Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">REPRESENTATION</span></u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Adeyemi Akingbade with R. Obong & R. Olanta for the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Y. Eyesan for the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Akinluyi Oluwafemi with S.O. Ejalen for 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="text-align: center;"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">JUDGMENT</span></u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. Introduction & Claims<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant approached this Court via his <i>General Form of Complaint </i>on 10/10/12 and by his <i>Amended Statement of Facts </i>dated and filed 3/12/15 sought the following reliefs ''against the 1st Defendant who has now assumed the deposits, assets and liabilities of the 3rd Defendant and the 2nd Defendant jointly and severally'' -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpLast" style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">''Particulars of Special Damages<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Loss of yearly income of =N=16,652,333.33 from 1<sup>st</sup> June 2009 till when the Claimant’s employment is lawfully determined and interest at the rate of 10% <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">from then till the sum is fully paid.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">A declaration that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant illegally terminated the contract of employment of the Claimant and that the Claimant is still in the employment of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant by virtue of its status as a Bridge Bank that took over the assets and liabilities of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">A declaration that the actions of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant as it relates to the purported termination of the Claimant’s employment is null and void.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">4.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">An Order directing the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to pay the Claimant’s annual emolument and salary in the sum of =N=16,652,333.33 from 1<sup>st</sup> June 2009 until his employment is lawfully determined and any other sum deemed fit by this Honourable Court and interest at the rate of 10% from then till the sum is fully paid.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">5.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">An order directing the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants to pay the sum of =N=250,000.000 (Two Hundred and Fifty Million Naira) as Exemplary Damages <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> to the Claimant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">6.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> An order directing the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to pay to the Claimant the cost of initiating this action and Solicitors professional fees at =N=10,000,000''.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Claimant accompanied his statement of facts with witness statement on oath, list and copies of documents to be relied on at trial. The 1st Defendant entered an appearance and filed its defence process<b>. </b>Same was accompanied with all the requisite frontloaded processes. Both 2nd and 3rd Defendants filed their joint statement of defence on 12/11/14 while they filed a consequential amended statement of defence on 11/2/16 also in compliance with the Rules of Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. Case of the Claimant<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The hearing of this case commenced on 24/9/14. On that day, the Claimant, testifying as <i>CW1 </i>adopted his witness statement on oath dated 22/4/14 as his evidence in chief and tendered 13 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted and marked as <i>Exh. C1 - Exh. C13. </i>On 12/4/16, CW1 was recalled, adopted his witness deposition dated 3/12/15 as additional evidence in chief and tendered one more document as exibit. The document was admitted and marked as <i>Exh. C14. </i>The case of the Claimant is that he worked with the 3rd Defendant; that the 3rd Defendant fraudulently alleged that he voluntarily offered to retire from its services via a letter dated 25/1/09; that he still remained in the services of the 3rd Defendant; that 1st Defendant was a Bridge Bank which took over the liabilities and assets of the 3rd Defendant; that the 2nd Defendant was the regulatory institution responsible for the liquidation of failed insured institutions in Nigeria and appointed by an order of the Federal High Court on 2/7/12 and that by Section 39, <i>Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation Act</i> the Defendants are liable to the Claimant.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Under cross examination, the witness testified that 3rd Defendant issued <i>Exh. C1; </i>that 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant did not issue him any letter; that 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant was incorporated sometimes in August 2011; that he was in employment of 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant as at 3/8/11 that being the issue for the Court to determine; that 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant did not issue him letter of termination; that when <i>Exh. C2</i> was given to him he disagreed with it; that he wrote some letters regarding same and that since he left the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant he has been jobless. Witness added that he did not at any time work for <i>Skye Bank Plc - 1st Defendant; </i>that he worked for <i>Mainstreet Bank Plc; </i>that he worked for the 3rd Defendant; that he did not leave 3rd Defendant 2 years before it had anything to do with 2nd Defendant and that he left the employment of the 3rd Defendant as a Management staff<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3. Case of the 1st Defendant<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The 1st Defendant opened its defence on 12/4/16. Its witness adopted his witness statement on oath dated 11/2/16 as his evidence in chief and tendered 2 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted and marked as <i>Exh. PA1 & Exh. PA2 </i>respectively. In his evidence in chief, first Defendant's witness averred that he currently works with <i>Skye Bank Limited; </i>that he has the authority and consent of his employer to depose to this witness statement on oath; that he joined Skye Bank on 29/6/15; that before then he was in the employment of <i>Mainstreet</i> <i>Bank</i> in its <i>Human Capital Management Department</i> from 5/8/11 till when <i>Mainstreet</i> <i>Bank</i> was acquired by <i>Skye</i> <i>Bank</i>; that before joining <i>Mainstreet Bank</i> he had worked with <i>Afribank Nigeria Plc</i>; that by virtue of his position aforesaid, he is conversant with the facts deposed to; that he has read the witness statement on oath deposed to by the Claimant; that this witness statement which constitutes his evidence in this matter; that Mainstreet Bank was incorporated on 3/8/11 and was issued RC number 969929 by the <i>Corporate Affairs Commission </i>(“<i>CAC</i>”); that after incorporation as a Company by the <i>CAC</i>, <i>Mainstreet</i> <i>Bank</i> was subsequently issued with banking license no. MB000064 from the <i>Central Bank of Nigeria</i> on 5/8/11; that <i>Mainstreet</i> <i>Bank</i> is not a rename of <i>Afribank</i> or an appendage to <i>Afribank</i>; that however, <i>Mainstreet</i> <i>Bank</i> was acquired by <i>Skye</i> <i>Bank</i> on 8/6/15. Witness added that until 28/5/09 when the Claimant’s contract of employment was allegedly terminated by <i>Afribank</i>, the Claimant was an employee of <i>Afribank</i>; that <i>Mainstreet</i> <i>Bank</i> which was only incorporated on 3/811 did not take over all the liabilities of <i>Afribank</i> especially the employment liabilities as alleged by the Claimant; that <i>Mainstreet</i> <i>Bank</i> is not answerable for the wrongful acts, if any or omissions of <i>Afribank</i>, even if <i>Afribank</i> erred in terminating the Claimant’s appointment; that upon commencement of full operations as a duly licensed Bank, <i>Mainstreet</i> <i>Bank</i> sourced for and employed staff from existing banks including some from <i>Afribank</i>; that at all material times, <i>Mainstreet</i> <i>Bank</i> did not make any offer of employment to the Claimant, who at the relevant time was no longer in the employ of <i>Afribank</i> and had no contract of employment with <i>Mainstreet</i> <i>Bank</i>; that neither has the Claimant worked for <i>Mainstreet</i> <i>Bank</i>; that even if the Claimant was an employee of <i>Afribank, Afribank</i> as an employer has the right to hire and fire any employee including the Claimant whether for good, bad or for no reason at all and that the reliefs sought by the Claimant are unjustified, speculative, unconscionable, unwarranted, presumptuous and unreasonable as the Claimant is asking for salaries he claims he would have earned for the next 8 years of his lifetime in the employment of <i>Afribank</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Under cross examination by the learned Counsel to the Claimant, the witness stated that he knew everything about this matter; that his appointment with <i>Afribank</i> (3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant) commenced in 2008; that his designation then was in Haman Capital Department; that he was in Employee Relations and he represented the Bank in Court cases; that he is not aware of <i>Exh. C4</i>; that the liabilities of <i>Mainstreet Bank</i> are contained in the <i>Purchase and Assumption Agreement</i> signed by the parties; that he is not aware of any notice given by 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to NDIC regarding employment agreement; that he is aware that 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant was a Bridge Bank; that he does know the duty of a <i>Bridge</i> <i>Bank</i>; that he is aware of <i>Exh. C2</i> from the documents presented; that he does not know anything that transpired between Claimant and <i>Afribank Plc</i>; that it was the practice of <i>Afribank</i> <i>Plc</i>. to respond to the allegations when made against it and that he does not know if <i>Afribank</i> erred in terminating the appointment of the Claimant. In response to a question under re-examination the witness said he was not in Court on behalf of <i>Afriba Plc. </i>While being cross examined by the by 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants, the witness stated that while with the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant he came across the <i>Purchase and Assumption Agreement</i>; that he did not know if 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant issued any requisite notice to NDIC and that he is a competent witness.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">4. Case of the 2nd & 3rd Defendants<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2nd and 3rd Defendants called one Nana Aishat Aliu as their witness when they opened their defence on 13/4/16. The witness adopted her witness deposition made on 23/2/16 as her evidence in chief and tendered one document as exhibit. The document was admitted in evidence and marked as <i>Exh. ANA1. <o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">DW2</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> in her evidence in chief averred that she is a Legal Officer in the employment of the 2nd Defendant; that she has the consent of her employers to depose to the witness statement on oath; that the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants have no knowledge of the Claimant’s certification as a Fellow of the <i>Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria; </i>that the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant only acts as the Statutory Liquidator of failed insured financial institutions in Nigeria and acted in like manner with the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant; that the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant neither had any knowledge of nor personal responsibility on the relationship between the Claimant and the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant as at the times material to the Claimant predated its statutory actions in relation on the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant; that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant denies that the terms and conditions of the Claimant’s employment were governed by the Senior Staff Collective Agreement and the Claimant is not entitled to any benefits thereof; that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant indeed was wound up by order of Court on 2/7/12 in Suit No. PHC/L/CP/1551/2011; that the Claimant by his letter dated 28/1/09 voluntarily resigned from the services of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant which resignation was accepted by the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant and Claimant was paid his legitimate entitlements; that the Claimant was never in the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant’s employment and the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant does not know the Claimant nor any circumstance surrounding his birth, employment, termination and emoluments from either the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant or 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant or by whomsoever; that the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant was not a party to the Claimant’s contract of employment nor the termination of same; that between the date given by the Claimant as his employment date and the date of his alleged termination, the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant was neither the Liquidator of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant nor involved with its affairs in any manner whatsoever and played no role in the Claimant’s relationship with the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant; that the Claimant left the services of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant as a Management Staff; that upon the assumption of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant, the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants' role and duty over the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant ceased; that neither the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant nor the Claimant served the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant any of the relevant Notices required by the <i>Purchase and Assumption Agreement</i> particularly in respect of the assumption or non-assumption of liabilities; that the Claimant’s employment was not one with statutory flavor and the Claimant would neither be entitled to reinstatement in the services of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant or the benefits claimed in his Amended Statement of Facts; that the Claimant and all other staff who resigned or ceased to be in the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s employment at the time they did were all paid their terminal benefits and they collected same; that it is normal for an employer to deduct any debts outstanding as at the date of disengagement from the entitlements of an employee; that neither the 2<sup>nd</sup> nor 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant is indebted to the Claimant either in the sum claimed or at all; that due to the problems leading to the closure, takeover, winding up and assumption of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant, 2nd Defendant has not been able to trace most relevant documents of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant to this case and that it is in the interest of justice that the Claimant’s claim be dismissed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Under cross examination, the witness said she knows the facts by this case as presented to her; that she could not remember whether voluntary letter of retirement dated 28/1/09 was ever produced; that Letter of termination of employment was not issued by 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant to the Claimant; that she could not have seen or sited the said letter of 28/1/09; that while with the 1st Defendant she came across the <i>Purchase and Assumption Agreement; </i>that she does not know if the 1st Defendant issued any requisite notice to <i>NDIC </i>and that she is a competent witness. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">5. Submissions on Behalf of the 1st Defendant<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">At the close of trial, learned Counsel on either side were directed to file their final written addresses in accordance with the Rules of Court. The final written address of the 1st Defendant was dated and filed on 6/5/16. In it learned Counsel set down the following lone issue for determination - <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> Having voluntarily retired from Afribank, and having not worked at all for Mainstreet Bank and or the 1st Defendant, whether the Claimant is entitled to the sums claimed as his reliefs, <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Arguing this lone issue, learned Counsel submitted that the moment a business is incorporated into a limited liability company, it legally assumes a separate and distinct personality from its member citing <i>Section 37, Companies and Allied Matters Act, Cap. C20, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Limited (1877)A.C 22 & Emenite Limited v. Oleka (2005)6 NWLR (Pt. 921) 350. </i>Counsel further submitted that the 1st Defendant is an incorporated entity by virtue of <i>Exh. PA1 </i>and that by <i>Exh. PA2 </i>it obtained license from the <i>Central Bank of Nigeria. </i>Counsel thus urged the Court to hold that <i>Mainstreet Bank</i> is not the same or a rename of <i>Afribank. </i>On the alleged assumption of liabilities of <i>Mainstreet</i> <i>Bank</i> by <i>Afribank, </i>Counsel submitted that reliance on <i>Exh. C5 </i>as the basis of the said assumption of liabilities was misconceived; that <i>Exh. C5 </i>was an agreement executed between <i>NDIC</i> as statutory tranferor and liquidator of <i>Afribank </i>and <i>Mainstreet Bank; </i>that the Claimant was not a party to the agreement; that the alleged contract of employment with <i>Afribank i.e Exh. C1 </i>was not mentioned in <i>Exh. C5 </i>and that there is nothing to show that <i>Exh. C5 </i>was made for the benefit of the Claimant. Counsel submitted, citing <i>A.O. Borishade v. National Bank of Nigeria Limited (2007)1 NWLR (Pt. 1015) 217, </i>that a person who is not a party to a contract is not entitled to enforce the contract nor to have any benefit there-under or be subjected to any obligation arising from the contract. On the reliefs sought by the Claimant, 1st Defendant argued that the primary reliefs have not been proved; that Claimant's employment was not with the 1st Defendant or Mainstreet Bank; that Mainstreet Bank is a separate entity; that the available evidence is to the effect that the Claimant retired from the service of Afribank and same accepted; that even if the Claimant did not retire voluntarily from <i>Afribank, Exh. C6 </i>serves as a communication of the severance of the Claimant's employment relationship with <i>Afribank </i>as the law is that an employer has a right to terminate a contract of employment of its employee whether for good, bad or no reason at all citing <i>Obo v. Commissioner for Education, Bendel State (2001)2 NWLR (Pt. 698) 625.</i> Counsel added that any request for salaries and other emoluments after termination of employment cannot be granted as the Court will not order payment of salaries for services not rendered citing <i>Umoh v. Industrial Training Governing Council (2001)4 NWLR (Pt. 703) 281 & Olatunbosun v. NISER (1988)3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 25. </i>Respecting reliefs 4,5 & 6 learned Counsel submitted that the law remains that the Court will refuse ancillary reliefs where the principal reliefs have failed or where the Court cannot adjudicate over the principal reliefs citing <i>Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1989)4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517. </i>Learned Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant in its entirety. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">6. Submissions on Behalf of 2nd & 3rd Defendants<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The final written address of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants was dated and filed on 17/6/16. In it, learned Counsel set down 3 main issues for determination as follows - <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. Whether the Claimant is still in the employment of either the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant or the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. Whether in the light of his voluntary retirement and collection of his terminal benefits as calculated by the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant plus his non service to either the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant or Mainstreet Bank Limited since June 2009, the Claimant can be held to be entitled to the sums claimed in the reliefs he seeks from this Honourable Court. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3. Whether Exhibit C11/ANA1 avails the Claimant and therefore enforceable by him and if so, whether having not received any notice of non-assumption as required by Exhibit C11/ANA 1 from the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant, the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant can be held liable for any real or imagined obligation, and/or indebtedness to the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned Counsel argued issue 1 & issue 2 together. Counsel submitted that the Claimant ceased to be in the employment of the 3rd or 1st Defendant as far back as 1/6/09 before the revocation of the Banking License of the 3rd Defendant and the action of the 2nd Defendant; that the termination of the Claimant's appointment whether lawful or not or an illegal termination brings the relationship to an end and that it is impossible to grant the declaration sought that he is still in the employment of the 1st or 3rd Defendant, citing <i>NNPC v. Mr. T. D. Olagbaju & 10 Ors. (2006) All FWLR 1855 at 1871. </i>Counsel submitted that by <i>Exh. C4 & Exh. C5 </i>that before filing the suit the Claimant had admitted that indeed his employment with 1st or 3rd Defendant had come to an end and that a staff whose employment is illegally terminated or dismissed cannot claim wages for services not rendered citing <i>Olatunbosun v. NISER (Supra) </i>and that the measure of damages for wrongful dismissal is the amount the employee would have earned had he continued in employment. Counsel submitted that the Claimant has failed to prove the terms and conditions of his employment and the circumstances under which his employment can be terminated and urged the Court to so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On issue 3, learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant placed heavy reliance on <i>Exh. C5 (Exh. ANA1); </i>that that exhibit was made over 2 years after the Claimant had ceased to be in the employment of the 3rd Defendant; that the Claimant was not a party to it; that Claimant was not named in it and neither was it made for the benefit of the Claimant; that the Claimant was never in the employment of either the 2nd Defendant or 1st Defendant's predecessor in title and party to the agreement and that a party who is a stranger to an agreement cannot avail himself of the agreement nor be entitled to enforce same citing <i>A. G. Federation v. A.I.C Limited (2000)6 S.C 1. </i>Counsel urged the Court to so hold. Learned Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the claims of the Claimant in their entirety.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">7. Submissions on Behalf of the Claimant<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The final written address of the Claimant was filed on 14/9/16 in which learned Counsel set down the following 3 issues for determination -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. Whether the Claimant voluntarily resigned from the service of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. Whether in the light of Section 39 of the NDIC Act, the defendants are not liable to the Claimant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3. Whether the Claimant having proven his case is entitled to his claims in this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that the 3rd Defendant did not terminate the contract of employment of the Claimant; that if there was ever a termination, such purported termination is invalid, null and void and that where no termination occurs or where the purported termination is a nullity, the employment contract must have been subsistent and could not have been in the air. Counsel submitted that an invalid act can only lead to the nullity and voiding of the act citing <i>Mshelia v. Nigerian Airforce & Anor. (2014) LPELR-23732 (CA). </i><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the failure of the Defendants to produce the non-existing letter of offer of voluntary resignation, learned Counsel urged the Court to hold that by withholding this piece of evidence it means that the document if produced would be unfavourable to the Defendants citing <i>S. 167(d), Evidence Act, 2011 & Jack v. A-G & Commissioner for Justice, River State & Ors. (2013) LPELR-22867 (CA). </i>Counsel argued that the termination of the Claimant's appointment is not in accordance with the terms of the Claimant's contract of employment and the Common Law; that <i>Exh. C1 & Exh. C2 </i>never implied that the Claimant's employment could ever be terminated through the acceptance of a non-existent voluntary resignation and that having never given any notice of intention to resign and having never even intended same, the Claimant could and can never be said to have legally retired let alone voluntarily done so. Counsel prayed the Court to so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On issue 2, Counsel submitted that whilst the 3rd Defendant and Mainstreet Bank are indeed separate legal entities in the eyes of the law, there could never have existed Mainstreet Bank without the 3rd Defendant; that by virtue of <i>Exh. C10 </i>there exists special relationship between Mainstreet Bank and the 3rd Defendant; that incorporation does not preclude the 1st Defendant from the assumption of liabilities which it undertook under the <i>Purchase and Assumption Agreement</i>; that 2nd Defendant admitted in its evidence and agreed that the 3rd Defendant was indeed assumed by Mainstreet Bank Limited and the Bridge - Bank Mainstreet Bank failed to give it the relevant notice to which would have specified whether it elects to assume the employment of the Claimant and that the effect of the failure of the Bridge Bank (Mainstreet Bank) to give the aforesaid notice was that it became deemed that the Mainstreet Bank had indeed assumed the employment of the Claimant. Counsel urged the Court to that the Defendants are liable to the Claimant as his employment is still subsisting and grant the claim sought.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On issue 3, learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant has shown that his employment was never terminated as he never resigned and as such there could never have been an acceptance of a non-existent letter of voluntary resignation; that Claimant is still in the employment of the 3rd Defendant until his employment was assumed by Mainstreet Bank having not given any notice to 2nd Defendant; that the assumption of liabilities and obligation of Afribank by Mainstreet Bank did not arise merely from the <i>Purchase and Assumption Agreement </i>but was a statutory obligation pursuant to the provisions of <i>S. 39, Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, 2006</i> which cannot and could never have been waived. Counsel urged the Court to grant all the reliefs sought by the Claimant. On 10/10/16, the 1st Defendant filed a 7-page reply on points law. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">8. Decision<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I have carefully read and understood all the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side. I listened to and watched the demeanor of all the witnesses called at trial and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted. Having done all this, I adopt the 3 issues set down for determination by the Claimant for the just determination of this case. The issues are as follows -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. Whether the Claimant voluntarily resigned from the service of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. Whether in the light of Section 39 of the <i>Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, </i>the Defendants are not liable to the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3. Whether the Claimant having proven his case is entitled to his claims in this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The first issue for determination is whether the Claimant voluntarily resigned from the services of the 1st Defendant. Resignation of appointment is one of the modes of bringing an employment relationship or master/servant relationship to an end. It is the exercise of the right conferred on an employee to opt out of employment contractual relationship. Once an employee resigns from his employment by tendering a letter to that effect same cannot ordinarily be rejected. See <i>Adefemi v. Abegunde (2004)15 NWLR (Pt. 895) 1.</i> To be effective, it is imperative that a letter of resignation be tendered in accordance with the terms and applicable conditions of employment. It ought ordinarily to be voluntary. <i>Exh. C2 </i>is the letter dated 28/5/09 to the Claimant in which <i>Afribank Nigeria Plc </i>said -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> '' We refer to your letter of 28th January 2009 notifying the bank of your voluntary retirement from the services of the Bank and convey Management acceptance of the voluntary retirement with effect from 1st June, 2009''.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It was the argument of the learned Counsel to the Claimant that that exhibit was fraudulent in that the Claimant did not at any time tender a letter of voluntary retirement. Was there really such a letter of retirement? In paragraph 10 of his amended statement of facts, the Claimant stated various steps taken requesting the 3rd Defendant to produce the said letter of voluntary retirement.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Being a written document all that was expected of the 3rd Defendant would have been to simply produce the said letter. I note that throughout the length and breadth of this trial the alleged letter of voluntary retirement was never tendered. No reason was offered for not producing same. It is apparent that the 3rd Defendant would not produce the alleged letter of voluntary retirement. In a circumstance as this, it is open to the Court to hold that the refusal of the 3rd Defendant to produce the document was because if produced it would be against its interest and support the case of the Claimant. See <i>UBA Plc v. Ogochukwu (2014) LPELR-24267(CA). </i>See<i> </i>also <i>S. 149(d), Evidence Act, 2011. </i>In the absence of the evidence of the alleged letter of voluntary retirement of the Claimant I hold that the Claimant did not voluntarily retire from the services of the 1st Defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">But before I leave the consideration of issue 1, it is pertinent to ask what is the purport and effect of <i>Exh. C2</i>? By that exhibit, the 3rd Defendant purported to accept a notice of voluntary retirement of the Claimant to be effective from 1/6/09.<i> </i>3rd Defendant also acknowledged the contributions of the Claimant to its growth and development and made a computation of the entitlements of the Claimant. There is no evidence before the Court to the effect that the Claimant worked for the 3rd Defendant or any of the Defendants after 1/6/09. There is also no contest by the Claimant that he was paid the net sum stated on <i>Exh. C2 </i>as his terminal entitlements<i>. </i>Indeed, by <i>Exh. C6, </i>the Claimant would appear to have accepted the obvious fact that he was no longer a staff of the 3rd Defendant when he -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> '' ... list the specific requests which ought to have been part of my exit package for your kind consideration''. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Therefore notwithstanding the fact that no letter of voluntary retirement was produced by the 3rd Defendant the fact remains that the purport and necessary intendment of <i>Exh. C2 </i>is to terminate the services of the Claimant. An employer or a Master may adopt different methods for the purpose of terminating the services of an employee. For termination may be verbal or written or even by conduct. Where an employer withdraws tools of work from an employee and denies same access to his place of work without a time limit it portrays an intention to do away with the services of the employee. Where also, as in the instant case, an employer alleges a letter of voluntary retirement by its employee, allegedly accepted same, calculated and paid the employee all his terminal benefits and same accepted by the employee without contest, it can hardly be contested that the intention of the employer is to terminate the services of the employee. The law is also trite that once an employee accepts payment of terminal benefits he cannot be heard to complain of failure to comply with the terms and conditions of his engagement. See <i>Dr. O. Ajalore v. Kwara State College of Technology (1986)2 S.C 374. </i>The same principle is applicable respecting acceptance of retirement benefits. See <i>Ekeagwu v. Nigerian Army (2006)11 NWLR 382 at 387. </i>Except in employment relationship with statutory flavor, an employer may terminate the services of its employees for any reason and for no reason at all. See <i>Ativie v. Kabelmetal Nigeria Limited (2008) LPELR-591 (SC).</i> Even where termination of employment is not in compliance with the existing contractual document, the termination does not thereby cease to be valid. It can only be declared wrongful with remedies lying solely in award of damages rather than reinstatement. See <i>Osisanya v. Afribank Nigeria Plc (2007) LPELR-2809 (SC).</i> The rationale being that a Court will not foist on an unwilling employer a willing employee and vice<b> </b>versa. See <i>Adewunmi v. Nigerian Eagle Flour Mills (2014) LPELR-22557. </i>In any event, it is not for an employee whose services are terminated to continue to regard same as still existing and to expect the Court to make award of salary and allowances to him for the period he never rendered any service to the employer. See <i>Co-Operative Bank Nigeria Limited v. Nwankwo (1993)4 NWLR (Pt. 286) 170, Olatunbosun v. NISER Council (1988)3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 50 & New Nigeria Newspaper Limited v. Atoyebi (2013) LPELR-21489 (CA).</i> I therefore find and hold that the purport of <i>Exh. C2 </i>was to terminate the services of the Claimant and that that exhibit effectivelt terminated the services of the Claimant with effect from 1/6/09.<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The second issue is whether in the light of Section 39 of the <i>Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation Act</i>, the Defendants are not liable to the Claimant. Section 39 of the <i>Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation Act </i>deals with Bridge banks and their assumption of ''such deposits and/or liabilities'' and purchase of such assets of a failing insured institution. Bridge banks under the section are also to perform any other function or business as the Corporation may determine. I have found and held here that the employment of the Claimant was effectively determined on 28/5/09 by <i>Exh. C2. </i>I have also found and held that the 3rd Defendant calculated and paid to the Claimant his entitlement which he collected and to which there were no complaints. Thus, respecting the 3rd Defendant, I hold that it is not in any way liable to the Claimant. <i>Main Street Bank Limited </i>was initially the 1st Defendant in this case. It was pursuant to an order of this Court made on 7/10/15 that the present 1st Defendant <i>Skye Bank Limited </i>replaced <i>Mainstreet Bank</i> <i>Limited.</i> It was also the <i>Bridge bank. Main Stree Bank Limited </i>was incorporated on 5/8/11. See <i>Exh. PA1. Exh. C11 </i>was the <i>Purchase and Assumption Agreement </i>entered into between <i>2nd Defendant </i>and <i>MainStreet Bank Limited. </i>It was dated August 2011. See also <i>Exh. ANA1. </i>This exhibit was executed about 2 years after the employment of the Claimant was terminated by <i>Exh. C2. </i>Claimant was not a party to the said <i>Purchase and Assumption Agreement </i>- <i>Exh. PA1</i>. <i>Exh. PA1 </i>was not expressed to be made for the benefit of the Claimant. Indeed, as pointed out by the learned Counsel to the 2nd & 3rd Defendants, Claimant's contract of service with the 3rd Defendant was not mentioned in <i>Exh. PA1. </i>The law is trite and also accords with commonsense that only a party to an agreement can take benefit under it and bear burden under same as well. See <i>Rebold Industries Limited v. Magreola & Ors. (2015) LPELR-24612 (SC).</i> Considering the foregoing, I resolve this second issue against the Claimant and in favor of the Defendants and hold that the Defendants are not in any way liable to the Claimant under <i>Section</i> <i>39</i> of the <i>Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation Act</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Issue 3 as set down is whether the Claimant having proven his case is entitled to his claims in this suit. The issue as to whether the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to his claims is a function on the resolution of issues 1 & 2 above. Both issues have been resolved against the Claimant. I have held in this Judgment that although the Claimant did not voluntarily retire from the services of the 3rd Defendant, his service was nonetheless effectively terminated by <i>Exh. C2. </i>I have also found and held that the Defendants are not in any way liable to the Claimant under section 39 of the <i>Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation Act. </i>Having so resolved issues 1 & 2 therefore, the basis upon which the case of the Claimant rests has been punctured and deflated. I thus hold that the Claimant has not proved his entitlement to any of his claims. Claimant's claims are liable to be dismissed and I so dismiss same accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons stated in this Judgment, I dismiss the case of the Claimant in its entirety.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I make no order as to cost.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpLast" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Judgment is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" align="center" style="margin-left:0cm; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-left:0cm; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-left:0cm; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-left:0cm; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">____________________<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" align="center" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Hon. Justice J. D. Peters<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Presiding Judge</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>