in exercise of this power that I hereby order the Defendant to pay the sum of <b><s>N</s>372.000.00</b> to the Claimant. Cost of <b><s>N</s>100,000.00</b> is also awarded in favour of the Claimant. The Defendant is ordered to pay these sums to the Claimant within 30 days from today, failing which it shall begin to attract interest at the rate of 10% per annum until fully paid. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Judgment is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 6pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 5pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Judge </span><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></u></p>