Download PDF
<p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">REPRESENTATION</span></u><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Benjamin Obiora, for the claimant.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Opeyemi Usiola-Kuti, for the defendant.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">JUDGMENT</span></u><u><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">1. The claimant had filed this action on 4th February 2014 vide a Complaint together with the statement of facts, list of witnesses, witness statement on oath, list of documents and copies of the documents; as well as a reply to the statement of defense and a supporting deposition on oath. The defendant entered appearance and filed its defense processes in opposition to the claimant’s case. By the statement of claim, the claimant is seeking for the following reliefs –</span><span lang="EN-US" 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">(1)<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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">declaration that the purported dismissal of the claimant for unspecified act of gross misconduct on the 12th March, 2010 with retroactive effect from the 15th March, 2009 is wrongful and by its circumstance amounts to the determination of the claimant’s employment on the ground of redundancy.</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">(2)<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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">declaration that the purported dismissal of the claimant for unspecified act of gross misconduct on the March 12, 2010 with retroactive effect from the 15th March, 2009 has caused stigmatization of the claimant’s career and life.</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">(3)<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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">declaration that the claimant’s employment having been brought to an end suddenly by the obvious circumstance of redundancy is entitled to payment of emolument in lieu of notice of determination, monetary compensation for the determination, the pension benefits as is due to her position in the Bank at the time of determination and compensation/damages for stigmatization.</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="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">An order compelling the defendant to pay to the claimant the following entitlements:</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Three (3) month’s salary in lieu of notice of termination (redundancy) = N1,500,000.00 (One Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira).</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Redundancy compensation - Four (4) months total emolument for each completed year. For 23 years, 4 months (Twenty-Three years, Four months) = N46,666,667 (Forty-Six Million, Six Hundred and Sixty-Six Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty-Seven Naira).</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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"">(c)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Arrears of monthly pension in the sum of N149,553.00 per month from the month of April, 2010 to 31st January, 2014 = N6,879,438.00 (Six Million, Eight Hundred and Seventy-Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty-Eight Naira).</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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"">(d)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Monthly pension in the sum of N149,553.00 or any increment thereto from the month of February, 2014 until the end of the life of the claimant.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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"">(e)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Damages/compensation for stigmatization of the claimant’s banking career and life = N50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira).</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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"">(f)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">21% interest per annum on all the claimant’s entitlements from the year 2010 until the judgment and thereafter 10% interest on the judgment sum until the same is finally liquidated.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">TOTAL CLAIM = N105,046,105.00 (One Hundred and Five Million, Forty-Six Thousand, One Hundred and Five Naira).</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">2. At trial, the claimant testified for herself as CW, while Mr. Yusuf Adekunle, a banker in the rank of Officer I with the defendant, testified for 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="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> as DW. At the close of hearing, parties filed their respective written addresses. The defendant’s written address is dated 8th August 2016 but filed on 9th August 2016, while the claimant’s is dated and filed on 14th November 2016. The defendant’s reply on points of law is dated 30th November 2016 but filed on 1st December 2016.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT</span></u><u><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">3. This is the claimant’s story. She was employed by the defendant on the 1st December 1986 at the Warri Branch of the defendant. By reason of marriage she was later transferred to Lagos in the year 1991. She worked at different branches in Lagos and in the month of April 2009 she was transferred to Oyin Jolayemi Branch, Victoria Island, Lagos. She has had to work in the admin office but was particularly sent to the marketing department, where she excelled. By her transfer to the Oyin Jolayemi Branch, she was given the position of the Operation Manager for the first time. When she reported at the new branch, there was a sitting Operations Manager by name, Mr Mamman. While at the new branch, Mr. Mamman was performing the duties of the Operations Manager, and she, who had been constructively rendered redundant by reason of no vacancy on the post she was sent to occupy, decided to be helping in the marketing department where she has been particularly excellent. Mr. Mamman eventually went on a sick leave in the month of September 2009 and then she started to perform the duties of the Operations Manager. Being a target of a pre-determined redundancy disengagement, one of the first duties she performed was the counter-signing of the voucher for the purchase of office equipment, material and services totaling the sum of N269,000.00 (Two Hundred and Sixty-Nine Thousand Naira) in the month of October 2009. She became the cynosure of the watching eyes of the internal auditor, Mr. Abraham Edeki, who is the agent of the defendant for the purpose of the unlawful disengagement.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">4. The claimants went on that as at the time of disengaging her, her monthly salary was the sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) and she had worked for the defendant for a consistent period of 23 years, four months without any query, warning or any form of disciplinary action against her. That sometime in the month of June 2009, immediately after her reporting to the office, one Abraham Edeki made an open statement that he was employed as an Auditor by the defendant to make sure that people lose their jobs. To the claimant, in all the circumstances of this case, the only personal allegation made by the defendant against her is the countersigning of Vouchers for expenditures amounting to N269,000.00 (Two Hundred and Sixty-Nine Thousand Naira) made on the 23rd October 2009 (which the defendant without a proof labeled frivolous expenses). That the query given to her by the defendant was admitted as Exhibit D4. Her response to the query was admitted as Exhibit D5. That the defendant failed, neglected and/or refused to tender the evidence of the report of Mr. Abraham Edeki on the issue despite pleading the report. To the claimant, according to the defendant, a further investigation and full audit of expenditures of the branch, where she worked was conducted covering a cycle of July 2008 to October 2009 (a period the claimant was not in the branch and includes a short while when she was around but not acting) and frivolous expenditure were revealed virtually in all cost centres of the branch operations. That the defendant did not give any query to her in respect of the investigation carried out on the 2nd November 2009 for full audit of the expenditures of the branch covering the July 2008 to October 2009 (audit cycle), referring to paragraph 13 of the statement of defense. 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s inspectorate department conducted the said audit investigation of the branch expenditures for the 15 months (July 2008 - October 2009), produced a report against the branch management and recommended that the sanctions provided in Article 4 section (IV) sub-section a(i) of the collective agreement should be applied, referring to </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">page</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">s 33 - 34 of Exhibit D3.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">5. The claimant continued that the defendant relying on the recommendation as provided in the collective agreement issued a letter on the 12th March 2010 dismissing the claimant from its services with effect from the 15th March 2009 for gross misconduct. That she made two separate appeals to the defendant to consider her innocence and the effect of its actions on her as a widow, and review her case because of her innocence, but the defendant did not respond to the appeals. In 2013, she engaged the services of her solicitors who wrote a demand letter 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> (t</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">he letter</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> is Exhibit C7 and is dated 29th October 2013). In the said letter, her solicitors presented to the defendant the grievances of the claimant, the effect of the dismissal letter with the retroactive effect, the effect of investigation of the branch expenditures covering the 15 months period (July 2008 to October 2009), the period she was not in the branch without affording her a right to a fair hearing, her claim on redundancy because of no vacancy on her transfer and the pre-determined termination of her employment through the facade of dismissal. Finally, that the letter also highlighted the resultant monetary claim she would be entitled to on her claim for redundancy and the accumulated and due pension benefits. The defendant received the claimant’s solicitor’s letter and did not respond to the same, whereof she brought this suit and claimed as afore stated.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANT</span></u><u><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">6. The defendant denied every averment of the claimant and stated that the claimant was involved in series of fraudulent transactions that took place under her nose as the Branch Head of Operations. 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="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> went on that upon discovery of the said fraudulent transactions, the claimant was issued queries. That the claimant was subsequently invited by the Inspectorate Department for interrogation i.e. question and answer session, and the claimant responded to the questions posed to her in writing. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Committee met and dismissed the claimant for her involvement in the said fraudulent transactions. 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="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> then</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"> urge</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">d the Court to dismiss the claimant’s reliefs in their</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"> entirety.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif""><br> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br> <!--[endif]--></span><span lang="EN-US" 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"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE DEFENDANT</span></u><u><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">7. The defendant framed four issues for the determination of the Court, namely:</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Whether the claimant has proved that her dismissal from service on 15th March 2009 by the defendant was wrongful.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Whether the claimant has proved that her dismissal 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s employment amounted to redundancy and, therefore, entitled to payment of emolument in lieu of notice of determination.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Whether the claimant has proved before this Honourable Court that her dismissal 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s employment as a result of her misconduct caused stigmatization of the claimant’s career and life.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Considering the submissions above, whether or not the claimant is entitled to monetary claims stated under reliefs 4(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f).</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">8. On issue 1), the defendant answered in the negative. That going by the pleadings before the Court and the evidence of parties, 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="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s Internal Auditor carried out a snap check on the expenditures 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s branch at Oyin Jolayemi, Victoria Island, Lagos and found that most of the expenditures did not follow due process and that there were irregularities in the expenditures. The outcome of the snap check was reported 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s management. Consequently the defendant issued queries on the affected officers of the bank including the claimant, referring to paragraph 13 of the claimant’s statement of facts and paragraph 21 of her statement on oath, where she admitted and stated that she received oral queries in relation to payment of items and services used in the administration of the branch. To the defendant, it is trite that facts admitted need no further proof, citing <i>Iyabi-Ayah v. Ayah</i> [1997] 10 NWLR (Pt. 523) and s</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">ection </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">123 of the Evidence Act 2011. That contrary to her earlier averment in the statement of fact, the c</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">laimant aver</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">red in paragraph 3(b) of her reply to the statement of defence thus: “The Claimant appeared before an Investigation Panel at the Inspectorate Department and answered all questions posed to her, but the questions were not based on any snap-check report as none existed rather was based on any conceivable issues in the minds of the investigation”. The fact is repeated in paragraph 12 of the claimant’s witness oath before the Court. In further support 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s claim that the claimant appeared before the Administrative Panel for interrogation, the Court was </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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">red to Exhibit D2 (the written answers by the claimant). In the question and answer conducted on 16th November 2009, the claimant stated that she was the OPM (Operation Manager) of the branch and that all vouchers passed through her. She admitted that her department was in charge of procuring items for the branch. She admitted that cash payment in the sum of N269,000.00 were made in respect of nine (9) entries contrary to the standing rule of the defendant. That the claimant admitted negligence on her part as the operation manager of the branch.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">9. The defendant continued that during cross-examination of the claimant, she indeed admitted before the Court that she was not conversant with the schedule of her duties as the Operation Manager of the branch and that she was just rubber-stamping what the Head of branch gave to her. That it was after the claimant was queried and interrogated that the management took the decision to dismiss the claimant for her role in the irregularities, falsification of entries and payments made in respect of the branch expenditures. That the defendant satisfied the requirement of fair hearing or principle of natural justice before it dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct, 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">Inonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc</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 lang="EN-US" 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"> LPELR-1503</span><span lang="EN-US" 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">SC</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">), </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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">[2000] 1 NWLR (Pt. 1) 103 CA at 104 and <i>Okeke v. West African Ventures Limited</i> [2015] 62 NLLR (Pt. 218) 435, where this Court held that “the issuance of query by an employer seeking explanation for an action taken by an employee and a reply by the employee satisfies the requirement of fair hearing”. It is the submission of the defendant that from the evidence before the C</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">ourt, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">it afforded the claimant her right to fair hearing before she was eventually dismissed because her response was unsatisfactory and the decision of the defendant was communicated to the claimant in writing via the dismissal letter. That this is more so, when the contract of service agreement between the claimant and the defendant specified clearly that it shall be lawful for the defendant to terminate or dismiss the contract of employment of any employee who has been found guilty of “misconduct of any kind”,</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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ring to the contract of service agreement of the claimant before the C</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">ourt</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> and <i>Olarewaju v. Afribank (Nig.) Plc</i> [2001] 13 NWLR (Pt. 731) 691 SC. That the defendant has not in any way whatsoever breach the right of the claimant to fair hearing as guaranteed under section 36 of the 1999 Constitution; as such the dismissal of the claimant by the defendant was proper and lawful.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">10. The defendant went on that the claimant made reference to collective agreements such as Nigeria Employers’ Association of Banks, Insurance and Allied Institutions (NEABIAI) and the Association of Senior Staff of Banks, Insurance and Financial Institutions (ASSBIFI) and alleged that the defendant did not observe its provisions before dismissing her. To the defendant, the claimant cannot rely on the collective agreements as they do not form part of her contract with the defendant. Hence the collective agreements are not binding 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> That it is important to state at this stage that c</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">ollective </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">agreements are generally unenforceable as there is no privity of contract between the employer and the employee; as such they cannot be a ground for a cause of action, </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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ring to <i>Gbedu v. Itie</i> [2010] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1202) at 282 - 283, <i>Chukwumah v. Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nig. Ltd</i> [1993] 4 NWLR (Pt. 288) 512, </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">Rector Kwara Poly v. AdefiIa</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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">[2007] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1056) 42 and <i>NNB Plc v. Egun</i> [2001] 7 NWLR (Pt. 711) 1 at 18 - 19. That for a party to enforce the provision of a c</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">ollective </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">agreement, the party must establish that the c</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">ollective </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">agreement was expressly incorporated into the contract of service of the employee (</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">UBN v</span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">. Chinyere</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [2010] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1203) at 471 - 472, </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">Unity Bank Plc. v. Ademiluyi</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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">[2013] LPELR-21984(CA) 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">Texaco Nig. Plc v. Kehinde</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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">[2001] 6 NWLR (Pt. 708) 224) and the employee who seeks to rely on it is a member of the union which signed the c</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">ollective </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">agreement on behalf of its members. That a c</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">ollective </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">agreement, standing alone is not binding on an individual employee and the employer unless it is incorporated into the contract of service, </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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ring to the claimant’s letter of employment dated 1st December 1986. That although c</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">ollective </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">agreement was mentioned in claimant’s letter of employment dated 1/4/1981 particularly in the last paragraph thereof, which 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Other conditions of service will be laid down in the contract of service Agreement and also in the Collective Agreement currently in force”, the issue of whether or not the above quoted clause/term of the claimant’s letter of employment incorporated the c</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">ollective </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">agreement in the contract of service came up before the Court of Appeal in </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">Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Emmanuel Aderewaju Soares</span></i><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">[2012] 11 NWLR (Pt. 1312) 550, a case on all fours with instant suit, and it was held that specific incorporation of the collective agreement must be made before it can even be held as such. That this Court is bound by this decision, urging the to hold that the alleged c</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">ollective </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">agreement was not incorporated into the claimant’s contract of service and as such is not binding 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">11. Continuing, the defendant submitted that the alleged c</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">ollective </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">agreement was between the Nigeria Employers Association of Banks, Insurance and Allied Institutions on the one part, and the Association of Senior Staff of Banks, Insurance and Financial Institutions, on the other part. That neither the claimant nor the defendant was a party to the c</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">ollective </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">agreement and not being parties to it cannot be bound by same. That the claimant has not pleaded facts or lead evidence at trial to establish that she is a member of the union that allegedly signed the c</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">ollective </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">agreement. It is further submitted by the defendant it </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">complie</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">d substantially with the i</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">nternational </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">b</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">est </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">practice of industrial relations and 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">ersonnel </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">management before it dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct. Also, that “the defendant complied with Article 119(5) of the International Labour Organization (ILO)”, and afforded the claimant the opportunity to know the allegation against her and also gave</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"> he</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">r the opportunity to state her response to the allegation. </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">Indeed,</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> that in her written response, the claimant admitted to the fact that she failed to carry out her duties professionally which contributed substantially to the large scale fraud in the branch,</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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ring to the claimant’s written responses in Exhibit D3.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">12. On whether a dismissal can have a retrospective effect, the defendant submitted that a decision by an employer to dismiss an employee takes effect from the date of the decision to dismiss or a later date, citing <i>Gbenga v. BSJSC</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"> 14 NWLR (</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 100) 620 and <i>Bakare v. LSCSC</i> [1992]</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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 262) 641. That a dismissal date cannot take a retrospective effect as being claimed by the claimant, citing <i>NNB Ltd v. Obevuderi</i> [1986] 3 NWLR (Pt. 29). That although, the letter stated that the dismissal takes effect from 15th March 2009, the said letter was dated 12th March, 2010; as such the effective date of the dismissal of the claimant was 12th March 2010, when the letter was delivered to the claimant. That it is in evidence that the claimant was 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s employment till the date of the letter. There was no evidence that she was not paid her monthly salaries and other emoluments from the 15th March 2009 till the time she received the letter of dismissal. Also, there was no evidence that the defendant requested for a refund of the monthly salaries and other emoluments paid her from 15th March 2009 to the date of the letter. That it, therefore, stands to reason that the date 15th March 2009 was a slip or error on the part of the defendant and ought to be ignored. To the defendant, notwithstanding the irregularity in the date, the claimant was effectively dismissed by the said letter,</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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">13. Regarding issue 2) i.e. whether the claimant has proved that her dismissal amounted to redundancy and, therefore, entitled her to payment of emolument in lieu of notice of determination, the defender submitted that she has not, having failed to show by concrete evidence that he dismissal was a case of redundancy. Also that the claimant was not dismissed based on redundancy, referring to <i>PAN v. Oje</i> [1997] 11 NWLR (Pt. 530). That termination of an employee based on redundancy is usually a special procedure; but the claimant failed to prove that her dismissal fell within the scope of redundancy. That it is trite that he who asserts must prove, citing <i>Jabre v. Jabre</i> [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"> 3 NWLR </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">(Pt. 600) and section 136(1) of the Evidence Act. That the contents of the claimant’s letter of dismissal dated March 12, 2010 are clear and unambiguous and should be given their literary meaning without any addition or subtraction, citing </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">Adisa v. Oyinwola</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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">[2000] 10 NWLR (Pt. 674) 116 and <i>INEC v. Action Congress & anor</i> [2007]</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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 1029) 142. That if this is done, it would be seen that there is nothing to suggest that the claimant was dismissed on the basis of redundancy, citing <i>Imo State Independent Electoral Commission & ors v. Elima</i> [2015] 61 NLLR (Pt. 214) 327.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">14. As for issue 3) i.e. whether the claimant has proved that her dismissal as a result of her misconduct caused stigmatization of her career and life, the defendant submitted that when an employer as in this case dismisses its employee, it needs not adduce any specific act of misconduct on the employee’s part as the ground for the dismissal, citing <i>Ogbaji v. Arewa Textiles Plc & anor</i> [2015] 61 NLLR (Pt. 212)</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"> 1 at 52</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">, </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">Ajayi v. Texaco Nigeria Limited</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 62) 575 at 583 - 584, <i>Yusuf 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"> UBN 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">[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"> 6 NWLR (</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 457) 632 and <i>Nwoboji v. ACB Ltd</i> [1995]</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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 404) 658. That even negligence without a criminal import can be so gross as to be misconduct of a kind which justifies dismissal, citing <i>Danusa v. UBA Plc</i> [2005]</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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 931) 526 at 539, <i>Useni v. Bank of West Africa Ltd</i> [1965] 1 All NLR and <i>Akinnuranye v. Stanbic IBTC & ors</i> [2014] LPELR-22250(CA). In any event, that all that is required of the defendant is to disclose to the employee the allegation against her, give her fair hearing and ensure that the disciplinary panel followed laid down procedure, all of which the defendant did, citing <i>Federal University of Technology, Yola v. Danjuma Maiwuya & ors</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"> LPELR-9001(CA)</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">. Also referred to is </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">Okeke v, West African Ventures Limited</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> (<i>supra</i>). The defendant then submitted that, on the strength of these authorities, the defendant does not have to state specific act of misconduct in the letter of dismissal, and the said letter of dismissal, as it were, does not stigmatized the person of the claimant or her banking career.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">15. In respect of issue 4 i.e. whether the claimant is entitled to the monetary claims she prays for, the defendant submitted that all the claimant’s reliefs in this suit are based on redundancy packages; hence, if the Court finds that the claimant was not dismissed based on redundancy, then all the reliefs must fail and be refused. That where an employee is properly dismissed as a result of misconduct, such employee is not entitled to wages and other terminal benefits, citing <i>NNB Plc v. Imoneke</i> [2002]</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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 760) 294, <i>J. A. Irem v. Obubra District Council & anor</i> [1960]</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"> FSC 24</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">; [1960] SCNLR 70 and <i>Abomeji v. NRC</i> [1995]</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"> 1 NWLR (</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 372) 451. That the dismissal of the claimant by the defendant was proper and the claimant is not entitled to any terminal benefits, urging the Court to so hold.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">16. However, that in the event that this Court finds that the dismissal of the claimant was wrongful, it is the defendant’s submission that the claimant is thereby only entitled to receive what she would have earned if her appointment was properly determined, citing <i>Adeniran v. NEPA</i> [2001] 47 WRN 145 and <i>Ihezukwu v. University of Jos</i> [1990]</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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 146) 598 at 610. That the claimant is not making any claim for wrongful dismissal in her reliefs; hence, the Court cannot grant a relief which is not prayed for by the claimant, citing <i>Ogbaji v. Arewa Textiles Plc & anor</i> [2015] 61 NLLR (Pt. 212) 1 CA. The defendant went on that, assuming without conceding, that the Court wants to consider award of damages for the wrongful dismissal, then a claim for damages for wrongful dismissal is a claim in the realm of special damages, which must be pleaded, particularised and proved. That the claimant ought to have pleaded her monthly entitlements that constituted her salary and put her pay slip in evidence. This the claimant failed to do, something fatal to her case. Furthermore, that the claimant’s averment in paragraph 22 of her statement of fact is unsubstantiated with concrete evidence and should be rejected by this Court. Accordingly, that the Court should not grant reliefs (a) and (b) endorsed on the claimant’s claim in the statement of fact. That the said reliefs are based on redundancy and it has been shown clearly that the dismissal of the claimant did not come within the redundancy scheme as the defendant did not declare the claimant’s office or any office at all redundant in compliance with the relevant and applicable laws and agreement. Also, that the claimant failed to plead, particularise and prove her entitlement to the two reliefs in accordance with our laws.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">17. On whether the claimant is entitled to claim arrears of monthly pension and monthly pension from the defendant in view of the Pension Reform Act as amended 2014, it is the defendant’s submission that the claimant cannot claim areas of monthly pension and monthly pension 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> That sections 3 and 4 of the Pension Reform Act 2004 which came into effect on 25th June 2004 but was amended in 2014 make provision for contributory pension scheme between employers and individual employee in the manner stated in the law. Section 11 of the Act provides that every employee to whom the Act applies shall maintain an account as Retirement Saving Account (RSA) in his name with any Pension Fund Administrator (PFA) of his choice and upon retirement, employee shall claim their retirement benefit in accordance with provision of section 11 of the Act. That the claimant was dismissed on 12th March 2013 and is, therefore, within the application of the Pension Reform Act 2014 as amended. That the claimant can only claim her pension, if any at all, from her Pension Fund Administrator (PFA) and not 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 lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">That the claimant has not shown to this Court that the Pension Reform Act 2014 is not applicable to her or that she was exempted from the scheme in accordance with section 5(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. Also, that the claimant has not shown to this Court the basis of her claim for pension 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> It is, therefore, the submission of the defendant that the claimant is not entitled to the grant of reliefs (c) and (d) and should be refused by this Court,</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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">18. On whether the claimant is entitled to damages for stigmatization of her life and banking career, it is the defendant’s submission that the claimant is not entitled to compensation for injury done to her feeling by her dismissal, referring to <i>UTC v. Nwokoruku</i> [1993]</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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 281) 295 at 312 and <i>Okeke v. West African ventures Ltd</i> (<i>supra</i>). Accordingly, that the claimant is not entitled to compensation for stigmatization of her person and her banking career, urging the Court to so hold. In conclusion, the defendant </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">urge</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">d the Court to dismiss 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 c</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ase in its entirety.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span lang="EN-US" 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"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE CLAIMANT</span></u><u><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">19. The claimant on her part framed three issues for the determination of the Court, namely:</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Whether the retroactive dismissal of the claimant who was rendered redundant by the defendant on the unproven allegations was not wrongful and does not by its circumstance constitute a disengagement of the claimant on redundancy to entitle the claimant to redundancy compensation.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Whether the unproven allegation against the claimant has caused stigmatization of her life, career, future and destiny to be entitled to compensation in damages.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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"">(c)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Whether the claimant is entitled to her reliefs.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">20. The claimant started by asking: the ordinary question that may arise is if this Court would not rely on the letter of employment, contract of services agreement and the Collective Agreement, as urged by the defendant, but which both parties barefacedly called into issues in the relationship between them, on what platform will the Court stand to determine the issues in the relationship between the parties? That no wonder, all the judicial authorities cited by the defence in its submissions are decisions taken by the appellate Courts on the bases of common law principles of master-servant relationship. The claimant then submitted that the relationship between the claimant and the defendant is not simply that of master and servant, but a well-defined contract of employment between both parties. It is, therefore, the peculiar facts contained in this contract of employment that would determine the issues arising from the relationship. That any attempt to employ the common law principles in determining the relationship in which there is obvious contract of employment would do violence to the spirit and soul of contract principles. It will simply suggest that parties would openly enter into a contract, take the benefits derivable from the contract and deny the applicability of the contract agreement when its conduct is called to question. The defence had called on this Court to remember that under the principle of </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">stare decisis</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> and judicial precedent, this Court is bound to follow the the decisions of the appellate courts. To the claimant, there are special features and characters statutorily endowed or invested on this Court, that will naturally put this Court on the path of caution in adopting wholesale the earlier existing decisions on labour matters that were made under the common law in the guise of applying judicial precedents, citing as the notable features section 13 of National Industrial Court (NIC) Act 2006, which enjoins this Court to administer law and equity concurrently; section 15 of the NIC Act 2006, which empowers this Court to apply rules of equity where it is in conflict with the common law; section 12(2)(b) of the NIC Act 2006, which gives this Court power to depart from the provisions of the Evidence Act, if that would promote the interest of justice; and section 7(6) of the NIC Act 2006, which gives this Court power to apply good or international best practices in labour and industrial relations.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">21. The claimant then proceeded to address the issue whether her dismissal by the defendant for gross misconduct was wrongful. o the claimant, there was a contract of employment between her and the defendant evidenced by Exhibit C1 titled, “Offer of Employment”. However, that on the face of Exhibit C1, all the conditions for the employment are not condensed into the document, hence the last paragraph of Exhibit C1 provides thus: “Other conditions of service will be as laid down in the contract of service agreement and also the collective agreement currently in force”. That the contract of service agreement and c</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">ollective </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">agreement are not the contract of employment itself, but they are only integral parts of the contract of employment. That the contract of employment (Exhibit C1) has, therefore, incorporated by reference the contract of service agreement and the collective agreement. The defendant tendered the contract of service agreement as Exhibit D1, and accepted that it applies in the relationship between both parties. The claimant also tendered the c</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">ollective </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">agreement as Exhibit C2. That the critical issue here is that the defendant, who came before this hallowed temple of justice, to assert that the dismissal of the claimant was justified, is now using all the legal technicalities to shield-off all the relevant documents that would enable this Court to dispassionately evaluate their conduct and be able to determine whether it was within the terms of contract of employment between both parties. That it is interesting that the defendant accepted the existence of Exhibit C1 as the contract of employment and tendered Exhibit D1 as part of the contract of employment, but is asking this Court not to apply the collective agreement. The claimant proceeded to give 3 reasons in paragraph 3.16, spanning pages 16 to 28 of her final written address, why this Court should apply the collective agreement in this suit, the key reason being that this Court under section 7 of the NIC Act 2006 has exclusive jurisdiction to determine matters relating to any question as to any collective agreement.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">22. The defence counsel had submitted that even if the claimant could rely on the collective agreement she has not also shown that she is a member of union to which the collective agreement relates. In response, the claimant submitted that Exhibit C1, which expressly incorporated Exhibit C2, the collective agreement as part of the contract of employment, is a legally enforceable contract; and the collective agreement being on integral part of the contract of employment naturally raises the legal presumption that the claimant must belong to the union, in order for her contract to be complete. Any attempt to opt out of the union that operates the collective agreement with the defendant means that she has breached the terms of her contract. That by this contractual presumption raised in favour of the claimant, it is the duty of the defendant to produce evidence to rebut the fact that the claimant was indeed not a member of the union to which collective agreement applies. By making collective agreement part of the conditions of service, the defendant had at the inception of the contract made it a condition precedent to the claimant that belonging to the union to which the collective agreement applied was part of the contract she was to accept or reject. That at the acceptance of the offer of appointment in 1986, the claimant automatically accepted to belong to the union to which the collective agreement contained in her offer of employment applied. Therefore, considering the nature of the contract, the law presumes membership of the union on the acceptance of contract by the claimant. Consequently, it is only an evidence to rebut her automatic or contractual membership that would prove to the Court that she is not a member of the union to which the collection agreement applies.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">23. To the claimant, she made attempt to support this contractual presumption of the law in her favour with more evidence, by bringing in evidence of her monthly pay slip to show that without consulting her every month, the defendant automatically deducted the union dues as required by section 5(3) of the Labour Act </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">Cap L</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">1 LFN 2004. But unfortunately, the defendant, who under Exhibit C1 has the legal burden to rebut that the claimant was not a member of the union to which the collective agreement adopted in Exhibit C1 applied, opposed the effort to bring in the evidence that would help the defendant and the Court. While on the bases of law the Court agreed with the defendant and rejected the application to amend to bring in this evidence, equity is asking the defendant to do its work by rebutting the contractual presumption. For a reminder, it is to be noted that the defendant authored Exhibit C1, incorporated and expressly adopted collective agreement made by the union to be an integral part of the conditions of service for the claimant, which in effect made the claimant automatic member of the union, the defendant was deducting union dues from the claimant’s monthly salary in keeping with its obligation in Exhibit C1. The claimant accepted 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="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s offer in 1986 and lived with it until the determination of the employment. We submit, most respectfully, my lord, that where there is a legal presumption in favour of the claimant, as it is in this case, neither the defendant, the Court nor any other person should lay an additional burden on the claimant that she needs to prove that she opted in as a member of the union. If there is any classification of junior and senior staff in the applicability of Exhibit C2, the document did not state so, and such classification can only come as part of the evidence produced by the defendant to rebut the contractual presumption raised in favour of the claimant by Exhibit C1. We therefore submit that collective agreement having been wholly adopted in the offer of employment as containing some of the conditions of service of the claimant applied in the relationship. The claimant then cited Prof. E. E. Uvieghara’s Labour Law in Nigeria, Malthouse Press Ltd (2001) page 31 as supporting her stance.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">24. It is the further submission of the claimant that Exhibit C2, the collective agreement is applicable to her case because the defendant relied o it to mete out sanctions on her, referring to page 34 of Exhibit D3, the report of the defendant on which it relied to dismiss the claimant as well as section 169 of the Evidence Act 2011, <i>Francis Anaeze v. Ude Anyaso</i> [1993] </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 SCN</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">J 151, <i>Oyeyemi v. Commissioner for Local Government, Kwara State</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">[1992]</span><span lang="PT" 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">2 SCN</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">J (Pt. II) 266 at 284 and</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"> NNPC </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">v. Mamman Aminu [2014] All</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"> FWLR </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(Pt. 716)</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"> 527 at 558</span><span lang="DA" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">- 559, all dealing with estoppel.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">25. The defendant had submitted that it followed all the due process before it dismissed the claimant from its employment; therefore, the claimant's dismissal was justified. To the claimant, the defendant did not highlight the due processes it followed in</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"> dismiss</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ing her in the light of the reason for the dismissal. That by Exhibit C4, it is stated that the claimant was dismissed by the defendant as a punishment provided for in Article 4 section IV sub-section a(i) of Exhibit C2. The article provides that an employee may be summarily dismissed for certain acts of gross misconduct; such acts include proven cases of theft, fraud, dishonesty, defalcations, irregular practices in respect of cash, vouchers, records, returns, customer’s account or foreign exchange transaction. That it is to be noted that before dismissal can be justified it has to be a proven case; and whether the case is proven depends on the evidence before this Court. To the claimant, her punishment was as recommended 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="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s Chief Inspector at page 34 of Exhibit D3, a document the defendant acted upon to issue Exhibit C4 to the claimant. The claimant went on that the evidence of gross-misconduct, which the defendant relied upon to dismiss her were for the events that took place between July 2008 to October 2009, a period of 15 months, which events were not stated in any query issued to her. The claimant insisted that she worked as operations manager for about five (5) months in the branch before the incidence that led to this case and within these 5 months, Mr. Mamman was still at the branch as an operations manager till September 2009 and she can only respond to any direct allegation if such was presented against her, referring to paragraphs 8 and 9 of her deposition of 14th July 2014. That the defendant never gave her a direct query or opportunity to be heard on any issue in respect of the subject matter of the investigation for the period July 2008 to October 2009.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">26. Regarding the incidence of 23/10/2009, when she was performing the duties of the Operations Manager, she submitted that she had in paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 8: 17 of her written statement on oath stated what happened on a purported snap check claimed to have been conducted 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="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s Chief Internal Auditor, one Abraham Edeki. That it is to be noted that snap-check is not an oral procedure but a documentary procedure that is regulated 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="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s h</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">andbook</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">, Exhibit C3. In paragraph 12 of the statement of facts, the claimant pleaded the procedures for the snap-check as provided in Exhibit C3 (the Handbook). That the defendant did not produce any evidence to show the Court that the snap-check they claimed was done was indeed done. The defendant tendered Exhibit D4, a query to the claimant to show that she was given opportunity to be heard on her role in counter-signing expenditures in the branch amounting to the sum of N269,000.00 (Two Hundred and Sixty-N</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">ine Million Naira). </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">To the claimant, the allegation in the query (Exhibit D4) was that the items were not in the store at the time of investigation. That there was no allegation that the amounts involved were above the limits of the claimant. There was no allegation that the branch did not need the items. The allegation is simply that the items were not in the store. The claimant responded to the query as per Exhibit D5 in which the claimant stated categorically that the items she counter-signed for their purchase were identified by her and available in the store, she stated that may be the person that checked did not have the patience to check well. The defendant did not bring up any other fact to challenge, controvert or contradict the claimant’s response to the query. However, that the defendant in paragraph 12(iii) and (iv) of the statement of defence pleaded the report of the Chief Internal Auditor and what that report revealed. The Chief Internal Auditor was Mr. Abraham Edeki. Throughout the proceedings the defendant did not produce or tender the said report of the Chief Internal Auditor, Abraham Edeki, which would have challenged the claimant’s response to the query. That it is trite that evidence which could be and is not produced would if produced be unfavourable to the person who withholds it, citing section 167(d) of the Evidence Act. That the summary is that there is no report whatsoever from the so called Chief Internal Auditors of the defendant on the query (Exhibit D4) and the response thereto (Exhibit D5) in any way indicting the claimant on the countersigning of some expenses made, which were within her approval limits, all totaling the sum of N269,000.00. To the claimant, the result of the response to the query ought to be known to be to determine the level of culpability and the gravity of punishment; there was no report on the incidence holding the c</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">laimant culpable.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">27. The claimant continued that any dismissal that was predicated on the allegation and report without giving her query on the subject matter of the allegation is wrongful. Also, that any purported dismissal on any query for which there is no report challenging, controverting or contradicting the response thereto, and in which the culpability of the claimant was not made known is wrongful. That from the foregoing submissions, it is clear that claimant was dismissed without regard to her contract of employment and without due consideration to the procedure of fair hearing. The defendant admitted that the claimant appeared before the disciplinary committee but there is no evidence before the Court of any letter indicating the allegation to which the claimant is required to appear before the disciplinary committee. There is also no evidence before the Court that the claimant ever appeared before any Disciplinary Committee 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. T</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">hat the defendant is busy confusing itself with its Inspectorate Department’s act of investigation which is akin to Police Investigation and which does not constitute the Disciplinary Committee Proceedings, which in itself is akin to Court proceedings where infractions are proven as required in Article 4 s</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">ection (iv) </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">sub-section a(i) of Exhibit C2. That </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">Article 4 section iv sub-section a(1) of E</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">xhibit C2 from where the defendant relied to dismiss the claimant for gross misconduct requires that before an employee is dismissed for acts of gross misconduct, such acts must be proven cases. That there were no proven acts of gross misconduct against the claimant; as such, the dismissal is wrongful, urging the Court to so hold.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">28. The claimant referred to paragraph 11 of her statement of facts and relief (1) of her claims; and submitted that redundancy is one of the means of determining an employment relationship. That there is no particular definition of the concept of redundancy. It takes its meaning from the context and circumstance around it. </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">Osborn</span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s Concise Law Dictionary</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">, 7th edition page 282, taking the meaning of redundancy from the English Employment Protection (consolidation) Act 1978 part vi, defines redundancy thus: “Dismissal of employee whose job has ceased to exist. Subject to minimum periods of employment and other regulations such dismissed employees are entitled to redundancy payments to compensate for loss of the job”. The <i>New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language</i> Lexicon publications (1995) defines redundancy thus: “… (of a workman or his work) surplus to requirement”. </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">Section 20(3)</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> of the Labour Act Cap L1 LFN gives a simplistic definition of redundancy thus: “an involuntary and permanent loss of employment caused by an excess of manpower”. The claimant then referred to a number of foreign authorities, statutory and judicial regarding their understanding of the term, ‘redundancy’. For instance, the opinion of Widgery J. in the English case of <i>North Riding Garages Ltd v. Butterwick</i> [1967] </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 WLR 571,</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> which is to the effect that the very fact of dismissal shows that the employee’s services are no longer required by his employer and that he may, in a popular sense, be said to have become redundant. To the claimant, while there may be procedure in implementing redundancy, that this procedure only comes into issue where both the employer and the employee are in agreement and working in harmony; but in a situation where one party particularly the employer conceals its intentions, plays smart and practically intends to render the employee useless and hopeless, particularly after taking about 24 years of the best part of the claimant’s life in its service, the Court has a duty to construe the circumstances to determine whether the intention of the employer was to terminate the employee on redundancy for the purpose of compensating the employee. That this was the case in <i>Food, Beverages and Tobacco Staff Association v. Premier Brewery Ltd</i> unreported Suit No. NIC/1/1989, where the employer terminated the employment of about 33 senior employees by offering each one month’s salary in lieu of notice of termination. That an arbitration tribunal, which first considered the issues, found out that the termination was occasioned by the scaling down of the production. The tribunal then held that the termination was on the ground of redundancy. That the National Industrial Court upheld the</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"> decision.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">29. The claimant went on that the Court will look into the circumstances to determine whether the dismissal by the defendant was on the basis of redundancy or early retirement or termination for the purpose of determining the compensation due to the claimant for the wrongful act on the claimant. That a cursory look at the pleadings and submissions of the defendant will show that the defendant would go to any length to place undue burden on the claimant, conceal information, and deny any agreement or law, so long as it would absolve them from liability. That borrowing the words of Widgery J. in <i>North Riding Garages Ltd v. Butterwick</i> (<i>supra</i>) that the very fact of dismissal shows that the employee’s services are no longer required by his employer and that he may in a popular sense be said to have become redundant. That the claimant has accepted her disengagement, no matter how painful the circumstance. What is at stake before this Court now is the bases upon which she may be compensated for the wrongful disengagement. The claimant then proceeded to itemize what she termed the circumstances that led to the conclusion that she was disengaged on the basis of redundancy. That the circumstances are: the fact of the claimant being transferred to Oyin Branch to resume as operations manager for the first time even while there was a sitting operations manager; before the transfer, the claimant had worked for over 23 years without a query; an announcement to the hearing of all by Abraham Edeki that he was employed to ensure that many lose their jobs, and b October 2009 he was doing a snap-check contrary to the procedure in Exhibit C3 and in the absence of the claimant; the disengagement of the entire branch management for purported expenses that happened between July 2008 and October 2009, a period the claimant was not a staff of the branch; and the dismissal of the claimant on 12th March 2010 but with effect from 15th March 2009 without due process.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">30. To the claimant, the law is trite that silence where reply is expected constitute an admission by conduct, citing <i>Zenon Petroleum & Gas Ltd v. Idrisivya Nig. Ltd</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"> [2006] A</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">ll</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"> FWLR </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(Pt. 312) 2121 at 2140. That in Exhibit C7 the claimant clearly stated to the defendant that the letter of March 12, 2010 dismissing the claimant with effect from the March 15, 2009 meant that the defendant had pre-determined the exit of the claimant on redundancy under the facade of dismissal. That the defendant knew that as at March 15, 2009, the claimant was not a staff at the Oyin Jolayemi branch 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. T</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">hat this issue is corroborated and supported by the fact that even when the claimant was transferred to the said Branch, there was no vacancy for her because somebody was still occupying the same position she was meant to occupy. Above all, Exhibit D3 on which the defendant relied on to purportedly dismiss the claimant was an investigation report on events that happened between July 2008 and October 2009, the period the claimant was not acting in any way as a manager in the branch. That these are not coincidences but predetermined because the claimant had been considered as surplus requirement in service 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="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> That in the same Exhibit C7, the claimant stated the entitlement due to her from the redundancy severance derived from the collective agreement, Exhibit C2. The defendant received the letter, and decided not to reply to any of the issues raised therein, obviously in concession of the points made. That the defendant having admitted by conduct that the case of the claimant falls squarely under redundancy cannot be allowed through counsel’s address to challenge same.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">31. The claimant continued that this is why the nibble effort of the defendant to change the date of the effective dismissal of the claimant in paragraph 37 of the statement of defence is an afterthought. That DW1 who stated in paragraph 39 of his statement on oath that the effective date of dismissal of the claimant was 15th March 2010, is not the author of Exhibit C7 and how he came to know what was not stated in any document was not made known in his deposition. Consequently, his evidence on this issue amounts to using oral evidence to alter, add to or vary the content of a document. Such oral evidence is not admissible, referring to s</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">ection 128(1)</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> of the Evidence Act 2011. Furthermore, that the defence counsel’s address on this point goes to no issue as the counsel’s address cannot take the place of evidence. Generously, that the defence counsel conceded that a letter with a retroactive effect is not permissible but he only played lightly of the effect of such letter. In order to undermine the effect, he queried that the defendant did not demand the refund of the salaries paid to the claimant. The claimant’s position is that the defendant has no basis to make such demand because the claimant was paid for work done. But considering the antecedents of the defendant, the fact that it had not demanded for refund today is not a guarantee that they would not make the demand tomorrow. Generally, that under the principles of interpretation, a party intends the ordinary meaning of the words used in a document. If the defendant was in error, they had all the time in the world to correct the error through another letter, after withdrawing the earlier one by the same author, referring to paragraph 3h(i - v) of the reply to the 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">That six years have gone and there is still no letter stating that the earlier letter was in error. The claimant then urged the Court to hold that her purported dismissal was not only wrongful but by its circumstance amounts to the determination of the claimant’s employment on the ground of redundancy, and therefore the claimant is entitled to the monetary compensation for the severance on redundancy as contained in Exhibit C2.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">32. On issue (b) i.e. whether the unproven allegation against the claimant has cost stigmatization of her life, career, future and destiny as to be entitled to compensation in damages, the claimant submitted that the manner of determining her employment by dismissal on the ground of gross misconduct with retroactive effect has caused stigmatization of her career and life. To her, she gave unchallenged evidence to this effect in paragraph 24 of her statement on oath. The defendant in its final address cited numerous authorities to persuade the Court that the claimant is not entitled to damages for stigmatization. Curiously, that all the authorities cited were decided on the common law principles of employer and employee as sharing the master/servant relationship. To the claimant, considering the provision of section 15 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006, which permits this Court to apply the principles of equity in preference to the common law principles where there is conflict, this Court is certainly empowered to look into and consider the peculiar facts of this case and grant the claimant what she is entitled to have. That the claimant, an employee, is not a rag that can only be called to use, when it is needed and thereafter it must be kept in a hidden place that must not be seen. For avoidance of doubt, that the claimant as an employee has a feeling, life, future and destiny. And if the defendant by any act or omission does anything to permanently destroy the future, life and destiny of the claimant, this Court is under section 15 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 required to invoke its equitable power to protect or compensate the claimant. That this is what the Court of Appeal set to do when they granted damages for stigmatization in favour of an employee whose employment was wrongly terminated on an allegation that stigmatized his character 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">Mobil Producing Nig. </span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Unltd v. Udo</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [2009] All</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"> FWLR </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">(Pt. 482) 1177 at 1213 and <i>Ezekiel v. Westminster Dredging Nig Ltd</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"> FWLR </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(Pt. 60) 1564 at 1578.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">33. Referring to paragraph 34 of the statement of defence, the claimant submitted that the defendant did not plead and did not state the particulars of the incidences of incompetence, criminality and deceptive mindedness of the claimant, particularly the allegation of the fraud of N60,000,000.00 (Sixty Million Naira). That these are criminal allegations, which by section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. That apart from mere assertion, the defendant did not provide any evidence for this Court to hold that the claimant is incompetent, deceptive and criminal minded. That the claimant has been unduly stigmatized 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="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s approach of giving the claimant a bad name for the singular purpose of dispensing with her services. That the defendant knew that all the issues raised on the branch expenses between July 2008 and October 2009 happened when the claimant was not a staff of the branch and even for the short period she came, she was not performing the duties of the office because there was a sitting officer in place. The claimant then urged the Court to hold that she has been stigmatized by the defendant and she is entitled to damages in compensation.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">34. For issue (c), i.e. whether the claimant is entitled to her reliefs, the claimant submitted that she had stated all that she is entitled to based on the pleaded figure of her last salary. These entitlements were derived from the collective agreement, Exhibit C2, which is an integral part of her contract of employment. That the defendant from its pleading and evidence is not challenging the compensation nor its quantum because they are part of the contract of employment. However, that the defendant is only challenging the basis for which the claim is made. That she has sufficiently shown the Court that she is justified in law, fact and the circumstances of this case to make the claim under redundancy, citing <i>Ezekiel v. Westminster Dredging Nig Ltd</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"> FWLR </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">(Pt. 60) 1564 CA at 1577, which held that in civil litigation, where a party lays claim to an amount certain in figure and the other party does not dispute it, that amount shall be adjudged to the claimant.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">35. The claimant proceeded that the defendant had also challenged the claim on pension through counsel’s address. That it is trite that counsel’s address, no matter how brilliant, cannot take the place of evidence. However, that the defendant tendered Exhibit D4 executed by both parties since January 1987 stating that the claimant was entitled to pension. That the claimant had pleaded what that pension figure amounts to without anything contrary 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">. The Pension Act referred to by the defendant came into effect in 2004. That the defendant did not by evidence tell the Court what happened to the entitlement of the claimant from December 1986 to the year 2004, a period of about 18 years,</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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ing the Court to grant the entitlement of the pension claimed to the claimant since the defendant did not challenge it by evidence. The claimant concluded by urging the Court to grant all the reliefs she claims.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">THE DEFENDANT’S REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW</span></u><u><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">36. In response to the claimant’s submissions, the defendant reiterated that the relationship between it and the claimant is simply that of master and servant, contrary to the claimant’s submission; and that the claimant has not shown to the Court any document that distinguishes her employment from common master-</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">servant</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">, 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">Yusuf v. Union Bank of Nigeria 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">[1996] 6 NWLR (Pt. 457) 632. That the various sections of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 alluded to by the claimant do not provide that the Court is not bound by the appellate courts’ decisions and is thereby not to follow judicial precedents; as such, the claimant’s submissions and the authorities cited are misplaced, hence they should be discountenanced by this Court. It is the further submission of the defendant that the claimant has the legal burden to prove that she is a member of ASSBIFI, being a senior staff of the defendant, contrary to her submission. That it is trite that he who asserts must prove, citing section 136(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 and <i>Okubule v. Oyagbola</i> [1990]</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 (P</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">t. 147) 723. That the law does not presume membership of the Association of Senior Staff of Banks, Insurance and Financial Institutions contrary to the claimant’</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">s submission. T</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">hat the claimant has duty to prove before the Court that she is indeed a member of ASSBIFI, which duty she has failed to discharge. That there is a classification of junior and senior staff in the applicability of collective agreements. In the case of junior staff, there is a legal presumption that they are members automatically. However, that membership of the senior staff is not automatic as it depends on the intention or otherwise to be a member of the senior staff association, citing <i>Akindoyin v. UBN</i> [2015] 62 NLLR (Pt. 217) 259. That in the instant case, the claimant is a senior staff and has failed to prove that she indeed opted to be a member of ASSBIFI, citing <i>Udoh v. OHMB</i> [1990] 4 NWLR (Pt. 142) 52.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">37. The claimant argued that her effort to bring in evidence in this regard after the conclusion of evidence in this matter was rejected 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s objection to her application. To the defendant, the C</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">ourt</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s decision in respect of the claimant’s application that was refused was inconsequential to the determination of the suit. That no litigant is permitted to do his or her case piecemeal, referring to </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">Adigun v. AG</span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" 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"> Oyo State (No.2)</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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">[1987] 2 NWLR (Pt. 56) 197 at 231 and <i>Bello Akanbi v. Momodu Alao & anor</i> [1989] 3 NWLR (Pt. 108) 118 at 140. That the view of the learned Prof. E. C. Uvieghara relied upon by the claimant is a mere opinion of the learned Professor. It does not represent the law, hence the Court must discountenance it. The claimant’s counsel has submitted that the defendant should not be allowed to approbate and reprobate and made reference to Exhibit C2. It is the defendant’s submission that the claimant’s submissions will not hold water because parties cannot confer legality on Exhibit C2 by making reference to it. The defendant continued that it is contained in the contract of service agreement (Exhibit D1) that the claimant could be dismissed for misconduct. That in the dismissal letter, Exhibit C4, there was no indication that the claimant was dismissed based on the collective agreement. Hence, the claimant’s counsel allusion to the collective agreement must fail. That if the Court finds that, based on Exhibit D4, the defendant could dismiss the claimant for any misconduct, then the Court should not look into any other document or presume to be done under any other document before the Court. Furthermore, that there is no admission on the part of the defendant that Exhibit C2 was incorporated into the contract of employment of the claimant. Hence, both sections 20 and 124 of the Evidence Act 2011 are not applicable. Also, that the doctrine of estoppel does not apply in the circumstance, h</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">ence </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">section 169 of the Evidence Act will not apply in the circumstances. Also, that all the cases cited in support are not relevant to the suit and should be discountenanced.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">38. The defendant went on that the query alleged that the expenditure in the sum of N269,000.00 was improper in the circumstance contrary to the claimant’</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">s submission. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">That apart from the sum of N269,000.00, the query also dwelled on the various expenditures on some goods, which were not available for physical inspection and “were not reflected in the expenditure and goods bought log book or register”. The claimant herself admitted that she was queried. Hence, to the defendant, the claimant’s counsel’s submission in this regard should be discountenanced.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">39. The claimant had referred the Court to various foreign Acts and authorities in support of her submissions that the claimant’s dismissal amounted to redundancy. It is the submission of the defendant that none of the foreign Acts and authorities referred to is in support of the claim for redundancy in the circumstances of this case. That the meaning of redundancy as stated in the English Employment Protection (consolidation) Act 1978 is not relevant to the present case. Also, since the claimant was not dismissed or exited based on the reason 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">“</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">an excess of manpower”, section 20(3) of the Labour Act Cap L1 LFN is not applicable. Again, that the claimant’s dismissal does not come within the circumstances stated under the Solomon Island’s Employment Act 1981 and is not applicable to the suit. That <i>Food Beverages and Tobacco Staff Association v. Premier Brewery Ltd</i> (unreported Suit No: NIC/1/1989) is not relevant as the facts are quite distinct from this case. That there are no circumstances in this case upon which it could be inferred that the claimant was exited based on redundancy contrary to the claimant’s counsel’s submissions. On this note, the defendant </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">urge</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">d the Court to discountenance the claimant’s submission therein and hold that the claimant was validly dismissed 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="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">40. On the issue whether the letter of dismissal issued to 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 stigmatize</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">d her in anyway, the defendant submitted that the claimant has not shown to the Court how the said letter of dismissal, Exhibit C4, stigmatized her. That he who asserts must prove. It is the claimant who asserts and must prove it; otherwise, her claim must fail and be refused. That </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">Ezekiel v. Westminster Dredg</span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ing Nig. Ltd</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [2001] FWLR Pt. 60 page 1564 at 1578 cited by the claimant is misconceived as it is not apposite in the circumstance. That the authority only stated the measure of damages where stigmatization is proven. That since the claimant has failed to prove stigmatization in this case, she is not entitled to the measure of damages stated in the said authority. The claimant’s counsel in his made reference to 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="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s averment as constituting stigmatization of the claimant. It is the defendant’s submission that the claimant’s claim for stigmatization was predicated on the letter of dismissal issued her 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="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">The defendant then asked: how comes that the claimant is moving away from letter of dismissal to the averment 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s statement of defence? To the defendant, averments in pleadings will not constitute a ground for cause of action as is being done by the claimant. On this issue, that the claimant has failed to show how the letter of dismissal caused a stigma to her,</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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">41. On issue (c) formulated by the claimant, it is the defendant’s submission that the claimant has failed to prove her entitlement to all the monetary sums being claimed in the suit,</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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ing the Court to discountenance the submission of the claimant therein. In conclusion, the defendant submitted that the claimant is not entitled to any of her reliefs endorsed in both the General Complaint and statement of facts before the C</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">ourt</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ing the Court to dismiss the suit.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">COURT’S DECISION</span></u><u><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">42. I considered all the processes filed in this suit and the submissions of counsel made. Before addressing the merit of this case I need to point out that littered all through its written address, the defendant had this habit of citing cases without indicating their pages. Instances can be found in paragraphs 4.04, 5.03 and 5.04 of the final written address; and in paragraph 4.35, the defendant referred to “Article 119(5) of the International Labour Organization (ILO)”, without indicating the instrument. I do not know what counsel to the defendant expects the Court to make of this.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">43. These preliminary points made, the issue before the Court is whether the claimant has proved her case as to merit the grant of the reliefs she prays for. The claimant had been dismissed by the defendant and the argument of the claimant is that the circumstances of the dismissal are such that amount to the determination of her employment on the ground of redundancy. Exhibit C4 is the letter of dismissal. It is dated 12th March 2010 and states as follows:</span><span lang="EN-US" 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:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">You are hereby <b>Dismissed</b> from the Bank’s Service with <b>effect from 15th March, 2009</b> for gross misconduct.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">You are required to submit to your Zonal Coordinator/Head of Department all Bank’s property in your possession including your Identity Card.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">The defendant sought to explain the fact of the date of the letter and the effective date of the dismissal as one that was an error. It is elementary that documents speak for themselves; and where a document is clear and unambiguous, parole evidence cannot be led to contradict it. In other words, extrinsic evidence is basically inadmissible to add to or alter the contents of a document. See <i>Baliol (Nig.) Ltd v. Navcon (Nig.) Ltd</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"> LPELR-717(SC)</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">; [2010] 16 NWLR (Pt. 1220) 619 SC. This being the case, the explanation of the defendant that since the claimant was allowed to work all through till 12th March 2010, it must be read as an error that the effective date of the claimant’s dismissal was put at 15th March 2009, is not convincing at all. In the dismissal letter, the words, “Dismissal” and “with effect from 15th March, 2009” as used are emboldened for emphasis. The defendant cannot do this and claim there was an error in using those words. By <i>New Nig. Bank Ltd v. Obevudiri</i> [1986] 3 NWLR (Pt. 29) 387 CA, therefore, the effective date of dismissal of an employee is the date when the letter of dismissal was written. And by </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">Underwater Eng. Co.</span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> Ltd v. Dubefon</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [1995] 6 NWLR (Pt. 400) 156 SC, an employer cannot dismiss or terminate his employee’s employment with retrospective effect. On these authorities, it was wrong for the defendant to seek to dismiss the claimant retrospectively. Exhibit C4 was written on 12 March 2010; as such the effective date of the dismissal must be taken to be 12th March 2010, not 15th March 2009 as indicated in the letter of dismissal. I so find and hold.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">44. Is the dismissal of the claimant proper? The claimant argues that it was not as she was not given fair hearing as her dismissal did not follow due process. Now, by </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">Ziideel v. RSCSC</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [2007] 3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 554 SC, an employee who complains that his employment has been wrongfully terminated has the onus to –</span><span lang="EN-US" 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:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(a) place before the Court the terms of the contract of employment, and</span><span lang="EN-US" 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:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(b) prove in what manner the said terms were breached by the employer.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">The case went on that it is not the duty of the employer as a defendant to prove any of these facts. See also <i>Morohunfolu v. Kwara Tech</i>. [1990] 4 NWLR (Pt. 145) 506 SC, <i>Ningi v. FBN Plc</i> [1996] 3 NWLR (Pt. 435) 220 CA, </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">Katto v, CBN</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"> [1999] 6 NWLR (Pt. 607) 390 SC, </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Adams v. LSDPC</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [2000] 5 NWLR (Pt. 656) 291 CA, <i>Igbinovia v. UBTH</i> [2000] 8 NWLR (Pt. 667) 53 CA, </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">Taduggoronno v. Gotom</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"> [2002] 4 NWLR (Pt. 757) 453 CA, </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Okoebor v. Police Council</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"> [2003] 12 NWLR (Pt. 834) 444 SC, </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Ibama v. SPDC (Nig.) Ltd</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"> [2005] 17 NWLR (Pt. 954) 364 SC, </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">Nigerian Gas Co. Ltd v. Dudusola</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [2005] 18 NWLR (Pt. 957) 292 CA, <i>WAEC v. Oshionebo</i> [2006] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1994) 258 CA and <i>UBN v. Chinyere</i> [2010] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1203) 453 CA.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">The Supreme Court, however, in <i>Ekeagwu v. The Nigerian Army</i> [2010] LPELR-1076(SC); [2010] 16 NWLR 419 per His Lordship Onnoghen, JSC (as he hen was) reminded us that in an action for wrongful termination/dismissal/retirement only two primary issues call for determination. These are: whether the termination/dismissal/retirement of the plaintiff is wrongful; and the measure of damages recoverable where the termination/dismissal/retirement is found to be wrongful. The recent Supreme Court decision in <i>Bukar Modu Aji v. Chad Basin Development Authority & anor</i> [2015] LPELR-24562(SC) is, however, more reinforcing in holding (per Peter-Odili, JSC who delivered the lead judgment) that waving the flag of a breach of the constitutional right to fair hearing does not provide any saving grace once the conditions of service are not pleaded and brought before the Court by a claimant who is complaining of wrongful termination of or dismissal from employment. In other words, the claimant must first plead and prove his conditions of service before any talk of breach of fair hearing can even be entertained. The conditions of service is accordingly a </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">sine qua non</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> in any claim for wrongful dismissal or termination; for only the conditions of service can be used to determine the wrongfulness or otherwise of the dismissal or termination.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">45. The claimant placed before this Court her letter of offer of employment dated 1st December 1986, which is Exhibit C1; the Procedural and Main Collective Agreement Between the Nigeria Employers’ Association of Banks, Insurance and Allied Institutions (NEABIAI) And the Association of Senior Staff of Banks, Insurance and Financial Institutions (ASSBIFI), which is Exhibit C2; and the Union Bank of Nigeria Plc Handbook Volume 4 Routine, Staff, Admin and Returns, which is Exhibit C3. By Exhibit C1, the claimant was offered employed as a clerk. Exhibit C1 then provided in the last but one paragraph thus: “Other conditions of service will be laid down in the Contract of Service Agreement and also the Collective Agreement currently in force”. The claimant’s argument here is that the collective agreement because it was referred to in Exhibit C1 must be read to mean that it was incorporated into her offer of employment, hence her employment contract. The defendant argued otherwise. Now, it is common knowledge that the position of a clerk in a Bank is a junior staff position. As a junior staff, the law assumes such a junior staff to be a member of the relevant trade union covering the workplace of the junior staff in question. So, it is understandable that Exhibit C1 would refer to the collective agreement since the claimant as a junior staff is deemed to be a member of the requisite trade union, which would be the National Union of Banks, Insurance and Financial and Institutions Employees (NUBIFIE). For the instant suit, the claimant was a senior staff, not junior staff, as at the time of her dismissal. See paragraph 4 of the statement of facts and paragraph 8 of her deposition of 4th February 2014. Once the claimant became a senior staff, the question of the collective agreement being automatically part of her contract of service did not even arise, as by law she is required to voluntarily and in writing opt to be a member of ASSBIFI, the trade union covering senior staff of Banks, etc.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">46. So, is the collective agreement, Exhibit C2, applicable in this suit? Alternatively put, can the claimant rely on Exhibit C2 in making the claims she did? The law regarding the applicability of a collective agreement to especially a senior staff, and indeed the extent to which the senior staff can rely on one has been declared by this Court 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">Aghata N. Onuorah v. Access Bank Plc</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [2015] 55 NLLR (Pt. 186) 17, </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">Samson Kehinde Akindoyin v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc</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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">[2015] 62 NLLR (Pt. 217) 259, <i>Mr. Valentine Ikechukwu Chiazor v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc</i> unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/122/2014, the judgment of which was delivered on 12 the July 2016 and </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">Mr C. E. Okeke</span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> & ors v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> unreported Suit No. NIC/LA/09/2010 the judgment of which was delivered on 26th October 2016. Counsel to the claimant did not deem it fit to refer to any of these decisions; instead he came up with an ingenious argument about a contractual presumption of law (not supported by any authority) which exists in favor of the claimant and in respect of which a duty is imposed on the defendant to produce evidence in rebuttal. The argument of the claimant’s counsel is that because Exhibit C1 referred to the collective agreement, there is a presumption of membership of the union that entered into the collective agreement on the part of the claimant; and the onus is on the defendant to rebut this presumption. Though I called this argument ingenious, it is nevertheless baseless.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">47. First, I said it earlier that Exhibit C1 was right to state that the claimant’s other conditions of service will be laid down in the contract of service and also the collective agreement currently in force given that the claimant was a junior staff when she was issued Exhibit C1; and as a junior staff, she was deemed to be a member of the requisite trade union. Now that the claimant became a senior staff, Exhibit C1 was no longer valid in terms of its statement as to the applicability the collective agreement. As a senior staff, the claimant was by law required to indicate in writing her willingness to be a member of ASSBIFI. There is no evidence that this is the case in this suit. Secondly, counsel cannot generate his own presumption and give it the label of one of law. Thirdly, everything that the counsel to the claimant said is based on facts that were not pleaded. Counsel said he attempted to amend his pleadings but his application was unsuccessful. The said application failed for reasons already given in a considered ruling delivered on 29th June 2016 chief of which was that to allow the application would result in the defendant being overreached. If counsel thinks that he would now, in the name of a contractual presumption of law, surreptitiously bring in facts and evidence that the application could not bring in, then he has a second thinking to do.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">48. Lastly, this Court has said it time without number in the cases just cited that membership of a union in the case of senior staff associations such as ASSBIFI (which the claimant claims to be a member) must be proved by direct and documentary evidence before the claimant can rely on it; and that membership of a union cannot be conferred by the employer. The claimant’s counsel advanced an argument as to the defendant by referring to the collective agreement in Exhibit C1 thereby compulsorily made the claimant a member of the union. This cannot be. An employer cannot confer membership of a trade union on an employee. A senior staff cannot be a member of a union except the senior staff voluntarily and in writing opts to be a member. For the umpteenth time, I will state that it is junior staff who are by law deemed to be members of a union; the senior staff must opt in. If a senior staff does not opt to be a member of a union, then he/she is not such a member. The fact that an employment contract refers to a collective agreement does not take away the necessity of the senior staff opting in order to be a member of the union. No employer can force an employee to be a member of a union that he/she does not desire to join. In the cases just cited, this Court made the point that even when the defendant relies on a collective agreement to confer a benefit on the employee, that act without more cannot confer membership of the trade union that entered the collective agreement on an employee. The argument of the claimant that the defendant relied on the collective agreement to mete out sanction on her accordingly holds no water. So, coming with the kind of ingenious argument that counsel to the claimant did is nothing but pure semantics full of sound and fury signifying nothing (if I may borrow from Shakespeare). I have not been convinced by the claimant’s counsel that the stance so far taken on this issue by this Court is wrong to warrant my now taking a contrary view. The argument of the claimant in respect of the applicability of the collective agreement accordingly goes to no issue and so is hereby discountenanced.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">49. What all of this means is that the claimant cannot rely on Exhibit C2 for any relief in this suit, since she did not proof membership of ASSBIFI. Exhibit C2 is accordingly discountenanced for purposes of this judgment. By paragraphs 4, 11, 14, 19 and 23 of the statement of facts, the claimant relied either wholly or in part on the collective agreement in terms of her argument that due process was not followed in dismissing her and the monetary claims she makes in this suit. To the extent that she relies on the collective agreement in proof of her case, the claimant has thereby failed.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">50. From Exhibit C4, it will be seen that the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct. The law is that when an employer gives a reason for the termination or dismissal of an employee, then the burden is on him to prove or justify the said reason to the satisfaction of the Court. See <i>SPDC Ltd v. Olarewaju</i> [2008] LPELR-3046(SC); [2008] 12 SC (Pt. III) 27, <i>Angel Shipping & Dyeing Ltd v. Ajah</i> [2000] 13 NWLR (Pt. 685) 551 CA, <i>George Abomeli v. Nigerian Railway Corporation</i> [1995] 1 NWLR (Pt. 372) 451, </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">Ogunsanmi v. C. F. Furniture (W.A.) Co. Ltd</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [1961] 1 All NLR 224, <i>Mr. Kunle Osisanya v. Afribank Nigeria Plc</i> [2007] All FWLR (Pt. 360) 1480 SC at 1491; [2007] 1 – </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 SC 317</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> and <i>Institute of Health ABU Hospital Management Board v. Mrs Jummai R. I. Anyip</i> [2011] LPELR-1517(SC). This means that the burden is on the defendant to justify the reason of gross misconduct as the basis of dismissing the claimant from its employment. The defendant placed before the Court a number of documents. Exhibit D1 is an employment agreement (contract of service) between the claimant and the defendant made on 6th January 1987; Exhibit D2 consists of 29 sheets of questions administered on and answered by the claimant (by <i>Mr. Valentine Ikechukwu Chiazor v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc</i> unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/122/2014, <i>supra</i>, a questionnaire cannot amount to a query in the real sense of the word); Exhibit D3 dated 10th January 2010 is an investigation report by R. O. Nnaji of the reckless/frivolous expenses at Oyin Jolayemi branch between July 2008 and October 2009 during the tenure of Peter Oko-odion and Scot-Ashley as Chief Marketing Officers; Exhibit D4 dated 23rd December 2009 is the query (email) to the claimant; and Exhibit D5 dated 28th December 2009 is the handwritten reply to the query by the claimant. This handwritten reply is titled, “Re: Report of Reckless/Frivolous Expences at Oyin-Jolayemi Branch Between July 2008 and October 2009” and refers to a “memo of 22nd December”. There is no memo dated 22nd December before the Court. What is before the Court is Exhibit D4, which is titled. “Report of Reckless/Frivolous Expenses at Oyin-Jolayemi Branch Between July 2008 and October 2009” but dated 23rd December 2009. Exhibit D4 accuses the claimant of passing nine entries totaling N269,000 with the Admin Manager, Mr A. A. Fatomi for expenses incurred in the branch on 23/10/09; and that the claimant authorized cash/advance payments to Corporate Contractors contrary to the Bank’s policy, which expenses have been discovered to be reckless/frivolous. The claimant was then told that her handwritten explanation is required not later than the close of business on Monday 28th December 2009. In her handwritten explanation (Exhibit D5), the claimant explained that all the entries originated from Admin Department as is usual practice; and that she signed the entries because the CMO had given her his approval in principle and to arrange for the items for the smooth running of the branch. That he was yet to sign the entries the next working day (Monday 26/10/09) by the time the Internal Control Officer took them away. The claimant concluded by stating that she had no intention of signing frivolous entries but acted for the smooth running of the branch and apologized for any oversight on her part. It is this answer that the defendant did not accept, hence the dismissal of the claimant.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">51. Can it, therefore, be said that the defendant has discharged the onus on it to justify the dismissal of the claimant since it dismissed the claimant on the ground of misconduct? The claimant thinks not, arguing that there is no report whatsoever from the so called Chief Internal Auditors of the defendant on the query (Exhibit D4) and the response thereto (Exhibit D5) in any way indicting the claimant on the countersigning of some expenses made, which were within her approval limits, all totaling the sum of N269,000.00. In other words, that the result of the response to the query ought to be known in order to determine the level of culpability and the gravity of punishment; there was no report on the incidence holding the c</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">laimant culpable.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> It is the further contention of the claimant that any dismissal that was predicated on the allegation and report without giving her query on the subject matter of the allegation is wrongful. Also, that any purported dismissal on any query for which there is no report challenging, controverting or contradicting the response thereto, and in which the culpability of the claimant was not made known is wrongful. That from the foregoing submissions, it is clear that the claimant was dismissed without regard to her contract of employment and without due consideration to the procedure of fair hearing. I think that the claimant has gone beyond the pale in terms of the requirement of the law. Sadly, in all of these submissions, the claimant referred the Court to no authority at all.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">52. As to an employer’s right to dismiss an employee, the authorities are pretty clear that the defendant has such a right even if not specifically written in the contract of service. For instance, by <i>Simon Ansambe v. Bank of the North Ltd</i> [2005] 8 NWLR (Pt. 928) 650, the fact that there is no specific provision as to termination or summary dismissal in the terms of the contract will not prevent the employer from exercising his right to so terminate or dismiss e.g. for gross misconduct; and that fair hearing does not necessarily mean an oral representation; it is enough if it is in writing. <i>Ziideeh v. RSCSC</i> [2007] LPELR-3544(SC); [2007] 3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 554; [2007] 1 – </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 SC 1</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> on its part was emphatic when it held that </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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">it is now firmly settled that in statutory employment, just as in private employment, an employer can summarily dismiss the servant in all cases of gross misconduct provided of course, the employee is given the opportunity of fair hearing”. Fair hearing is about opportunity to be heard. The authorities are clear on this. For example, once a Court makes a finding that the employee was given ample opportunity to defend himself/herself on the allegations in issue, then such an employee cannot complain of not being given fair hearing. See <i>A. R. Momoh v. CBN</i> [2007] 14 NWLR (Pt. 1055) 508 CA at 527, <i>Benedict Hirki Joseph v. First I</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">nland Bank Nig Plc</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"> [2009] LPELR-8854(CA), </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">Gukas v. Jos International Breweries Ltd</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> [1991] 6 NWLR (Pt. 199) 614, <i>Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc</i> [2011] LPELR-1503(SC); [2011] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1262) 624 SC, <i>Avre v. NIPOST</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"> [2014] LPELR-22629(CA), <i>Kayode Agbolade v. Ecobank Nig. Plc</i></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/34/2012 the judgment of which was delivered on 30th October 2013, <i>Mr. Adewale Aina v. Wema Bank Plc & anor</i> unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/162/2012 the judgment of which was delivered on January 28, 2016 and <i>Mrs. Titilayo Akisanya 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">Coca-Cola Nigeria Limited</span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> & 2 ors</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/40/2012, the judgment of which was delivered on 7th April 2016. The fair hearing requirement does not insist on oral testimonies so long as the employee had the opportunity to explain himself/herself by way of a query and reply. See <i>New Nigeria Bank Ltd v. G. O. Oniovosa</i> [1995] 9 NWLR (Pt. 419) 327 and <i>Isong Udofia v. Industrial Training Governing Council</i> [2001] 4 NWLR (Pt. 703) 281. The common feature running through all these cases is that the exact nature of the infraction(s) which the employee is expected to answer to were disclosed to the employee. The concurring judgment of His Lordship Hon. Justice Rhodes</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">-V</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ivour</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">, JSC</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> in <i>Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc</i> (<i>supra</i>) is quite emphatic. In the words of His Lordship:</span><span lang="EN-US" 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:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Accusing an employee of misconduct, etc by way of a query and allowing the employee to answer the query, and the employee answers it before a decision is taken satisfies the requirements of fair hearing or natural justice. The appellant was given a fair hearing since he answered the queries before he was dismissed.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">In the instant case, the claimant was queried on 23rd December 2009. She answered the query on 28th December 2009; and she was dismissed on 12th March 2010. The requirement of fair hearing as enjoined in <i>Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc</i> and the other cases cited has been met. I so find and hold.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">53. The argument of the claimant that she was dismissed for unspecified act of gross misconduct is not tenable. <i>Nwobosi v. ACB Ltd</i> [1995] LPELR-2121(SC); [1995] 6 NWLR (Pt. 404) 658 defines gross misconduct as a conduct that is of a grave and weighty character as to undermine the confidence which should exist between an employee and the employer; so too, working against the deep interest of the employer amounts to gross misconduct entitling an employer to summary dismissal of the employee. Exhibit C4 in simply indicating that the claimant is dismissed for misconduct satisfies the requirement of the law. All the law requires is that the defendant must justify it; and this it has done in this case. And once the dismissal is justified, the question of stigmatization of the claimant’s career and life does not arise. I so find and hold. </span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">54. Even the argument of the claimant that her dismissal was predetermined is not substantiated. The assertion by the claimant that sometime in the month of June 2009, immediately after her reporting to the office, one Abraham Edeki made an open statement that he was employed as an Auditor by the defendant to make sure that people lose their jobs is unsubstantiated as the claimant called no other witness to authenticate this assertion since according to her, it was an open statement. The claimant had contended that the evidence of gross-misconduct, which the defendant relied upon to dismiss her was for the events that took place between July 2008 to October 2009, a period of 15 months, which events were not stated in any query issued to her. Exhibits D4 and D5 do not support this assertion of the claimant.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">55. Having held that the dismissal of the claimant accords with the law, can it be said that the circumstances of the dismissal amount to redundancy? I do not think so. The claimant stretched the law as per section 20 of the Labour Act 2004 in order to arrive at her notion of redundancy. The reference to <i>North Riding Garages Ltd v. Butterwick</i> (<i>supra</i>) in terms of the popular sense in which redundancy may be understood is unhelpful as it goes beyond the prescriptions of section 20 of the Labour Act. <i>Food, Beverages and Tobacco Staff Association v. Premier Brewery Ltd</i> (<i>supra</i>) relied upon by the claimant clearly shows that what influenced the Court in arriving at the decision it did are: 33 senior employees were terminated; and the termination was occasioned by the scaling down of production. These are features which support a finding of redundancy even under section 20 of the Labour Act. In the instant case, however, the claimant was dismissed alone, not with others, and there is no evidence before the Court that the economic activities of the company suffered a downturn. It is my holding, therefore, that the circumstances in which the claimant was dismissed do not amount to redundancy.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">56. Incidentally, the reliefs the claimant is claiming are hinged on a finding of redundancy by the Court. In, therefore, finding that there is no redundancy in the circumstances of this case, there is no basis for the award of the said reliefs. Even the monetary reliefs in relief (4) are hinged on redundancy. Aside from this fact, there is the issue that the said reliefs are strictly speaking claims for special damages. It is only in paragraphs 22 and 23 that the claimant pleaded and particularized the claims as per relief (4), with the supporting testimony being paragraphs 26 and 27 of the deposition of 4th February 2014. I indicated earlier that the claimant relied in part on the collective agreement as proof of her entitlement to the monetary reliefs. I discountenanced this stance of the claimant. Even aside of this, the more worrying thing is that the claimant did not indicate to this Court which <i>exact</i> provisions of the documents she tendered grant her the entitlement to the reliefs. Exhibit C3, for instance, is a document spanning pages 85 - 621 of the claimant’s originating processes. The claimant did not show to this Court the exact provisions of this document that entitle her to the claim for 3 months’ salary in lieu of notice, redundancy, etc. Even when in paragraph 22 of the statement of facts the claimant pleaded that her monthly salary is N500,000, no pay-slip or other documentary evidence was tendered in proof. The claimant argued that the defendant admitted to her monetary claims. However, His Lordship Hon. Justice Rhodes-Vivour, JSC 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">NNPC v. Clifco Nigeria Ltd</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"> [2011] LPELR-2022(SC)</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> is emphatic on what is required in other to prove special damages. In His Lordship’s words:</span><span lang="EN-US" 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:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Now, can what appears to be an admission apply to a claim for special damages, or put in another way, can a claim for special damages succeed because it is admitted. I do not think so. Special damages are never inferred from the nature of the act complained of. They do not follow in the ordinary course as is the case with General damages. They are exceptional and so must be claimed specially and proved strictly…</span><span lang="EN-US" 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:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">…Evidence ought to be led before an award for special damages is granted. To succeed in a claim for special damages it must be claimed specially 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. Special damages are exceptional in character and so there is no room for inference by the court. It is unreasonable to consider a claim for special damages reasonable in the absence of proof. A claim for special damages succeeds on compelling evidence to justify it and not on the sums claimed appearing reasonable to the court.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">57. Courts are adjudicators, not investigators. Is the claimant expecting that this Court will comb through her Exhibit C3 (a document of about 536 pages) in order to find the provisions that prove her entitlements? In <i>Mr. Mohammed Dungus & ors v. ENL Consortium Ltd</i> [2015] 60 NLLR (Pt. 208) 39, this Court held as follows:</span><span lang="EN-US" 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:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">I must emphasise here that throughout their written address, the claimants made no attempt whatsoever to indicate to the Court the exact provisions of the documents they frontloaded that [grant] them the entitlements they claim. 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. Counsel should not expect that it is the Court that will shop for the relevant article that substantiates the claim of his/her client. This is very bad advocacy; and cases can be lost just on that score.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Incidentally, this is the case in the instant suit. With the energy and effort counsel to the claimant put in churning out a 51-paged written address, that energy and effort would have been more useful if it were put to making the claimant tie her depositions to the specific clauses of the documents she relied on. This is the essence of frontloading and the requirement of law.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">58. On the whole, I see no merit in the case of the claimant. It fails and is hereby dismissed.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">59. Judgment is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost.</span><span lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" 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 lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">……………………………………</span><span lang="EN-US" 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><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>