Download PDF
<p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">REPRESENTATION</span></u><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Mrs Tolulope Taiwo, with Miss Oluwatoyin Demuren, for the claimant.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Obafolahan Ojibara, with Miss Emem Umoh and Taofik Adeleke Esq, for the defendant.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">JUDGMENT</span></u><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">1. The claimant filed this action on 25th June 2014 vide a General Form of Complaint accompanied by the statement of fact, list of witness, witness written deposition, list of documents and copies of the documents. By the statement of fact, the claimant is claiming against the defendant the following reliefs –</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT">(i)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT">A </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">declaration that the resignation of the claimant by a letter dated 2nd December 2013 was involuntary and based on the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s directive thereby rendering the claimant redundant.</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:PT"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT">(ii)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT">A </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">declaration that the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s decision that the services of the claimant were no longer required as conveyed by both Mr. Aigboje Aig-Imoukhuede and Mr. Herbert Wigwe (the then Group Managing Director and the new Group Managing Director) at the meeting of the 29th November 2013 at the Group Managing Director’s office constitutes the declaration of redundancy of the claimant by the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant. </span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:PT"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT">(iii)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT">A </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">declaration that the defendant acted in bad faith when it claimed falsely that the claimant had resigned voluntarily and such action by the defendant is dishonest, unfair and unprofessional.</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:PT"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(iv)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">An order that the claimant having worked in the employment of the defendant for over 7 years is entitled to the sum of N11,068,750.07 as redundancy payment in accordance with the Bank’s Policy.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(v)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">An order that the claimant is entitled to the sum of N5,000,000.00 being 2013 year-end performance bonus because he earned it but the defendant willfully excluded the claimant from participating in the 2013 year-end appraisal even when the redundancy was to take effect from the 2nd March 2014.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(vi)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">An order that the claimant is entitled to the sum of N26.672.66 as interest charges wrongfully debited by the defendant on the status car even after same was collected back by the defendant on the 20th January 2014 long before the exit date of 2nd March 2014.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(vii)</span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">An order that the claimant is entitled to the sum of N150,000.00 being fuel allowance from December 2013 to the exit date of 2nd March 2014.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(viii)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">General damages in the sum of N20,000,000 for the anguish and injustice suffered by the claimant as a result of the sudden redundancy by the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(ix)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Interest on the j</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">udgment </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">debt at the rate of 21% per annum until liquidation thereof.</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">2. In reaction, the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> entered formal appearance and filed a statement of defence, list of witness, witness statement on oath, list of documents and copies of the documents, and praying this Court to dismiss all the reliefs of the claimant as set out in the claimant’s statement of facts. In response to the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s defence processes, the claimant filed on 5th March 2015 a reply to the statement of defence and a witness further written deposition on oath, which reply and further deposition are both dated 5th March 2015.</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">3. At the trial, parties indicated to the Court that save for relief (vi) in </span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: FR">Suits No. NICN/LA/288</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">/2014 (</span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Mr Joseph Egwuatu v. Access Bank</span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> Plc</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">) and NICN/LA/314/2014 (<i>Mr David Akporehe v. Access Bank Plc</i>), all the other reliefs are common in the instant case with those in the sister cases of Suits No. NICN/LA/288/2014 and NICN/LA/314/2014. In consequence, all the parties in the three suits agreed that the decision in the instant suit (NICN/LA/287/2014) shall abide the other sister cases. As for the relief on pension remittances (relief vi) in both NICN/LA/288/2014 and NICN/LA/314/2014, it was agreed that evidence shall be led respectively in that regard for purposes of determining the claimants’ entitlement to it. It needs to be noted that section 12(2)(a) of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Act 2006 permits this Court to “regulate its procedure and proceedings as it thinks fit”. Trial in the instant case then proceeded accordingly. The claimant in the instant suit, Charles Ogbease Ughele, testified as CW on his and the other claimants’ behalf. At the close of CW’s evidence, counsel to the claimant informed the Court that the witness who is to give evidence on the claim for pension remittances was not available as the witness’ son had a medical issue. Counsel to the claimants accordingly closed the case of the claimants to enable the defence open their case. In doing this, counsel to the claimants also abandoned the claims (relief vi in each case) relating to pension in Suits No. NICN/LA/288/2014 and NICN/LA/314/2014. The defendant accordingly opened its case, and Olakunle Olashore, who works for the defendant as Bank Manager in Human Resources Department, testified for the defendant as DW. At the close of trial, parties were asked to file and serve their respective written addresses starting with the defendant as per the then Order 19 Rule 13 of the NIC Rules 2007. This they did. The defendant’s written address is dated and filed on 2nd August 2016, while the claimant’s is dated and filed on 21st September 2016. The defendant’s reply on points of law is dated and filed on 8th December 2016.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">THE CLAIMANTS’ CASE</span></u><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">4. The case of the claimants in the three suits is that they are former employers of the defendant. Both Mr. Charles Ughele and Mr. Joseph Egwuatu were Assistant General Managers of the defendant Bank while Mr. David Akporehe was a Senior Manager with the defendant Bank until the defendant through the then outgoing Group Managing Director (GMD) and the incoming GMD, Mr. Aigboje AigImoukhuede and Mr. Herbert Wigwe respectively asked them to tender their resignation letters following a change in the management of the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant Bank.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> That on Thursday 28th November 2013 and 29th November 2013 Mr. Buwa Sagay, the Personal Assistant to the then GMD, Mr. Aigboje AigImoukhuede, informed the claimants and some other senior members of staff that the then GMD would like to meet with them in his office at 5.00pm the following day, 29th November 2013. To the claimants, as a matter of practice, the defendant Bank usually holds its Managers’ Meeting on the last Friday of every month, the 29th November 2013 being the last Friday in the month of November and so it was usual that the Manager’s meeting would hold on that day. That the Managers’ meeting usually commences at about 4pm but on the 29th November 2013, the Manager’s meeting commenced at 2pm and ended at about 4.30pm.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">5. The claimants went on that the usual practice with the Bank was that an employee of the Bank could resign at anytime or even anywhere in the world and such an employee could send in his/her resignation through the email to the Bank without necessarily being physically present at the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant Bank.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> Surprisingly, that at the Manager’s meeting of the 29th November 2013, the Human Resources Department presented a surprise change in the resignation procedure;</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:IT"> insist</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ing that henceforth resignation letters must be personally delivered to the Human Resources Department, with a threat that future employer reference would be withheld for non-compliance with the new resignation procedure. That after the Managers’ meeting on the 29th November 2013, the claimants went to the office of the GMD where they met other senior colleagues outside the office of the then GMD, Mr. Aigboje Aig Imoukhuede who were also invited for the same meeting with the outgoing GMD, Mr. Aigboje Aig-Imoukhuede, and the incoming GMD,</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> Mr. Herbert Wigwe.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> That one after the other the claimants and the other senior colleagues went into the office to meet both the outgoing and the incoming GMD; and the claimants and the other senior colleagues were separately informed by both the outgoing and incoming GMD that their services were no longer required because the incoming GMD was bringing a new team to work with him. Also, that the claimants and the other senior colleagues were asked to tender their resignation letters to the Human Resources Department and they were assured that all their entitlements would be paid in line with the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s policy.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">6. The claimants continued that after the meeting and on getting to their offices, the claimants discovered that they no longer had access to the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s computer network because they had been disabled from the Bank’s network. That based on the assurances of Mr. Aigboje Aig-Imoukhuede and Mr. Herbert Wigwe, the claimants and the other senior colleagues wrote their resignation letters and proceeded to the Human Resources Department to drop the letters; but to their dismay, the Head of Human Resource Department, Ms. Bolaji </span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">Agbede</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">, rejected the resignation letters as she insisted on her own wordings. That she demanded that any reference or hint about the meeting with the then outgoing and incoming GMD would not be accepted. The letters were, therefore, retyped before she received them. That the Head of Human Resources Department, Ms. Bolaji Agbede, told the claimants not to report to duty again and that payment in lieu of notice would in addition to their entitlements be paid by the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> To the claimants, even though the terminal dates conveyed to them were 1st March 2014 (for Mr. Joseph Egwuatu), 2nd March 2014 (for Mr. Charles Ughele) and 13th January 2014 (for Mr. David Akporehe), and despite this fact, the claimants were never invited for the appraisal session for the year ended December 2013 and immediately after the meeting with Mr. Aigboje Aig-Imoukhuede and Mr. Herbert Wigwe on the 29th November 2013, the defendant disabled the claimants’ access to the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s network so it was impossible for the claimants to be appraised.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">7. The claimant proceeded to state that after the meeting and the tendering of the resignation letters, they filled an Exit Form which clearly stated that the reason for their exit was involuntary and redundancy. The e</span><span lang="ES-TRAD" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:ES-TRAD">xit</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> form passed through all the Departments of the defendant Bank and it was duly acknowledged by the various Heads of Department and approved by an Executive Director of the Bank. That shortly after, the defendant reneged on its assurances and excluded their redundancy payment and entitlements which should have been based on the number of years that each of the claimants have worked for the defendant as stipulated in the Bank’s Staff Handbook 2013, referring to item 18.4 of page 46 of the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s Staff Handbook. To the claimants, they have worked meritoriously with the defendant for many years and have no reason to voluntarily resign their appointments from the Bank i.e. Mr. Charles Ughele worked with the defendant Bank for over 7 years, Mr. Joseph Egwuatu for over 5 years, and Mr. David Akporehe for over 3 years. Furthermore, that the claimants’ status vehicle were taken from them which were due to them as part of their benefits-in-kind while in the employment of the defendant. And that after the claimant (Mr. Charles Ughele) returned his car on the 20th January 2014, long before his terminal date of 2nd March 2014 as stated by the defendant in its letter of acceptance of the resignation dated 4th December 2013, the defendant debited the claimant’s account (Mr. Charles Ughe1e) in the sum of N35,672.66 as interest for lateness whereas the car was returned well before the exit date. Additionally, that one of the claimants (Mr. Charles Ughele) following his forced resignation could not submit the medical bills incurred by the year end 2013 as it was usually the practice but he subsequently did through his solicitors after he left the employment of the Bank. That the defendant subsequently paid all the medical bills incurred by him in 2013 even though they had been forced to resign in November 2013. The claimants accordingly filed the three suits claiming the reliefs they seek.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">THE DEFENDANT’S CASE</span></u><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">8. The d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s case in the instant suit is that the claimant, an Assistant Manager at the material time and for reasons best known to him, determined that he was unwilling to work for the defendant any longer, resigned his employment with the defendant vide his 021213 resignation letter. The defendant asserts that since it could no longer guarantee or secure the claimant’s loyalty, dedication and trustworthiness after he had shown his unwillingness to continue working for the Bank, it (upon receipt of the claimant’s 021213 resignation letter) in good faith and in line with its commitment to the highest ethical and moral standards, appropriately computed his entitlements, communicated same to him vide a letter dated 04 December 2013 (</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DE">“</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">041213 letter”) and made necessary payments thereafter, and relieved him of his obligation to give the Bank 3 months’ notice as required by the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s Staff Handbook. The defendant asserts further that there was never any invitation of the claimant by the erstwhile GMD and/or the current GMD of the defendant nor was there any meeting howsoever held between them or any other officer of the defendant and the claimant where the claimant was advised or forced to resign or any related discussion in that regard howsoever. The defendant maintains that by virtue of the claimant’s 021213 resignation letter to the defendant, the effective date of the claimant’s resignation as given by him was 02 December 2013 and the 021213 resignation letter became effective and binding upon delivery of same to the Human Resource Department of the defendant. Furthermore, it is the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s position that its Head of Human Resources never rejected the claimant’s 021213 resignation letter and did not dictate to him or force him to sign a doctored 021213 resignation letter. The d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s position is that the claimant was at liberty to fill whatever he wanted in his exit form and that reference to the words involuntary resignation is an afterthought by the claimant and designed to build up his case of being forced to resign. It is the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s position that at no point was the claimant declared redundant and the claimant cannot, therefore, be entitled howsoever to any benefit from the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s redundancy policy as stated in the Staff Handbook.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">9. It is also the defendant’s case that the claimant was not subject to any appraisal for the year or any appraisal benefit having resigned on 02 December 2013 which was before the end of the year under reference and that appraisal is traditionally carried out at the end of December. The defendant asserts further that issues of appraisal, staff performance ratings and the payment of performance bonus remain within the sole discretion of the defendant and not based on the employee’s rights. In summarizing the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s case on the issue of the status car, the defendant maintains that the claimant is not entitled to his status car as a benefit howsoever and the defendant did not at any time wrongfully debit the claimant’s account with the sum of N26,672.66 (Twenty-Six Thousand, Six Hundred and Seventy-Two Naira, Sixty-Six kobo). It is the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s position that the claimant’s ex-staff account was overdrawn as a result of his indebtedness before he returned his status car and the sum of N35,672.66 (Thirty-Five Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy-Two Naira, Sixty-Six Kobo) was debited from the claimant’s ex-staff account on 22 January 2014, being the interest for the 16 (sixteen) days the said account was in debit and the car was with the claimant. On the issue of fuel allowance, the defendant maintains that fuel allowance is paid together with salary and is for status car used during employment and since the claimant ceased coming to work from 29 November 2013, he cannot be paid fuel allowance for the months that he did not come to work.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSIONS</span></u><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">10. The defendant framed one issue for determination, which is “whether on the strength of pleadings and materials placed before this Honourable Court and in consideration of all the surrounding facts and circumstances, the claimants have proven on the preponderance of evidence, that they are entitled to all or any of the reliefs claimed in the instant Suit and the Sister Suits”; and answered in the negative. That the duty is on the claimant to prove his case, which he failed to do, citing sections 131(1) and 133(1) of the Evidence Act Cap E14, 2011 and <i>SCC (Nig.) Ltd v. Elemadu</i> [2005] 7 NWLR (Pt. 923) 28 at 63. In any vent, that a claimant would only succeed on the strength of its case and not on the weakness of the defence, referring to <i>Ukaegbu v. Nwololo</i> [2009]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: DE"> 3 NWLR (</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 1127) 194 at 230. The defendant then proceeded to consider each of the reliefs claimed by the claimant, although it considered reliefs (i) to (iv) together.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Involuntary Resignation and Redundancy (Reliefs i to iv)</span></u><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">11. The defendant asked two questions here: whether it was the defendant that compelled the claimant to resign his appointment and declared him redundant; and whether the claimant is entitled to redundancy payment. In addressing these issues, the defendant reproduced the content of Exhibits C2(a), C2(b) and D1, the claimant’s letter of resignation dated 02 December 2013. To the defendant, given the explicit contents of Exhibits C2(a), C2(b) and D1, it cannot be suggested that it was the defendant who compelled the claimant to resign and declared him redundant. That the claimant’s claims in his r</span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">eliefs </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">(i) to (iv) are all centered around and built upon this completely untenable and unsustainable allegation that the defendant compelled him to resign and declared him redundant. That the claimant wrote and signed Exhibits C2(a), C2(b) and D1 giving the effective date of his resignation as 02 December 2013. The defendant then submitted that documents when tendered and admitted speak for themselves and where the contents of the documents are clear and unambiguous, the Court should interpret them as such since documents are more reliable and authentic than words of mouth, referring to <i>Dawodu O. Majolagbe</i> [2001]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: DE"> 3 NWLR (</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 703) 234 at 243, <i>Aiki v. Idowu</i> [2006]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> 9 NWLR (</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 984) 47 at 65, <i>Otu & anor v. Ani & ors</i> [2013]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> LPELR-21405(CA)</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">, <i>Dalek Nigeria Ltd v. Oil Mineral Producing Area Development Commission (OMPADEC)</i> [2007] 7 NWLR (Pt. 1033) 402 and <i>Bolade David Oladapo v. Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc. & anor</i> [2014] LPELR-22449(CA). To the defendant, given these judicial pronouncements, by the explicit contents of the 021213 resignation letter, there can be no doubt that the claimant had indeed voluntarily resigned his employment with the defendant and the defendant could not have rejected the claimant’s resignation, hence the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s letter of acceptance dated 04 December 2013. That it is an established principle of law that an unwilling employee cannot be forced on a willing employer and vice versa, citing </span><i><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">Arinze v. First Bank (Nig.) Ltd</span></i><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">[2000] 1 NWLR (Pt. 639) 78 at 102. The defendant urged the Curt to note that the claimant signed Exhibits C2(a), C2(b) and D1 and he acknowledged same under cross-examination, citing also section 83(4) of the Evidence Act. Furthermore, that facts admitted need no further proof, referring to <i>Mr. Chinedu Ukachukwu & anor v. Mr. Sylvester Nkpado</i> [2012]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> LPELR-15421</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> and <i>Chief Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu v. Dr. Edwin Onwudiwe & ors</i> [1984] SC 15 at 88. The defendant then urged the Court not to veer from the contents of the claimants’ 021213 letter of resignation and hold that the claimant’s resignation was voluntary.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">12. To the defendant, it is instructive to highlight the fact that in resigning voluntarily from the employment of the defendant, the first paragraph of the claimant’s 021213 resignation letter states that “I hereby wish to tender my resignation from the service of the bank with effect from today” which was the 2nd of December 2013. That the claimant did not give the defendant the contractual 3 months’ notice as required of him by the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s Staff Handbook. That the defendant put the effective date of resignation as 04 December 2013 and gratuitously paid the claimant’s entitlements for the months of December 2013, January 2014, February 2014 and March 2014 without the claimant rendering any service howsoever for these periods. That the claimant kept mum on this undeserved payment received but which he did not work for, and is now making a claim for redundancy benefits which he is again not entitled to. On the nature of voluntary termination of employment by an employer or employee, the defendant referred to </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Riordan </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">v. The War Office</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [1959] 3 All ER 552 at 557 to 558 where Lord Diplock held a notice of voluntary termination to be a unilateral act requiring no acceptance by the other party, and once given cannot be withdrawn save by mutual consent. The defendant then urged the Court to hold that the claimant’s resignation was voluntary and did take effect on 04 December 2013 as the claimant willingly resigned his employment with the defendant and he was not compelled neither was he declared redundant by the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: FR">efendant. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">13. The defendant posed the question: what does the claimant offer in proof of the wild allegation that he was forced to resign? In answer, that the claimant asserts that 2 (two) meetings were held on 29 November 2013. The first meeting was the usual Managers’ meeting where the claimant alleged that the Human Resource Department presented a surprise change to the existing resignation procedure whilst the second meeting was of the claimant, the erstwhile GMD and the current GMD of the defendant where the claimant was advised to resign, referring to paragraphs 5 to 11 of CW’s deposition, all of which the defendant denied in paragraph 9 of DW’s deposition. Additionally, the defendant referred to the evidence of CW under cross-examination, which is to the effect that there was no letter from the defendant asking the claimant to resign as the directive to resign was verbal; other than the GMD and the incoming MD, there was no other person present when the verbal directive to resign was given; and a</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">s per paras. 6 and 7 of </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">CW’s sworn deposition of 25/6/2014, there are minutes of the Managers meeting but they are with the defendant, but no minutes in respect of the meeting with the GMD as per paras. 8 of CW’s deposition. The defendant went on that DW’s testimony as per paragraph 9 of DW’s deposition was not even impugned or contradicted by the claimant. The defendant then urged the Court to note the evidence of DW under cross-examination, which is that he is not aware of any meeting on November 29, 2013 between the claimants and the then GMD (Mr. Aigboje Aig-Imoukhuede) and the incoming GMD (Mr. Herbert Wigwe). the defendant the concluded that it cannot be said that the claimant has been able to establish that there was a meeting between the then GMD and the incoming GMD where he was advised to resign, citing in support sections 131(1) and 133(1) of the Evidence Act, <i>SCC (Nig.) Ltd v. Elemadu</i> (<i>supra</i>) and <i>Ukaegbu v. Nwololo</i> (<i>supra</i>). That the claimant has not tendered any call log to prove that the Personal Assistant of the then GMD called him on 28 November 2013, neither has the claimant tendered the minutes of the meeting held between the then GMD, the incoming GMD and himself to prove that there was actually a meeting where he was advised to resign his employment with the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant. T</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">hat the burden is on the claimant to prove that the alleged meeting was held and in the absence of any further evidence from the claimant, his allegation in this regard must fail.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">14. The defendant continued that there is another angle from which this issue of redundancy can be looked at. The claimant asserts that he was declared redundant by the defendant and entitled to the sum of N11,068,750.07 as redundancy payment. To the defendant, strangely the claimant did not tender any document to prove that the defendant declared him redundant; and it is a trite principle of law that he who asserts must prove, citing <i>SCC (Nig.) Ltd v. Elemadu</i> (<i>supra</i>). That given the totality of materials before this Court, there is no established case of redundancy., referring to section 20(3) of the Labour Act Cap. L1 LFN 2004, where “redundancy” is defined as “an involuntary and permanent loss of employment caused by an excess of manpower”. The defendant then submitted that there is no evidence before this Court to show that there was excess manpower, reorganisation within the defendant which would have caused the claimant’s voluntary resignation to be termed as “redundancy”, citing <i>PAN v. Oje</i> [1997] 11 NWLR (Pt. 530) 625, which interpreted the word “Redundancy” in terms of a mode of removing off an employee from service when his post is declared “</span><span lang="SV" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:SV">redundant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">” by his employer, but which is not a voluntary or forced retirement, not a dismissal from service, not a voluntary or forced resignation, and not a termination of appointment as is known in the public service; but it is a form unique only to its procedure where an employee is quietly and lawfully relieved of his post, and does not carry along with it any other benefit except those benefits enumerated by the terms of contract to be payable to an employee declared ‘</span><span lang="SV" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:SV">redundant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’. To the defendant, for an employee’s disengagement to be termed as redundancy, such employee must have been declared redundant by his employer, which is not the case in the instant suit. The defendant accordingly urged the Court to hold that the claimant having willfully resigned his employment cannot be said to be entitled to any form of redundancy payment as he was not declared redundant by the defendant in the first place.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">15. Finally on this issue, that the claimant is making a claim for a specific sum as redundancy payment. That this makes his claim in the nature or species of special damages which are not granted as a matter of course as the facts and particulars thereof must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved to entitle a claimant thereto. To the defendant, the claimant failed to plead or prove how he is entitled to the specific amount claimed as redundancy payment. That the claimant did not tender his statement of accounts or pay-slips and neither did he plead and prove the mathematical formula used to arrive at the said redundancy payment claimed. That the failure of the claimant to plead specifically this head of his claim for special damages and to consequently prove same is fatal to his claim and same should be refused, citing <i>ATE Co. Ltd v. Mil. Gov. of Ogun State</i> [2009]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> 15 NWLR (</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 1163) 26 at 51 - 52, which held special damages not to be a matter of hypothetical exercise or one to be left to conjecture; and <i>7UP Bottling Company Pl</i></span><i><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:NL">c v. Augustus</span></i><span lang="NL" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">[2012] LPELR-20873(CA), which held the claims for gratuity, pension, housing fund, salary up to 24th October, 2002 to</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT"> all</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> be special damages that must be particularized and strictly proved. That the claimant having failed to plead specifically his right to the redundancy payments and having also failed to give particulars of this claim for special damages, let alone strict proof of same, this head of his claim must fail as the Court cannot on its own hazard a guess or conduct an inquest or enquiry into how the claimant arrived at the special damages as it is the responsibility of the claimant to plead same in particular terms. The defendant then urged the Court to resolve these issues in its favour.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">16. The defendant then adopted all its arguments canvassed here in respect of r</span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: NL">eliefs </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(i) to (iv) of the instant suit for each of the sister suits and urged the Court similarly to dismiss the claimants’ suits in their entirety.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Performance Bonus (Relief v)</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">17. Relief (v) is for N5 Million being 2013 year-end performance bonus. To the defendant, since the claimant voluntarily resigned his employment with the defendant on 02 December 2013 before the commencement of the full year appraisal in December 2013, he is not entitled to this relief. The defendant referred to paragraphs 17 and 18 of the claimant’s deposition and evidence under cross-examination, to the effect that he received no invitation for appraisal for the year ended December 2013, he was not appraised for the said year, and that staff appraisal is done in arrears for work already done. The defendant’s reaction to this is paragraph 15 of DW’s deposition wherein DW testified that it is the practice of the defendant to commence the conduct of appraisal in the last month (December) of each year, the claimant resigned before the commencement of the full year appraisal and so could not be subject to any appraisal, and issues of appraisal, staff performance ratings and the payment of performance bonus or any other issues relating thereto are and remain within the sole discretion of the defendant and are not based on the employee’s rights. According to DW, “Bonuses were not paid to the claimants since they are not part of salary”. It is the submission of the defendant that payment of performance bonus is not a right but is discretionary and the claimant is not entitled to it, citing <i>Ajuwa v</i></span><i><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">. SPDCN Ltd</span></i><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">[2011]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> 18 NWLR (</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 1279) 797 at 829, which defined what discretion means.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">18. That assuming without conceding that performance bonus was not discretionary, the claimant's claim under this head must fail since he was no longer an employee of the defendant having voluntarily resigned his employment and, therefore, not subject to appraisal. That the claimant admitted that he was not appraised and this fact needs no further proof having been admitted by the claimant, referring to <i>Mr. Chinedu Ukachukwu & anor v. Mr. Sylvester Nkpado</i> (<i>supra</i>). That it is logical that if a person is not appraised, he cannot be paid any bonus. That in fact, an employee may even be appraised and not paid any bonus if the employer feels such employee does not deserve the discretionary payment. That it is well settled law that you cannot put something on nothing and expects it to stand, it will definitely collapse, citing </span><i><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: FR">Management Enterprises Ltd v. Otusanya</span></i><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">[1987]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> 2 NWLR (</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 55) 179 at 187.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">19. In closing on this point, it is the defendant’s submission that performance bonus just like redundancy payment is in the nature of special damages, which are not granted as a matter of course as the facts and particulars thereof must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved to entitle a claimant thereto. That the claimant in this case failed to plead or prove how he is entitled to the specific amount claimed as performance bonus. That the claimant did not tender his statement of accounts or pay-slips, neither did he plead and prove the mathematical formula used to arrive at the said performance bonus claimed. That this Court cannot, on its own, come up with an estimation of how the claimant arrived at the special damages as it is the responsibility of the claimant to plead same in particular terms, referring to <i>ATE Co. Ltd v. Mil. Gov. of Ogun State</i> (<i>supra</i>) and <i>7UP Bottling Company Plc v</i></span><i><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:NL">. Augustus</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> (<i>supra</i>). The defendant then urged the Court to dismiss relief (v) of this and the sister suits.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">Status Car (Relief vi)</span></u><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">20. Relief (vi) is for N26,672.66 being interest charges wrongfully debited by the defendant on the status car even after same was collected back by the defendant on the 20th January 2014 long before the exit date of 2nd March, 2014. It is the submission of the defendant that the claimant is not entitled to this relief, referring to paragraphs 22 and 23 of CW’s deposition and his testimony under cross-examination, which is that his letter of employment states that he is entitled to an official car while in the employment of the defendant as part of his benefits; but not so entitled at the point of disengagement. The defendant’s rebuttal evidence can be found in paragraphs 21 and 22 of DW’s deposition, which is that the claimant is not entitled to any vehicle as benefit howsoever; the claimant’s entitlements were stipulated in his letter of promotion dated 17 May 2013 when he was promoted from Senior Manager to an Assistant General Manager and the promotional letter does not include any benefits or entitlement to a car at the point of exit, in kind or howsoever. Also that the defendant did not at any time wrongfully debit the claimant’s account with the sum of N26,672.66 or any amount thereof. But DW is aware that the claimant’s ex-staff account was overdrawn as a result of his indebtedness before he returned his status car, which indebtedness was passed into the ex-staff account on the 06 January 2014 and the amount for the returned status car was debited on 22nd of January. That N35,672.66 was the interest for the 16 days the account was in debit. The defendant then referred to DW’s testimony under cross-examination acknowledging that the claimants were entitled to status cars. The argument of the defendant, however, is that the claimant voluntarily resigned his employment with the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">, and the letter of acceptance of resignation by the defendant, Exhibits C3 and D2, established the “</span><span lang="ES-TRAD" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:ES-TRAD">status car</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">” as “</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">Indebtedness</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">” and indicated the value of the car in case the claimant is willing to pay for same. That DW testified that the claimant was only entitled to the status car during his employment with the Bank; as such contrary to the claimant’s assertion, status car is not an entitlement as of right howsoever after the disengagement from the Bank.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">21. It is the further submission of the defendant that the claimant held on to his status car for 16 (sixteen) days without returning or indicating that he was interested in buying same. That the claimant eventually returned the status car but the interest for the period of time the car was in his possession amounting to N35,672.66 was debited from his account. That the claimant, as evidenced in paragraphs 22 and 23 of his deposition and Exhibit C5, has not denied that he held on to the status car. That this fact is deemed admitted and needs no further proof, citing <i>Mr. Chinedu Ukachukwu & anor v. Mr. Sylvester Nkpado</i> (<i>supra</i>). The defendant went on that assuming (though not conceding) that the claimant is entitled to the sum of N26,672.66 claimed, his statement of account, Exhibit D5, shows that it was N35,672.66 that was debited from his account not N26,672.66. To the defendant, the fact that there is a discrepancy in the amount the claimant is alleging and the amount that was debited from his account, Exhibit D5, establishes that this claim was fabricated and plucked from the air, citing </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Odi & 5 </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">o</span></i><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:IT">rs v. Iyala & 2 ors</span></i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">[2004]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> 8 NWLR (</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 875) 283 at 317, which held that where an issue is left in doubt so as to make the court speculate, the party on whom the proof rests will ultimately lose when the essential fact he relies becomes uncertain or in doubt as to its existence. Interestingly, that the claimant did not tender any document to prove that it was the said sum of N26,672.66 that was debited as interest charges. That he who asserts must prove, citing <i>SCC (Nig.) Ltd v</i></span><i><span lang="ES-TRAD" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:ES-TRAD">. Elemadu</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> (<i>supra</i>). That this Court would not act on speculations </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">viva voce</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> and grant any reliefs without proof, urging the Court to so hold and dismiss this relief sought by the claimant. That it is trite that speculation has no place in our Courts, citing <i>Odubeko v. Fowler</i> [1993] 7 NWLR (Pt. 380) 637 at 655. Additionally, the defendant submitted that this relief is in the nature of special damages and the claimant failed to plead and prove it. The defendant urged the Court to dismiss the relief in this case as well as the sister cases.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Pension Remittance (Reliefs vi of the Sister Suits)</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">22. The claim for his relief is only in Suit No. NICN/LA/288/2014 (<i>Mr. Joseph Oyekachi Egwuatu v. Access Bank Plc</i>) and </span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">Suit No. NICN/LA/314</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">/2014 (<i>Mr. David Akporehe v. Access Bank Plc</i>). To the defendant, referring to the proceedings of this Court of 10th March 2016. the claimants in these two cases withdrew their claims for pension, which was then struck out by this Court. That the claim remains deed and buried and so cannot be a live issue before the Court, citing <i>Osadim v. Taiwo</i> [2010]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> 6 NWLR (</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 1189) 155 at 181.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Fuel Allowance (Relief vii)</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">23. Relief (vii) is for N150,000 being fuel allowance from December 2013 to the exit date of 2nd March 2014. To the defendant, the claimant is not entitled to this relief given that he voluntarily resigned his employment with the defendant. That fuel allowance is paid for status car used during employment. Also that there is no pleading of facts relating to this relief, and the claimant did not lead evidence in its regard. On this sole basis, the defendant urged the Court to dismiss the relief as one cannot put something on nothing, referring to </span><i><span lang="PT" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT">UAC </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">v</span></i><i><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">. Macfoy</span></i><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">[1962] AC 152 at 160, <i>CCB Plc. v</i></span><i><span lang="DA" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DA">. Ekperi</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> (<i>supra</i>) and </span><i><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: FR">Management Enterprises Ltd </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">v, Otusanya</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> (<i>supra</i>). Once again, that this relief is in the nature of special damages and the claimant failed to plead and prove it. The defendant urged the Court to dismiss the relief in this suit as well as the sister suits.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">General damages and Interest on Judgment debt (Reliefs viii and ix)</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">24. Relief (viii) is for N20 Million being general damages for the anguish and injustice suffered by the claimant as a result of the sudden redundancy by the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">; and relief (ix) is for interest on the j</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">udgment </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">debt at the rate of 21 % per annum until liquidation thereof. Once again, the defendant submitted that the claimant is not entitled to these reliefs. That because these reliefs represent consequential reliefs sought by the claimant in this suit and the reliefs clearly derive their legitimacy, and are fully dependent on the success of r</span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: NL">eliefs </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(i) to (vii), the main reliefs in this s</span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">uit</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">, it follows, therefore, that where r</span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">eliefs </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(i) to (vii) fail, then r</span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: NL">eliefs </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(viii) and (</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT">ix</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">) fail automatically. That based on the defendant’s arguments under r</span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">eliefs </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">(i) to (vii), these two reliefs are clearly devoid of merit. That it would consequentially be impossible in law to grant r</span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">eliefs </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">(viii) and (</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT">ix</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">) sought by the claimant. Put differently, that these reliefs presuppose that the defendant is liable to the claimant in damages for compelling the claimant to resign and declaring him redundant when it was the claimant who voluntarily resigned his employment with the defendant and was paid all his entitlements. The defendant then referred the Court to <i>Awoniyi v. Reg. Trustees of Amore</i> [2000] 10 NWLR (Pt. 676) 522 at 539, which held a consequential order to be one founded on the claim of the successful party, and that it is difficult to conceive how a positive consequential order can arise from a claim which has been dismissed; and </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Hemason (Nigeria) Ltd v. Pedrotech (Nigeria) Ltd</span></i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">[1993] 3 NWLR (Pt.283) 548, which held that where a court refuses the principal order sought an incidental order cannot be made. The defendant then submitted that the claimant’s case (as well as the sister suits) lack merit and so should be dismissed in their entirety.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">CLAIMANT’S SUBMISSIONS</span></u><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">25. The claimant framed two issues for the determination of the Court, namely:</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(a)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Whether the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s decision that the services of the claimants were no longer required as conveyed to them by both Mr Aigboje Aig-Imoukhuede and Mr Herbert Wigwe (the then GMD and the new GMD respectively) and that the claimants should tender their resignation letters to the Bank constituted a declaration of redundancy of the claimants by the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: FR">efendant.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(b)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Whether the claimants proved their case as to be entitled to all the reliefs sought.</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">26. Regarding issue (a), the claimant submitted that the totality of the w</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">ritten </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">address of the defendant is misconceived and it is an attempt to mislead the Court, and that many of the authorities cited by the defendant in support of its case are not relevant to the case at hand. That to do justice in this case, the Court has to interpret particular provisions of the Access Bank Staff Handb</span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">ook </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">(Exhibit C1). That the provisions of the Handbook of the defendant Bank are not only binding on the claimants, but also on the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">, it being an agreement between the claimants and the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant. T</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">hat the provisions of the Handbook as it relates to all the parties must be obeyed to the latter, citing </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Jadesimi v. Egbe</span></i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">[2003] 10 NWLR (Pt. 827) 1 at </span><span lang="RU" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: RU"> 30 - 31</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">, <i>Hart v. TSKJ </i></span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Nigeria Ltd</span></i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">[1998]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> 12 NWLR (</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 578) 372 and </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:IT">Asuquo v. Eyo</span></i><span lang="IT" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">[2014] 5 NWLR (Pt. 1400) 247 at 266, which held that agreement voluntarily entered into must be honoured in good faith; for equity would not allow the law to be used as an engine to defraud. To the claimant, the basis of their claims is based on the provisions of the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: DE">s Hand</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">b</span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">ook</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">,</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR"> urg</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">ing the Court to look carefully at the provisions being relied upon by the claimants in order to arrive at a just decision in this matter. The claimant then reiterated that the claimants have proved the facts of being former employees, the fact of being called to a meeting on 29th November 2013 by the outgoing and incoming GMD, the fact that there was no other person at the meeting aside form the claimants and other senior officers of the Bank, the fact that the claimants were each told that the incoming GMD was coming with his own team and as such the services of the claimant and other senior officers were no longer needed, the fact that the outgoing and incoming GMD told the claimants to tender their resignation letters with assurances that all entitlements will be paid in line with policy, and the fact that two resignation letters were written to the defendant by each of the claimants with the first rejected by the Head of Human Resources who insisted on her own wordings. The claimant then submitted that the act of the defendant in directing the claimants to tender their resignation letters because the new GMD was coming with a new team constitutes an act of redundancy.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">27. In further proof of their case, the claimant referred to paragraphs 18.0 (dealing with leaving Access Bank), 18.4 and 18.5 of Exhibit C1, the Staff Handbook. Paragraph 18.4 provides for and defines redundancy as involuntary loss of employment i.e. the Bank no longer requires the services of the employee; if a members of staff cannot be placed in another position, he/she may be declared redundant. That paragraph 18.4 goes on to provide as follows: “Less than 5 (Five) Years - 75% of monthly salary for each year of service” and “Five (5) years and above - 1 month Salary for every completed year of service”. That p</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">aragraph 18.4</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> also defines the term salary as comprising the following items: basic salary, dressing, furniture, lunch, housing, utility, transport, entertainment and passage. Paragraph 18.4 ends with this provision: “The above payment shall be made without prejudice to the staff’s entitlement to notice or the equivalent of payment in lieu of notice”. Paragraph 18.5 on the other hand makes six provisions (in bullet points) relating to “Entitlement/Indebtedness”. The claimant quoted the first three of theses provisions, which are:</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:13.1pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-13.1pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-hansi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">•<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">HR shall conduct an exit interview with all exiting staff on voluntary disengagement to determine reason for resignation. The discussion will be documented in the Exit Interview Form, filed and action will be implemented in cases where valid issues are raised to improve the Bank’s business, operations, processes and systems.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:13.1pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-13.1pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-hansi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">•<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">The exiting staff shall be required to settle all indebtedness to Bank upon cessation of employment and return of all the Bank’s property in his/her possession immediately. In this regard, the staff shall download an Exit Clearance Form from employee central portal and shall obtain the sign-off of all relevant divisions/departments.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:13.1pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-13.1pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-hansi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">•<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">The Bank shall pay all entitlements due to the staff upon cessation of employment subject to confirmation that the exiting staff has met all its obligations to the Bank and met all staff exit requirements. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">The claimant referred the Court to the first bullet provision and then submitted that the phrase “to determine the reason for resignation” presupposes that when a member of staff is leaving the employment of the defendant, he is entitled to state in the exit form the reason(s) for his resignation not withstanding that it was the defendant Bank who asked him to go.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">28. The claimant went on to refer the Court to <i>Isheno v. Julius Berger (Nig) Plc</i> [2003] 4 NWLR (Pt. 840) 294 at 305 - 306, where it was held as follows:</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Redundancy is a form unique only to its procedure whereby an employee is quickly and lawfully relieved of his post. Such type of removal from office does not carry along with it any other benefit except those benefits enumerated by the terms of contract to be payable to an employee declared redundant. In the instant case, exhibit ‘J’ shows that the appellant was relieved of his appointment due to redundancy. By the terms of the contract, the respondent had an option to either retire the appellant or declare him redundant and it chose the latter option. The respondent did not therefore breach the contract. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">To the claimant, the claimants do not have a problem with being asked to leave the employment of the defendant once due process and the provisions of the Staff Handbook was followed to the letter. That looking at the provisions of paragraph 18.5, the word “</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">shall</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">” is used in all the paragraphs. This means that the defendant is compelled/mandated to adhere strictly to the terms and conditions of the Handb</span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">ook</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">, citing <i>Corporate Ideal Insurance Ltd v. Ajaokuta Steal Company Ltd</i> [2014] 7 NWLR (Pt. 1405) 165 at 193 on the use of the word “shall” in a statute. That the provisions of the Handbook (Exhibit C1) of the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">are clear and unambiguous,</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR"> urg</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ing the Court to so hold.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">29. The claimant continued that the defendant made a heavy whether of the fact that there was no meeting between the incoming and outgoing GMD and each of the claimants together with other senior members of staff that were asked to leave the employment of the Bank. That during c</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">ross</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">-examination when DW was asked if he was aware of the meeting with the outgoing and incoming GMD, he simply said that he not aware of any meeting on the 29th November, 2013 between the outgoing GMD, Mr. Aigboje Aig-Imoukhuede, and the incoming GMD,</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DE"> Mr. Herbert Wigwe</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">, and each of the claimants. To the claimant, it was never in the pleadings of the claimants or the case of the claimants that DW, Mr. Olakunle Olashore, was at the meeting. That the claimants’ witness was consistent when he said there was a meeting on the 29th November 2013 wherein some senior members of staff including the claimants were invited to a meeting with the incoming and outgoing GMD, referring to <i>Adejumo v. Olawaiye</i> [2014]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> 12 NWLR (P</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">t. 1421) 252 at 282, which held that not only are parties bound by the pleadings but averments in pleadings tried and tested by examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination establish a plaintiff’s case as well as the defendant’s. That there is no place in DW’s deposition on oath stating that he was informed by the incoming and outgoing GMD that there was no meeting on 29th November 2013 and that he verily believes them, referring to section 115(3) of the Evidence Act which provides as follows: “When a person deposes to his belief in any matter of fact, and his belief is derived from any source other than his own personal knowledge, he shall set forth explicitly the facts and circumstances forming the ground of his belief”. That it would have assisted the case of the defendant if either the incoming or the outgoing GMD was called as a witness of the Bank or if the witness in his w</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">ritten </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">deposition on oath had stated that the GMDs had informed him that there was no meeting and that he verily believed them.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">30. It is the further submission of the claimant that it is their pleadings that more than one resignation letters were tendered to the Head of Human Resource. The first resignation letters were rejected but the second resignation letters were accepted upon complying with the wordings of the Head of Human Resources, Ms. Bolaji Agbede. That DW informed the Court that he did not know who received the claimants’ resignation letters. To the claimant, he could not have been aware particularly when the claimants specifically mentioned that Ms. Bolaji Agbede received the resignation letters. That the only way the Court would believe that there was no meeting with the incoming and outgoing GMDs or that they did not submit letters to Ms. Agbede was for the defendant to have called the persons mentioned to testify. That the deliberate failure of the defendant to call these persons to testify shows clearly that the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s case is not true; had the defendant called these persons to testify before the Court, their testimonies would have assisted the Court in doing justice to this matter, referring to </span><i><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">Inwelegbu v. Ezeani & 2 </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ors</span></i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [1999] 2 NWLR (Pt. 630) 266 at 276 and <i>Audu v. Guta & anor</i> [2004] 4 NWLR (Pt. 864) 463 at 482 as well, as section 136(1) of the Evidence Act which provides as follows: “The burden of proof as to any fact lies on the person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person, but the burden may in the course of a case be shifted from one side to the other”. To the claimant, CW during trial and in the claimants’ statement of claim and reply to the statement of defence informed the Court that there was a meeting with the incoming and outgoing GMDs and that Ms. Bolaji Agbede only received the 2nd letter after complying with her wordings. That after the claimants have given sufficient evidence in support of the averments in the pleadings, the burden of proof shifts onto the defendant to prove the averments in its statement of d</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT">efence.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> That DW was neither at the meeting with the outgoing and incoming GMDs nor was he there when Ms. Bolaji Agbede received the resignation letters of the claimants.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">31. The claimant proceeded to submit that the defendant after rendering the claimants redundant paid the equivalent of 3 months salaries (earned December 2013 salaries, earned January 2014 salaries, earned February 2014 salary, including earned March 2014 salary) to Mr Charles Ughele and Mr. Joseph Egwuatu. That the defendant also paid “earned 2013 leave allowance”, “earned 2014 leave allowance”, “earned 2014 passage allowance” covering the required 3 months notice up until their exit dates of 2nd March 2014 and 1st March 2014 respectively, referring to Exhibit C3. That the defendant failed to comply with the provisions of Exhibit C1, the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">s Hand</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">book. That in the case of David Akporehe, 6 weeks’ salary was paid to him covering up to his exit date of 13th January 2014 because for his level he was required to give only 6 weeks’ notice of resignation to the Bank. To the claimant, the failure of the defendant to call either the incoming or outgoing GMD on the one hand (who the claimants clearly stated were at the meeting of 29th November 2013) and failure of the defendant to call Ms. Agbede, who the claimants clearly stated received their resignation letters and partook in the brazen manipulation of the process, is detrimental to the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s case, urging the Court to so hold.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">32. The claimant then </span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">refer</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">red the Court to paragraph 4(c) of the statement of defence and paragraph 8 of DW’s deposition on oath both of which state </span><i><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT">inter alia</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> as follows: “…the Bank could not guarantee or secure the claimant’s loyalty, dedication and trustworthiness and hence its decision to immediately pay him off”. To the claimant, this statement of DW is a clear admission that the exit of the claimants from the service of the defendant was at the instance of the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">,</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: FR"> urg</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ing the Court to so hold. That looking at the Exit Form (Exhibit C4) filled by all the claimants, the Court would see that the reasons ticked by the claimants as reasons for exiting the Bank was involuntary and redundancy. Furthermore, that on page two paragraph 1 of the Exit Form (Exhibit C4) the claimants stated that the reason for leaving the Bank was “a management decision, to create room for new people to work with the new Group Managing Director”. And on p</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DE">age </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">two paragraph 4 of the Exit Form (Exhibit C4) the claimant stated that what he found most frustrating about his stay in the defendant Bank was “Losing Job Despite V</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">isible </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Projects” accomplished. To the claimant, the Exit Form (Exhibit C4) passed through the various Departments of the Bank and it was also stamped and signed by the Head of each Department and approved by an Executive Director of the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant Bank. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">That the contents of the Exit Form would assist the Court in further doing justice in this matter, arguing that the claimants were cajoled by the incoming and outgoing GMDs that upon the tendering of the resignation letters all their entitlements would be paid in line with policy. The claimant then asked: If it is true that the claimants voluntarily resigned their appointment with the Bank, how come the Bank paid the claimants three (3) months’ salary each (for Mr. Charles Ughele and Mr. Joseph Egwuatu) and 6 (six) weeks salary in the case of Mr. David Akporehe? That the 1st paragraph of Exhibit C2(a) and C2(b) states as follows: </span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">“</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">I hereby wish to tender my notice of resignation from the services of the Bank with effect from today”. To the claimant, this paragraph presupposes that if the claimants’ (for example, Mr. Charles Ughele’s) resignation was to take effect from the 4th December 2013 when it was received by the Bank and the claimants having stopped work immediately, it was the claimants who were liable to pay the defendant payment in lieu of notice and not the defendant paying the claimants for three months/6 weeks for no work done when we all know that the defendant is a profit making organization and not a charitable organization. That during the c</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">ross-</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">examination of DW, he was asked why the Bank paid the claimants’ salaries up to the effective date of their resignation, and he simply said: “because they are entitled to their salaries up to 02 March 2014”; and when asked that in essence the Bank paid the claimants even when they had stopped working with the Bank, he said, yes. Furthermore, that the defendant paid the claimants their salaries up till their individual terminal dates in 2014 as well as </span><span lang="DA" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DA">Mr Charles Ughele</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s and Mr Joseph Egwuatu’</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">s pension</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">, which were remitted up to the terminal dates in 2014. That it is unreasonable for any organization to pay workers after the workers tendered their resignation letters to take effect immediately; the claimants would be liable to pay the Bank in the circumstance.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">33. It is also the submission of the claimant that DW during cross-examination admitted that the resignation procedure was changed at the Managers’ meeting of 29th November 2013 and that the new procedure was that any staff resigning from the Bank had to do it personally as opposed to the previous procedure which allows the staff to tender resignation letters through a third party or send it through the email from anywhere in the world. That the sudden change in the resignation procedure on the same day the claimants were asked to leave the Bank because their services were no longer required is not a coincidence,</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR"> urg</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">ing the Court to so hold. Furthermore, that when DW was asked if other members of staff of the defendant resigned about the same time with the claimants, he simply corroborated the claimants’ case that aside the 3 claimants, other 16 management staff and two Executive Directors also resigned their appointment with the Bank. That this too was not a coincidence particularly when it was corroborated by the DW,</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR"> urg</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ing the Court to so hold.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">34. The claimant then disagreed with the argument of the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s counsel that the employer specifically needs to pronounce the employee as being redundant before redundancy comes into effect. That the fact that the claimants have been informed by their employer that their services were no longer required because the incoming GMD was bringing his own team to work with him automatically makes the claimants r</span><span lang="SV" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:SV">edundant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">, referring to paragraph 10 of the statement of claim and paragraph 11 of the CW’s deposition and Exhibit C1, the Handb</span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">ook</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">, on the definition of redundancy. The claimant the asked: what other pronouncement do the claimants need? That if DW during cross examination said that he was not aware of any meeting with the incoming and outgoing GMDs, it only means that he couldn’t have been aware of what transpired at the meeting and in any case, the claimants never mentioned that DW was at the meeting. That DW was able to report what transpired at the Managers’ meeting of 29th November 2013 because he was at the meeting but same could not be said with regards to the 2nd meeting with the incoming and outgoing GMD because he was never invited to the said meeting.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">35. The claimant also disagreed with the submissions of the defendant that claims for redundancy is a species of a special damage. That the case of <i>7up Bottling Company Pl</i></span><i><span lang="NL" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:NL">c v. Agustus</span></i><span lang="NL" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">[2012] LPELR-203873(CA), heavily relied upon by the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s counsel, has no bearing with the present case given that the facts of the case are not on all fours with the present matter. First, that there is no claim for redundancy in the case being relied upon. The claims in the case had to do with claims for gratuity, pension, housing fund and salary. Secondly, that the claim for redundancy and the calculations thereto have already been spelt out in the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s Staff Handbook and it is not the duty of the Court to make its own estimate of same as the defence counsel would want this Court to believe. The claimant further disagreed with the submissions of the defence counsel that the claimant failed to specifically plead his right to redundancy payment let alone prove it. That the claimant did a thorough job by pleading properly the facts leading to his being rendered redundant and the claimant did a thorough job proving their case. That the defendant put into the witness box a witness who did not know what transpired at the 2nd meeting with the incoming and outgoing GMDs and what led to the claimants (and the other senior m</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">anagement </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">staff) tendering their resignation letters too,</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT"> refer</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">ring to paragraphs 10, 11 and 18 of the statement of claim. Continuing, the claimant submitted that the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s counsel made heavy weather of the resignation letters tendered by the claimants without putting into consideration the other surrounding facts/circumstances which prompted the claimants to drop their resignation letters. The claimant agreed with the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s counsel and as with case law that an employer reserves the right to hire and fire but where this is the case it must be done within the ambit of the law and in this case, the staff Handbook should be followed to the letter.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">36. To the claimant, instead of the defendant Bank to pay all the entitlements of the claimants in line with the Staff Handbook, they only chose to pay the claimants the equivalent of salary in lieu of notice and sought through manipulation to deny the claimants their due redundancy benefits, referring to paragraph 18.4 on the definition of salary in the Staff Handbook. The claimant then asked: Is it possible for nineteen (19) senior manageme</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">nt </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">staff and two (2) Executive Directors to voluntarily resign their employment the same day without new job? The claimant concluded by urging the Court to find and hold that the claimants, having been told to leave the employment of the defendant Bank because the incoming GMD was coming with his own team, the defendant rendered the claimants redundant and so the claimants are entitled to redundancy benefits as provide for in the Staff Handbook.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">37. Issue (b) is whether the claimants are entitled to all the reliefs sought. To the claimant, if issue (a) is resolved in favour of the claimants, then the claimants are entitled to all reliefs sought. That from the totality of the claims of the claimants, the evidence before the Court, the claimants are entitled to all the reliefs sought in this matter. The claimant the categorized all their claims into 5 and dealt with them accordingly.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Declaration of Redundancy (Reliefs i, ii, iii and iv)</span></u><u><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">38. Here, the claimant referred to all the arguments and submission canvassed under issue (a) and submitted that the resignation of the claimants was involuntary after being directed to tender same by the outgoing and incoming GMD because the incoming GMD was bringing a new team to work with him. That the actions of the defendant rendered the claimants redundant and, therefore, the claimants are entitled to redundancy payment and this ought to be paid in line with the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s staff Handb</span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">ook</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">, urging the Court to so hold.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Performance Bonus (Relief v)</span></u><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">39. The claimant submit they are entitled to this relief because it relates to the performance bonus for the year 2013 of which the defendant acknowledged that the claimant worked up till the 02/3/2014, referring to Exhibit C3. That if the defendant paid the claimants “earned salary” up on till 2nd March 2014, then the claimants in the absence of adverse report are entitled to the payment of performance bonus because they worked for the whole of 2013 and the performance bonus being asked for by the claimants is for the year 2013. Furthermore, the claimant disagreed with d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s argument that the claimants are not entitled to their bonuses after the Bank had paid the earned salaries up till the 2nd March 2014 and appraisal was usually conducted in the last month of the year. That it behooves on the defendant to have invited the claimants to participate in the appraisal exercise since they worked throughout the year 2013 and they earned salaries up till 2nd March 2014. Also that payment of bonuses is not discretionary. That the claimants are entitled to the performance bonus having been paid “earned salaries” up till the 2nd March 2014 and the fact that all the other employees within the Bank benefitted from the payment of bonuses. That the case relied upon by the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">i.e. <i>Ajuwa v</i></span><i><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">. SPDCN Ltd</span></i><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(<i>supra</i>) does not have any bearing with the present matter,</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR"> urg</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ing the Court to so hold by granting this relief in favour of the claimants.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Status Car and Fuel Allowance (Reliefs vi and vii)</span></u><u><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">40. The claimant submitted here that contrary to the arguments of the defence counsel there is no place in the reliefs sought in the writ of summons and statement of claim where the claimant stated that he wanted the Bank to give him the status car. It is the contention of the claimant that if he was paid his earned salary by the defendant up on till 2nd March 2014 then he was entitled to all the benefits accruable to his office as an Assistant General Manager at least up till 2nd March 2014. That though the amount stated by the claimant to have been deducted by the defendant in relation to the status car in the writ of summons and statement of claim was N26,672.66, it was subsequently detected that the amount due was actually N35,672.66. That this is a typographical error which was corrected in paragraph 19 of the reply to the statement of defence dated the 5th March 2015. That the typographical error that emanated was from the claimant’s counsel, which was subsequently corrected,</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR"> urg</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">ing the Court not to visit the sins of the counsel on the claimant, and referring to <i>Daniang v. Teachers Service Commission</i> [1996]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> 5 NWLR </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">(Pt. 446) 96 at 109 and <i>Bowaje v. Adediwura</i> [1976]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> 6 SC 143 </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">at 147. That the statement of account of the claimant is before the Court and the claimant has nothing to hide, referring to Exhibit D5. The claimant then urged the Court to to discountenance the arguments of the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s counsel and grant the reliefs as claimed by the claimant. Furthermore, the claimant disagreed with the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s counsel’s submission that this claim is in the nature of special damages particularly when the two parties, the defendant in its statement of defence and the claimant in his reply to the statement of defence, both agreed that the amount deducted from the claimant’s account was (N35,672.66) as against the sum of N26,672.66 earlier claimed by the claimant.</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">41. To the claimant, they are entitled to fuel allowance particularly when the defendant paid the claimants earned salaries for the months of December, January, February and March but decided to leave out the claimants’ entitlement on the fuel allowance. Referring to Exhibit D3, the claimant submitted that they were entitled to be paid the sum of N600,000.00 per annum (for Mr. Charles Ughele and Mr. Joseph Egwuatu) and the sum of N180,000.00 per annum for Mr. David Akporehe. That if the claimants’ salaries were paid up until the 2nd March 2014 then the claimants are entitled to the sum of N150,000 (for Mr. Charles Ughele and Mr. Joseph Egwuatu) and N45,000 (for Mr. David Akporehe) as payment for fuel allowance for the months of December, January and February. Once again, the claimant submitted that, contrary to the submissions of the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">, the claim for fuel allowance by the claimant is not a species of special damages, and that the Court is empowered to use and look at the document tendered before the Court, Exhibit D3, the claimant’</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">s promotion letter</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">, before arriving at a just decision.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Pension Remittance (Relief vi)</span></u><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">42. This claim relates only to Joseph Egwuatu and David Akporehe. To the claimant, while this matter was pending in this Court, the amount due on the pension of Mr. Joseph Egwuatu was remitted into his pension account and so the claim on the pension can no longer be sustained. That the claimant informed the defence counsel and Court on many occasions that the amount due on Mr. Joseph Egwuatu’s pension has been remitted into his pension account and he is no longer pursuing this claim. That as regards Mr. David Akporehe’s pension, though not paid by the defendant, the claimant (Mr. David Akporehe) through his counsel informed the Court that in order not to continue to waste any further time in the matter particularly when Mr. David Akporehe could not make it to the Court to prove the amount due on his pension on 13th May 2016, he would abandon the claim and the Court already ruled on the claim of David Akporehe as it relates to his pension as having been abandoned. The claimant accordingly wondered why the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s counsel decided to belabour the Court when the proceeding of the 13th May 2016 is already before the Court.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">General Damages and Interest on Judgment Sum (Reliefs viii and ix)</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">43. To the claimant, it is important in the interest of justice to grant the sum of N20 Million as general damages because the claimants are indeed entitled to the relief sought. That the damages suffered by the claimants cannot be quantified. That the claimants were suddenly asked to leave the employment of the defendant Bank without notice or payment of the entitlements due to them; as if that was not enough, the defendant lied about the circumstances of the claimants’ exit by claiming spurious “voluntary” resignations thereby inflicting more trauma to the claimants. That the foundation from the claim for damages can be gleaned in paragraphs 10, 11, 13, 16, 17 and 19 of the statement of claim where actions leading to these claims were pleaded. That having been able to established before this Court that the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s actions rendered the claimants redundant and that the claimants have not gotten any job since November 2013, the claimants are entitled to the claim for general damages and interest on j</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">udgment sum.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> Also that having not paid the claimants the amount due in line with the Handbook, the defendant is liable to the claimants for general damages and for the wrong committed by the defendant when it suddenly rendered the claimants redundant, lied about it and failed to pay the claimants’ entitlements, </span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">refer</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">ring to <i>Julius Berger (Nig.) Plc. v. Ogundehin</i> [2014] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1391) 388 at 429, which held general damages to cover losses which are not capable of exact quantification and includes financial loss (past and future); it needs not be specifically pleaded but some evidence of it is required covering the following heads: pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of expectation of life, future loss of earnings or earning capacity, and future expenses. The claimant then submitted that having suddenly been told to leave the employment of the Bank and the Bank having failed to pay all the entitlements due to them, the claimants are entitled to be paid for all the pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of expectation of life, future loss of earnings and future expenses, urging the Court to find and hold that the claimants are entitled to the sum of N20,000,000 each together with interest on the j</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">udgment sum.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> In conclusion, the claimants urged the Court to grant all the reliefs they claim in this case.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span lang="ES-TRAD" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:ES-TRAD">DEFENDANT</span></u><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’S REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW</span></u><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">44. In response to the issues raised by the claimant, the defendant reiterated that the claimant’s case lacks evidence and so has not been proved. That the claimant cannot take up for the paucity of evidence in establishing their case by seeking to introduce all manner of arguments in their f</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT">inal </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">w</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: DE">ritten </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">address in place of credible evidence as argument of counsel, no matter how brilliantly made, cannot be a substitute for credible evidence, citing <i>Okwejiminor v. Gbakeji</i> [2008]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> 5 NWLR (</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 1079) 172 at 222 - 223. That the claimants’ counsel made several attempts at introducing evidence in the claimants’ f</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT">inal </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">w</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: DE">ritten </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">address when no such pieces of evidence were proffered by the pleadings or at the trial of this suit. The defendant then proceeded to respond one after the other to the issues raised by the claimant in their written address; although what the defendant actually did was simply to rehash the stance it took in its final written address. I shall accordingly highlight only the very relevant response of the defendant that approximates to a reply on points of law.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">45. To the defendant, the submission of the claimant that they were called to a meeting on 29th November 2013 is untenable and unsustainable since the claimant did not call any other attendee of that meeting to give evidence or bring in evidence the minutes of the meeting. That the burden of proof is on the claimant as the defendant is not expected to prove the negative, citing section 134 of the Evidence Act, <i>SCC (Nig.) Ltd v.</i></span><i><span lang="ES-TRAD" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:ES-TRAD"> Elemadu</span></i><span lang="ES-TRAD" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">[2005] 7 NWLR (Pt. 923) 28 at 63 and <i>Nsefik v.</i></span><i><span lang="ES-TRAD" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:ES-TRAD"> Muna</span></i><span lang="ES-TRAD" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">[2007] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1 043) 502 at 514. That given the categorical denial of DW as the fact of the meeting, it is a case of the word of the claimant against that of DW, the claimant having failed to provide some form of corroborative evidence that such a meeting took place. On the issue of DW not indicating in his deposition that the incoming and outgoing DMG informed him that there was no meeting and he verily believes them, the defendant answered that only in affidavit evidence is this a requirement, referring to </span><i><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">Okpa v</span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">. Irek & anor</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [2012]</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR"> LPELR-8033(CA)</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">, which distinguished an affidavit evidence from a sworn deposition, and section 115(3) of the Evidence Act, which provides the contents of an affidavit, not witness statement on oath. That as far as a witness statement on oath goes, an averment such as the one required by the claimant would be a great violation of the rule against hearsay, referring to <i>Salisu v. Amusan</i> [2010]</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: FR"> LPELR-9103(CA)</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">, which defines hearsay evidence. In any case, that the claimant is merely trying to shift the burden of proof from them to the defendant by asserting that the defendant ought to have called the incoming or outgoing GMD as a witness. That the Court should note that a claimant would only succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence, citing <i>Ukaegbu v. Nwololo</i> [2009]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> 3 NWLR (</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 1127) 194 at 230. The defendant urged the Court to further note that in the cases of </span><i><span lang="NL" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:NL">Inwelegbu v</span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">. Ezeani & 2 ors</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [1999]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> 2 NWLR (</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 630) 266 at 276 and <i>Audu v.</i></span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT"> Guta & </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">anor</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [2004]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> 4 NWLR (</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 864) 463 at 482 cited by the claimants, it was the plaintiffs, not the defendant, whose cases failed because they could not put forward credible evidence.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">45. On the submission of the claimant that there were two letters of resignation, the first of which was rejected by the Head of Human Resources who insisted on her own wordings, the defendant replied that a comparison of the 2 (two) letters of resignation marked as Exhibits C(2)(a) and C(2)(b) shows that the contents are not materially different. That other than the words “notice of” before the word “resignation” handwritten in two points, no other difference exists. That there is nothing on the face of the letters that establishes or even remotely suggests that one letter was written voluntarily and the other dictated to and forced on the claimants. The defendant urged the Court to note the individual personal achievements of the claimants contained in the resignation letters and the content of the Exit Forms, a fact that shows that the defendant could not have dictated such to the claimants. To the defendant, the fact that the claimants failed to establish the involuntariness of their resignation, paragraphs 18.0 and 18.4 of the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s Staff Handbook relied on by them is inapplicable, urging the Court to so hold. After all, that if the defendant had compelled the claimants to write their letters of resignation as alleged, the defendant could as well have compelled them not to tick “involuntary” and “redundancy” in the Exit Forms. That this goes to show from a logical standpoint that the claimants voluntarily wrote their letters of resignation and voluntarily ticked “involuntary” and “redundancy” in their Exit Forms. That the claimants cannot argue compulsion in one breath and voluntariness in another. The defendant, however, conceded that it is bound by paragraph 18.5 of its Staff Handbook, but that it does not apply to the claimants and has no issues with the definition of redundancy in </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Isheno v</span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">. Julius Berger (Nig.) Plc</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> [2003]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DE"> 4 NWLR (</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 840) 294 at 305 - 306 nor with the definition of “</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DE">shall</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">” in <i>Corporate Ideal Insurance Ltd v. Ajaokuta Steal Company Ltd</i> [2014] 7 NWLR (Pt. 1405) 165 at 193 relied on by the claimants. The defendant urged the Court to note the galaxy of contradictions represented by the documents relied on by the claimants in the s</span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: NL">uits</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">; and then asked: How can the claimants who voluntarily resigned their appointment through letters of resignation that boastfully highlights all their achievements and admittedly signed by them, seek to rely on an Exit Form which indicates that the resignations were involuntary? That our superior Courts have roundly and consistently depreciated such an attitude by a witness, citing </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Odi & 5 ors v</span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">.</span></i><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:IT"> Iyala & 2 ors</span></i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">[2004]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> 8 NWLR (</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 875) 283 at 317.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">46. On the issue of having to pay the claimants salaries up to their terminal dates if they resigned voluntarily, the defendant reiterated that the claimants were asked to stop work immediately because the defendant could not guarantee their loyalty, dedication and trustworthiness for the duration of the notice period they gave and naturally paid their salaries in full since it was the defendant who asked them not to bother complying with the notice periods given. That the claimant did not deny this explanation in their reply nor did the claimant cross-examine DW on tis vital issue, submitting that uncontroverted evidence ought to be accepted by the Court as establishing the facts contained therein, referring to <i>Muomah v. Enterprise Bank Ltd</i> [2015] LPELR-24832(CA). In any case, that the notice period was entirely for the benefit of the defendant and the defendant could as well waive it, citing <i>Yesufu v.</i></span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT"> Governor Edo State</span></i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">[2001]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> 13 NWLR (</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 731) </span><span lang="DA" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DA">517 at 532</span><span lang="DA" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">- 533.</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">47. Regarding the issue of the defendant’s sudden change in resignation procedure, it is the defendant’s submission that it is at liberty to change the resignation procedure of its employees at any time it so chooses, referring to paragraph 3.4 of the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s Staff Handbook. Furthermore, that the issue of change in resignation procedure was not an issue before this Court neither was it part of the claimants’ reliefs,</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR"> urg</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ing the Court to discountenance all the claimants’ arguments thereon.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">48. On the issue of 16 other management staff and two Executive Directors resigning their appointment with the Bank, the defendant submitted that these persons are not before the Court, they were not called as witnesses, their letters of resignation are not before the Court and facts relating to them were not pleaded, citing <i>Okoro & Oo</i></span><i><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">rs v</span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">. Okoro</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [2009]</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR"> LPELR-8413(CA)</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">49. On the issue whether the claim for redundancy is</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT"> a specie</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">s of special damages and “the claims for redundancy and the calculations thereto have already been spelt out in the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s Staff Handb</span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">ook</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">”, the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> reiterated that first, a claimant who makes a claim for redundancy must establish by credible evidence that he was indeed declared redundant; second, it is not enough to state that the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s staff Handbook has clearly spelt out the redundancy without specifically pleading each claimant’s entitlements to his individual and different redundancy amount and tying the provisions of redundancy clause in the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s staff Handbook to the peculiar monetary claims of the claimants, referring to <i>ATE Co. Ltd v. Mil. Gov. of Ogun State</i> [2009]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> 15 NWLR (</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 1163) 26 and <i>7UP Bottling Company Plc v.</i></span><i><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL"> Augustus</span></i><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">[2012] LPELR-20873(CA).</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">50. On the claim for performance bonus, the defendant submitted that without any reference to any provision of the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s staff Handbook or the contracts of employment of the claimants that gives the claimants a right to performance bonus, their claims in this regard must fail. That the Court would not act on speculation and unsubstantiated claims.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Regarding the issue of status car and f</span><span lang="ES-TRAD" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:ES-TRAD">uel </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">allowance, the defendant submitted that the claimants have under this head tried to explain away the discrepancy in the amount claimed in respect of the deduction for the status car as a typographical error. That this is only an attempt to be clever by half. That typographical errors are easily corrected by amendments which the Courts have an almost unfettered discretion to grant; but the claimants never brought any application to amend this “typographical error” and have only now woken up in their f</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT">inal </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">w</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">ritten </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">address to wish away the mistake. That this is unconscionable. In any event, that errors in a statement of claim are not by law corrected in a reply. That one amends to correct the error in the statement of claim itself. That the law is trite that you cannot make out a new case in a reply and on a point as vital as the amount claimed by the claimants. The defendant then submitted that this Court is limited to the reliefs sought and the amount claimed by the claimants in their statements of claim; the reply cannot factor at all in the determination of the reliefs claimed by the claimants.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">51. On the issue of general damages and interest, the defendant submitted that damages can only be awarded where a claimant has proved by credible evidence that a defendant has breached a legal duty owed him, which the claimants in these suits have failed to prove,</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR"> urg</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">ing the Court to hold that the claimants are not entitled to the general damages and interest on the judgment sum they claimed. In conclusion, the defendant urged the Court to dismiss the suits of the claimants.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">COURT</span></u><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’</span></u><u><span lang="ES-TRAD" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:ES-TRAD">S DECISION</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">52. In considering the merit of this case, I need to reiterate that in consonance with section 12(2)(a) of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Act 2006, which permits this Court to “regulate its procedure and proceedings as it thinks fit”, and as agreed amongst all parties, the decision in the instant suit (NICN/LA/287/2014) shall abide the other sister cases of NICN/LA/288/2014 and NICN/LA/314/2014. Secondly, relief (vi) in each of Suits No. NICN/LA/288/2014 and NICN/LA/314/2014 was abandoned by counsel to the claimants. Relief (vi) in Suit No. NICN/LA/288/2014 is for “an order that the defendant should remit the total outstanding sum of N301,250.00 to the claimant’</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">s Pension Fund Administrator, Sigma Pensions</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">, unremitted for the months of July 2011 (N63,750.00); March 2012 (N118,750) and February 2014 (N118,750)”; while for Suit No. NICN/LA/314/2014, it is for “an order that the defendant should remit the outstanding sum of N72.500.00 to the claimant’s Pension Managers”. This Court cannot on its own get into the said reliefs (vi) to grant or even make comments thereon. See <i>Society Bic SA & ors v. Charzin Industries Ltd</i> [2014] LPELR-22256(SC). Relief (vi) in each of Suits No. NICN/LA/288/2014 and NICN/LA/314/2014 is accordingly dismissed.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">53. Given the reliefs claimed by the claimants, the issues before the Court are: whether the claimants’ resignation was involuntary; and as such the claimants were thereby rendered redundant as to be entitled to the payment for redundancy; and whether the claimants are entitled to be paid 2013 year-end performance bonus, interest charges debited on the status car, fuel allowance, general damages and interest on the judgment debt. Even where the claimants are entitled to the specific sums claimed as per reliefs (iv), (v), (vi), (vii) and (viii) as well as (ix), there is the issue whether these claims are claims for special damages, which has been proved according to law.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">54. The instrument by which the claimant in the instant case is said by the defendant to have resigned is Exhibit C2(a). The argument of the claimant is that he first wrote Exhibit C2(b), but the Head of Human Resource Department, Ms. Bolaji Agbede, of the defendant rejected it insisting that it has to be worded in the manner she dictated, which manner is reflected in Exhibit C2(a). The argument of the claimant in all of this is that the claimants did not resigned voluntarily. That they were forced by the defendant to resign; as such their resignation is involuntary. The oral testimony of CW is that the claimants were invited to meeting with the outgoing and incoming GMDs of the defendant, and at this meeting (which meeting held with each of the claimants), the claimants were asked to resign because the incoming GMD was coming with his team. The defendant denies this state of facts and so vehemently argued that the claimants voluntarily resigned; that nobody forced them to resign. To decide where the truth lies in all of this, I will need to look more closely at the evidence, both documentary and oral. I start with the oral testimony. The facts regarding all of this are pleaded in paragraphs 3 to 15 of the statement of facts; and the supporting depositions are to be found in paragraphs 4 to 16 of CW’s deposition of 25th June 2014. The oral evidence (as per the deposition and evidence under cross-examination) of the claimant is that he was verbally invited to a meeting with the outgoing and incoming GMDs where he was told to resign. The claimant is categorical that there was no other person at this meeting except the three persons listed.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">55. The defendant’s denial of this is in paragraphs 5 to 11 of its statement of defence as well as the supporting depositions in paragraphs 7 to 13 of DW’s deposition of 3rd December 2014. The defendant’s denial was given by Mr Olakunle Olashore (DW), who works for the defendant as Bank Manager in Human Resources Department. In paragraph 5(a) of the statement of defence, the defendant specifically pleaded that there was never any invitation to the claimant by the erstwhile GMD and/or the current GMD of the defendant nor was there any meeting between them or any other officer of the defendant and the claimant where the claimant was advised to resign or any related discussions in that regard howsoever. This is the pleading of the defendant. What is the evidence of the defendant as regards this averment? In paragraph 7 of DW’s deposition, DW testified that he knows as a fact that the claimant was not forced or compelled to resign, and the defendant or any of its officials did not in any manner whatsoever compel the claimant or any staff to resign. On the issue of the meeting with the GMDs, DW in paragraph 9 of his deposition testified that there was never any invitation to the claimant by the erstwhile GMD and or the current GMD of the defendant nor was there any meeting held between them or any other officer of the Bank and the claimant where the claimant was advised to resign or any related discussions in that matter howsoever. The argument of the counsel to the defendant is that this denial by DW is sufficient to make the word of the claimant to be one against that of the defendant; as such the claimant cannot be held to have proved his assertions that the claimants were invited to a meeting where they were verbally asked to resign thus making their resignation involuntary.</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">56. Now the law is that a matter can be proved by either oral or documentary (or both) evidence though documentary evidence is preferable. See <i>Vincent U. Egharevba v. Dr Orobor Osagie</i> [2009] LPELR-1044(SC). The burden of proof lies on the person asserting; in the instant case, on the claimant. Once a fact is proved, the burden then shifts to the defendant to show otherwise. The claimant’s evidence is that the claimants were verbally invited to a meeting and a meeting held with the outgoing and incoming GMDs, with no one else in attendance. Who is best placed to disprove this assertion? Is it a person who was said to be at the meeting, or someone (see paragraph 2 of DW’s deposition) who was not at the meeting but testified because he is in custody and have read and so is familiar with all the documents relating to this suit whether or not referred to in the witness statement? It should be noted how categorical DW was under paragraph 9 of his deposition that there was never an invitation of the claimants to a meeting and no meeting held. Under cross-examination, DW would change his testimony as follows: “I am not aware of any meeting on Nov. 29, 2013 between the claimants and the then Group MD (Mr Aigboje Aig-Imoukhuede) and the incoming Group MD (Mr Herbert Wigwe)”. The claimant’s categorical evidence is that he was verbally invited to a meeting and the meeting held with the outgoing and incoming GMDs. For the argument of the counsel to the defendant to hold ground that it is the word of the claimant against that of the defendant, the evidence of the defendant must be in equal stature and quality as that of the claimant. Only the outgoing or incoming GMD can testify orally denying what the claimant said before the denial argument of the defendant can hold sway. Someone (DW in the instant case) who was not at the meeting, who in one breath categorically said there was no invitation to a meeting and no meeting held but changed to say he is not aware of any meeting, cannot supply the quality of evidence needed to make the oral testimony of CW to be one of his word against that of the defendant. I have often lamented and cautioned employers for refusing to call as witnesses those who were actually involved in the facts leading to the dispute in issue. No doubt, an employer reserves the right to call whoever it wants as a witness. However, an employer who simply calls anyone to testify stands the risk that if the claimant’s testimony is more believable, that defence witness who was not involved in the facts leading to the case but is called as a witness, would end up an unbelievable witness. This is exactly the scenario playing out in the instant case. I believe the testimony of the claimant that they were invited to a meeting and the meeting held with the outgoing and incoming GMDs and that in that meeting they were asked to resign. The evidence of CW is more qualitative and believable than that of DW who was not said to be invited to the meeting as to be at the meeting, and who himself testified that he is not aware of any meeting held between the claimants and the GMDs.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">57. There is the additional evidence of Exhibits C2(a) and C2(b). Both exhibits are dated December 2, 2013. The defendant argues <i>inter alia</i> that there is not much difference between these two exhibits as to lead to the conclusion that the claimants were forced to resign. The difference, however, between the two exhibits is that the subject title of Exhibit C2(b) has “Notice of” inserted in handwriting before the words “Resignation of Appointment”; and in line one of the first paragraph, the words “notice of” are inserted between the words “my” and “resignation”. The insertion of these words by hand in Exhibit C2(b), according to the claimant, led to the words in Exhibit C2(a). Accordingly, the subject title of Exhibit C2(b) reads, “Notice of Resignation of Appointment”, and paragraph one reads, “I hereby wish to tender my notice of resignation from the service of the bank with effect from today”. Without the insertions, the subject title would have read, “Resignation of Appointment”; and the first paragraph would have read, “I hereby wish to tender my resignation from the service of the bank with effect from today”. Is there a difference in effect between these two wordings? The defendant thinks not. However, the wordings, “Resignation of Appointment” and “I hereby wish to tender my resignation from the service of the bank with effect from today” in the circumstances of this case have an urgency in them thus reinforcing the claimant’s assertion that they were compelled to resign. Resignation suggests something effective now, while a notice of resignation suggests something futuristic.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">58. Additionally, the resignation from service was to take effect “from today” meaning December 2, 2013, the date the letter was written. By the endorsement on Exhibit C2(a), the resignation letter was received by the defendant on December 4, 2013. The same date, December 4, 2013, the defendant wrote Exhibit C3 to the claimant acknowledging receipt of the letter of resignation and stating that management has accepted the claimant’s resignation effective December 04, 2013. It went on that the claimant should note that his “entitlement would be computed up to March 02, 2014 in line with the notice period slated in your resignation letter”. The details of the entitlement and indebtedness of the claimant were then listed out. Exhibit C3 concluded by stating that the Bank is constrained to close the claimant’s staff salary account upon disengagement due to the system configuration; and that a current account will be opened for him and the debit balance transferred there. Now, the claimant resigned from service from December 2, 2013, but the defendant in Exhibit C3 stated that the notice period indicated by the claimant in his resignation letter is March 2, 2014. This is falsehood, which the defence counsel sought to explain away as the right of the defendant to waive its own right. A falsehood such this cannot be an act of waiver. A waiver would acknowledge the right of the defendant which is being waived. In the instant case, Exhibit C3 falsely alluded to the claimant a date that he did not state in his resignation letter. The only rational explanation for this is that the defendant had made up its mind to have the claimants resign and so had all along planned to compensate them accordingly. Like the claimant submitted, the defendant is not a charitable organization but one set up for profit. How then can such an organization dole out money when, if the claimants had voluntarily resigned with immediate effect (for that is what resigning with effect from today signifies), the claimants would have been the ones to pay the defendant salary in lieu of notice? On this score, the evidence and submission of the claimant are more believable and sustainable.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">59. The claimant did not leave anyone in doubt that he resigned involuntarily. Exhibit C4 (same as Exhibit D4) is the Exit Form. Against the reasons for exit, the claimant ticked “redundancy” under “involuntary”; and under question 1 at page 2, to the question, “What are your primary reason(s) for leaving?”, the claimant answered, “Management decision to create room for new people to work with new GM”. This entry is pretty clear that the reason for leaving stems from management decision. I am satisfied and convinced with the evidence of the claimant that they were forced to resign; and I so find and hold. In any event, this Court, in <i>Miss Ebere Ukoji v. Standard Alliance Life Assurance Co. Ltd</i> [2014] 47 NLLR (Pt. 154) 531 NIC and <i>Mr. Patrick Obiora Modilim v. United Bank for Africa Plc</i> unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/353/2012 the judgment of which was given on 19th June 2014, held that to attempt to have the employee resign, rather than outright firing the employee means that the employer is trying to create a constructive discharge and for which a case of constructive dismissal is made. I do not see any difference between the instant case and <i>Miss Ukoji</i> and <i>Modilim</i>. Accordingly, it is my finding and holding that the claimants were invited to a meeting and in that meeting were asked to resign their appointments. Their resignation from the service of the defendant was, therefore, involuntary. I so hold. Relief (i) in part is accordingly grantable; and I so hold.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">60. Having held that the claimant’s resignation was involuntary, did it thereby render the claimants redundant? To answer this question, we must look at the conditions of service of the claimants. Exhibit C1 (same as Exhibit D8), the <i>Access Bank Plc Staff Handbook, 2013</i> (Staff Handbook or Handbook, for short), contains amongst others the terms and conditions of employment and policies of the Bank, which are applicable to all staff including the claimants. Clause 18.4 of Exhibit C1 provides under “Redundancy” as follows:</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Redundancy mean the involuntary loss of employment (i.e. the bank no longer require the services of the employee. If a member of staff cannot be placed in another position he/she may be declared redundant.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">By this definition, redundancy means involuntary loss of employment where the bank no longer requires the services of the employee. This is what the defendant laid down as a policy and a condition of employment between it and the employees. The defendant cannot place reliance on section 20(3) of the Labour Act Cap. L1 LFN 2014, which placed reliance on excess manpower. The parties are bound by clause 18.4, which does not require the existence of excess manpower before an employee becomes redundant. So, having held that the resignation of the claimants was involuntary, it means that they come within the definition of “redundancy” under clause 18.4 of Exhibit C1. The claimants accordingly were rendered redundant by the defendant. I so find and hold. The second part of relief (i) and relief (ii) are, therefore, grantable. Relief (iii) is hinged on bad faith. Evidence of malice on the part of the defendant was not proved. Relief (iii) cannot, therefore be granted. It is accordingly dismissed.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">61. The remainder of the reliefs claimed by the claimants are monetary claims. Relief (iv) is for a sum representing redundancy payment; relief (v) is for a sum representing performance bonus; relief (vi) is for refund of interest charges wrongfully debited on status car; and relief (vii) is for fuel allowance. Reliefs (viii) and (ix) are respectively for general damages and interest on the judgment debt. In effect, while relief (ix) depends on the success of reliefs (iv) to (vii), relief (viii) is hedged on the success of the case as a whole. I shall accordingly first consider the claim for reliefs (iv) to (vii); and there are two components to these claims i.e. the proof of entitlement to the claims, and the proof of the quantum of the sums claimed as entitlements. To prove an entitlement to a claim, this Court in </span><i><span lang="ES-TRAD" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:ES-TRAD">Otunba Gabriel Oladipo Abijo v. Promasidor (Nigeria) Limited</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/602/2014 the ruling of which was delivered on 17th January 2017, for instance, held as follows:</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">This Court has severally held that it is an instrument (a law, circular or collective agreement) that confers entitlements in labour relations. See <i>Senior Staff Association of University Teaching Hospitals, Research Institutions and Associated Institutions (SSAUTHRIAI) and ors v. Federal Ministry of Health and anor</i>, unreported Suit No. NIC/12/2000 the judgment of which was delivered on 30th March 2006, <i>Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities v. Federal Government of Nigeria</i> unreported Suit No. NIC/8/2004 the judgment of which was delivered on 8th May 2007, <i>Ondo State Government v. National Association of Nigeria Nurses and Midwives and anor</i> unreported Suit No. NIC/1/2007 delivered on July 4, 2007 and </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Oyo State v. Alhaji Apapa & ors</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> [2008] 11 NLLR (Pt. 29) 284.</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Additionally, in <i>Mr. Mohammed Dungus & ors v. ENL Consortium Ltd</i> [2015] 60 NLLR (Pt. 208) 39, this Court held that the rule is that it is the claimant who claims that must prove; and in labour relations, an employee can only claim if he/she shows an entitlement. An entitlement is shown by reference to the law that gives it, the collective agreement from which the entitlement was agreed on between the contracting parties or the conditions of service governing the relationship of the employee and his/her employer. This Court went on to emphasise that a claimant must indicate to the Court the exact provisions of the documents they frontloaded that grants them the entitlements they claim; as such merely frontloading a document and saying that a right inures from it without indicating the clause, section, article or paragraph that grants the right is not sufficient. This is because Courts are adjudicators, not investigators; as such counsel should not expect that it is the Court that will shop for the relevant article that substantiates the claim of his/her client.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">62. And to prove the quantum of the sums claimed, the rule regarding proof of special damages must be adhered to. This is because, the claim for monetary sums as entitlement(s) is a claim for special damages. In <i>Kelvin Nwaigwe v. Fidelity Bank Plc</i> unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/85/2014 the judgment of which was delivered on 24th January 2017, this Court held the claim for N45 million as entitlement to be a claim for special damages. Here, the law is that evidence ought to be led before an award for special damages is granted; and to succeed in a claim for special damages it must be claimed specifically and proved strictly. The fact that it appears to be admitted does not relieve the party claiming it of the requirement of proof with compelling evidence. See </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">NNPC v. Clifco Nig. Ltd</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [2011] LPELR-2022(SC) and <i>Mr Ignatius Anyanwu & ors v. Mr Aloysius Uzowuaka & ors</i> [2009] LPELR-515(SC); [2009] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445 SC. All items of loss must be specified by the claimant before they may be proved and recovery granted. See <i>Christopher U. Nwanji v. Coastal Services Nig. Ltd</i> [2004] LPELR-2106(SC); [2004] 11 NWLR (Pt. 885) 552; [2004] 18 NSCQR 895. Furthermore, the claimant has a duty to give specific particulars of the special damages he is claiming. This is to enable the opposing party know what he is to meet in the case. See <i>AG, Anambra State v. CN Onuselogu Enterprises Ltd</i> [1987] LPELR-614(SC); [1987] NWLR (Pt. 66) 47; [1987] All NLR 579; [1987] 9 - 11 SC 197 and <i>Marine Management Associates Inc. & anor v. National Maritime Authority</i></span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT"> [2012] LPELR-206(SC).</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">63. Given all I have said so far, I need to clear two misconceptions noticeable in the submissions of both the claimant and the defendant. I start with that of the defendant. The defendant made two submissions. First, that given DW’s testimony that the claimant was only entitled to the status car during his employment with the Bank, status car is not an entitlement as of right howsoever after the disengagement from the Bank. Secondly, that payment of performance bonus is not a right but is discretionary and the claimant is not entitled to it; and that even if the performance bonus is not discretionary the claim for it must fail since the claimant was no longer an employee of the defendant having voluntarily resigned his employment and, therefore, not subject to appraisal. Here, I do not think that the defendant appreciates the law. Aside from not substantiating this submission with any authority (note that <i>Ajuwa v</i></span><i><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">. SPDCN Ltd</span></i><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">[2011]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> 18 NWLR (</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 1279) 797 at 829 was only cited as authority for the definition of the word “discretion”), the defendant seems unaware of <i>Mr. Kurt Severinsen v. Emerging Markets Telecommunication Services Limited</i> [2012] 27 NLLR (Pt. 78) 374 NIC, where this Court held as follows:</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">The argument of the defendant is that the claimant is not entitled to be paid bonus because he was no longer in the employment of the defendant when the bonus was declared and paid and did not participate in the performance appraisal exercise which was a condition precedent to the payment of bonus and which…was only carried out after the claimant’s employment was terminated… In fact the evidence of the defendant’s witness that performance bonus is discretionary on the part of the employer company is not supported by the letter of employment of the claimant which makes the payment of bonus a right. All of this suggests that the claimant’s employment was deliberately terminated…before the performance appraisal exercise was carried out so as to disentitle the claimant from claiming for the said bonus…To then turn around and urge the Court to discountenance moral questions as the defendant argued, smacks of insensitivity to the plight of hapless employees on the part of the defendant. It is most unconscionable.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">The point is that status car (even after an employment ceases) and payment of performance bonus can each be a right if it is provided for either in the contract of employment or conditions of service, or by any instrument such as a circular or collective agreement. See </span><i><span lang="ES-TRAD" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:ES-TRAD">Otunba Gabriel Oladipo Abijo v. Promasidor (Nigeria) Limited</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> (<i>supra</i>), which summarized the law on this point as indicated earlier. So, once the claimant in the instant case can show an entitlement to reliefs (iv) to (vii) by reference to any of the instruments I just listed out, the claim would have inured to him as an employment right grantable by this Court if the quantum is also proved.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">64. This takes me to the second misconception, this time by the claimant. The defendant had argued that reliefs (iv) to (vii) as claimed are claims for special damages. The claimant disagreed. I indicated earlier, referring to <i>Kelvin Nwaigwe v. Fidelity Bank Plc</i>, that the claim for monetary sums as entitlement(s) is a claim for special damages, which is grantable only if specifically pleaded, particularized and proved in accordance with the rules relating to proof of special damages. The argument of the claimant that the claim for reliefs (iv) to (vii) is not one for special damages is accordingly misconceived, and so is hereby discountenanced.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">65. For purposes of the instant case, can it then be said that the claimant proved the entitlement to reliefs (iv) to (vii) as well as the quantum of the sums claimed in terms of the rules relating to proof of special damages? This remains the question. For the claim relating to redundancy, the claimant in paragraph 19 of the statement of facts and paragraph 20 of the deposition of 25th June 2014 relied on clause 18.4 of Exhibit C1, the Staff Handbook. In the final written address, the claimant also placed reliance on clause 18.5 of the Handbook. Read together, these clauses grant an entitlement as to redundancy payment to a staff declared redundant. I already held that the claimant was declared redundancy. This means that the claimant is entitled to paid redundancy payment. Clause 18.4 goes on to provide the formula for calculating the redundancy payment i.e. for putting less than 5 years in service, it is 75% of monthly salary for each year of service; and for putting 5 years and above, it is one month salary for every completed year of service. Salary is then defined by same clause 18.4 to comprise of the following items: basic salary, lunch, transport, dressing, housing, entertainment, furniture, utility and passage. The question now is: what is the salary of the claimant in order to ascertain how he arrived at N11,068,750.07 as the quantum of his redundancy payment? The Court is not told. The claimant did not plead his salary, and there is no evidence before the Court as to the salary of the claimant where the 9 components indicated in clause 18.4 can be ascertained. The law is that judgment should not be given in favour of a party on facts which were not pleaded, or facts which are pleaded but not canvassed at the hearing. See <i>Shell BP Ltd v. Jacob Abedi & ors</i> [1974] LPELR-3044(SC); [1974] All NLR 1; [1974] 1 SC 16 and <i>Leo O. C. Obijuru v. I. M. Ozims</i> [1985] LPELR-2173(SC); [1985] NWLR (Pt. 6) 167. In short, there is no way the Court can ascertain how the claimant arrived at the sum he claims as redundancy payment. Simply referring the Court to clauses 18.4 and 18.5 is not enough.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">66. The law is that there has to be the necessary nexus between documentary evidence tendered and the particular purpose or aspect of the case of the party tendering same. See <i>ACN v. Nyako</i></span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT"> [2013] All FWLR (Pt. 686) 424 SC, </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Buhari v. INEC</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> [2008] 12 SC 1 and </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Hon. Segun Adele & anor v. Hon. Solomon Olamilekan Adeola & ors</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [2015] LPELR-25972(CA). This requirement of nexus is extended under the law to mean that a party who produces an exhibit so that the Court could utilise it in the process of adjudication must not dump it on the Court, but must tie it to the relevant aspects of his case. See <i>Ivienagbor v. Bazuaye</i></span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT"> [1999] 9 NWLR (Pt. 620) 552; [1999] 6 SCNJ 235 at 243, </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Owe v. Oshinbanjo</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [1965] 1 All NLR 72 at 15, <i>Bornu Holding Co. Ltd v. Alhaji Hassan Bogoco</i> [1971] 1 All NLR 324 at 333, <i>Alhaji Onibudo & ors v. Alhaji Akibu & ors</i></span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT"> [1982] 7 SC 60 at 62, </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Nwaga v. Registered Trustees Recreation Club</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> [2004] FWLR (Pt. 190) 1360 at 1380 – 1381, </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Jalingo v. Nyane</span></i><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT"> [1992] 3 NWLR (Pt. 231) 538, </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: IT">Ugochukwu v. Co-operative Bank</span></i><span lang="PT" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT"> [1996] 7 SCNJ 22, </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Obasi Brothers Ltd v. MBA Securities Ltd</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [2005] 2 SC (Pt. 1) 51 at 68, <i>Eze v. Okolagu</i></span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT"> [2010] 3 NWLR (Pt. 1180) 183 at 211, <i>ANPP v. INEC</i></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [2010] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1212) 547, <i>Ucha v. Elechi</i></span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT"> [2012] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1316) 330 at 360, </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Belgore v. Ahmed</span></i><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT"> [2013] 8 NWLR (Pt. 1355) 60 at 99 </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">– 100, </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Omisore v. Aregbesola</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> [2015] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1482) 202 at 323 and 324, <i>Mr. Mohammed Dungus & ors v. ENL Consortium Ltd</i> [2015] 60 NLLR (Pt. 208) 39 and <i>Ademola Bolarinde v. APM Terminals Apapa Limited</i> unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/268/2012 the judgment of which was delivered on 25th February 2016.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">67. So while entitlement to redundancy payment has been shown, and hence proved, to this Court by the claimant, the claim <i>for the sum of N11,068,750.07</i> as redundancy (relief iv) has not been proved; and so the said sum cannot be granted since it has not been proved how the claimant arrived at the sum. The facts (e.g. his salary) necessary to prove the grant of the sum of N11,068,750.07 were not even pleaded, not to talk of proved. But I note the Supreme Court decision in <i>Hon. Chigozie Eze & ors v. Governor of Abia State & ors</i> [2014] LPELR-23276(SC). In that case, the Supreme Court acknowledged thus: “In the absence of the fact that no evidence was led to establish the sums due to the appellants as salaries and allowances no specific sum can be ordered by this court”. So, although the actual sums of salaries and allowances were not proved, the Supreme Court was emphatic that “all Courts in the land are courts of Law and Equity”; as such “Judges are expected at all times to decide according to the justice of the case and what is right, and always lean towards equity instead of strict Law”. The Supreme Court then went on to order that “the 1st respondent pays immediately to all the appellants their Salaries, allowances for 23 months”. The point to note here is that despite that the actual sums of salaries and allowances were not proved, the Supreme Court still went on to order their payment since an entitlement to them was shown. In like manner, in the instant case, the claimant has shown the entitlement to redundancy payment but has not proved the actual sum of the redundancy payment. This being the case, and on the authority of <i>Hon. Chigozie Eze & ors v. Governor of Abia State & ors</i> (<i>supra</i>), the claimant is entitled to an order of this Court directing the defendant to calculate his redundancy payment as per clause 18.4 of the <i>Access Bank Plc Staff Handbook 2013</i> (Exhibit C1/D8). I so hold.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">68. Relief (v) is for performance bonus. The claimant did not refer the Court to any instrument that entitles him to this claim. All the claimant said is that if the defendant paid the claimants “earned salary” up till 02/3/2014, then the claimants in the absence of adverse report are entitled to the payment of performance bonus because they worked the whole of 2013, the year the performance bonus is being asked for. Surely, the claimant cannot be serious here. Aside from not even specifically pleading the issue of performance bonus, the claimant did not prove to this Court an entitlement to it or show to this Court how he arrived at the sum of N5 Million he claims. I once again refer to <i>Mr. Mohammed Dungus & ors v. ENL Consortium Ltd</i> [2015] 60 NLLR (Pt. 208) 39. The claim <i>for the sum of N5,000,000.00</i> as performance bonus (relief v) accordingly cannot be granted since both the entitlement to it and how it was arrived at have not been proved.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">69. Relief (vi) is for N26.672.66 being “interest charges wrongfully debited by the defendant on the status car even after same was collected back by the defendant on the 20th January 2014 long before the exit date of 2nd March 2014”. The pleadings for this claim can be found in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the statement of facts. The supporting averments in the sworn deposition of 25th June 2014 are paragraphs 22 and 23. The defendant denied of this as per paragraphs 14 to 16 of the statement of defence as well as paragraphs 21 to 23 of the deposition of DW of 3rd December 2014. The defendant, however, indicated that while N26,672.66 was never debited, N35,672.66 representing the claimant’s indebtedness to the defendant given that his ex-staff account was overdrawn as a result of his indebtedness before he returned his status car. In response, the claimant, in paragraph 19 of the reply to the statement of defence, pleaded that he returned the car on 20th January 2014, long before his employment terminal date of 2nd March 2014; and that the defendant had no reason to deduct unjustified interest charges of N35,672.66 to his account. The claimant concluded in that paragraph that the amount stated earlier in the statement of claim was a typographical error. In the written address, the claimant then prayed the Court to treat this an error of counsel, which should not be visited on the litigant. The argument of the defendant is that a claim/relief cannot be amended in the reply to the statement of defence in the guise of a typographical error without leave of court. I agree with the defendant on this score. By <i>Chief Chukwuma Achike & anor v. Chief Uzo Osakwe & ors</i> [1999] LPELR-5453(CA); [2000] 2 NWLR (Pt. 646) 631, an amendment of the statement of claim through a reply was said to be done through the backdoor, and so was overreaching of the defendant; that if the plaintiff desires to amend the statement of claim, such should be through a proper application and if granted, the defendant will have the opportunity of doing their own consequential amendment. This thing about flagging on the face of the Court the all too used/familiar line of error, mistake or inadvertence of counsel not to be visited on the litigant must be understood not be some sort of talisman or panacea for all cases. In <i>Iroegbu v. Okwordu</i> [1990] 6 NWLR (Pt. 158) 643 and <i>Erinfolabi v. Oke</i> [1995] 5 NWLR (Pt. 395) 296, the point was vigorously emphasized that the rule which enjoins courts not to visit the inadvertence or mistake of counsel on the litigant is not intended to be a universal talisman, the waiver of which will act as a panacea in all cases. That before the plea is accepted, the court must not only be satisfied that the allegation of fault of counsel is true and genuine, but also that it is availing having regard to the circumstances of the particular case. In the instant case, like I pointed out earlier, I agree with the defence counsel that what the reply did was to amend relief (vi) as claimed in the statement of facts. The inconsistency in the sums as between N26,672.66 and N35,672.66 cannot be resolved in favor of the claimant, who incidentally has the burden of proof.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">70. Surprisingly, under cross-examination, the claimant testified that letter of employment states that he is entitled to an official car while in the employment of the defendant as part of his benefits; but that at the point of disengagement, he is not so entitled. When asked whether he pleaded his letter of employment, he answered thus: “I did not plead my letter of employment as that is not necessary for my claims”. How then did the claimant plan to prove his entitlement as per the status car if he himself thought that his letter of employment is not necessary for his claims? I note the acknowledgment by DW under cross-examination that the claimants were entitled to status cars. This acknowledgment does not, however, establish the proof of the N26,672.66 claimed by the claimant as relief (vi). As it is, therefore, both entitlement to and the claim <i>for the sum of N26,672.66</i> as interest charges have not been proved and so cannot be granted.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">71. Relief (vii) is for fuel allowance. I searched through the pleadings of the claimant, and there is no pleading whatsoever regarding facts relating to this claim. On the authority of <i>Shell BP Ltd v. Jacob Abedi & ors</i> (<i>supra</i>) and <i>Leo O. C. Obijuru v. I. M. Ozims</i> (<i>supra</i>), judgment cannot be granted in respect of this relief. Accordingly, both the entitlement to and the claim <i>for the sum of N150,000</i> as fuel allowance (relief vii) cannot be granted.</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">72. I indicated earlier that while relief (ix) depends on the success of reliefs (iv) to (vii), relief (viii) is hedged on the success of the case as a whole. Relief (viii) is a claim for “the sum of N20 Million for anguish and injustice suffered by the claimant as a result of the sudden redundancy by the defendant”. The claimant’s argument is that he was suddenly told to leave the Bank and was not paid all the entitlements due to him. The law is that general damages are always made as a claim at large, the quantum of which need not be pleaded and proved and is awarded for loss or inconvenience which flows naturally from the act of the defendant. It does not depend upon calculation made and figure arrived at from specific items. See <i>UBN Plc v. Alhaji Adams Ajabule & anor</i> [2011] LPELR=8239(SC). Section 19(d) of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Act 2006 permits this Court to make an award of compensation or damages. Given the circumstances of this case, therefore, I agree with the claimant that he is entitled to general damages, but certainly not in the sum of N20 Million claimed. To my mind, the sum of One Million Naira (N1,000,000.00) will be adequate and fair compensation/damages to the claimant. I so order.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">73. On the whole, for reasons given and for the avoidance of doubt, the claimant’s case succeeds only in part, and in terms of only the following reliefs:</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">1)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">It is hereby declared that the resignation of the claimant by a letter dated 2nd December 2013 was involuntary and based on the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s directive thereby rendering the claimant redundant.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">2)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">It is hereby declared that the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s decision that the services of the claimant were no longer required as conveyed by both Mr. Aigboje Aig-Imoukhuede and Mr. Herbert Wigwe (the then Group Managing Director and the new Group Managing Director) at the meeting of the 29th November 2013 at the Group Managing Director’s office constitutes the declaration of redundancy of the claimant by the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">3)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">It is hereby ordered that the defendant shall pay forthwith to the claimant his redundancy payment calculated as per clause 18.4 of the <i>Access Bank Plc Staff Handbook 2013</i> (Exhibit C1/D8).</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">4)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">It is hereby ordered that the defendant shall pay to the claimant the sum of One Million Naira (N1,000,000.00) only representing compensation/damages.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">5)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">All sums payable under this judgment are to be paid within 30 days of this judgment, failing which they shall attract interest at the rate of 10% per annum.</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">74. Judgment is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">……………………………………</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD</span><o:p></o:p></p>