Download PDF
By a Complaint filed on the 22nd day of March 2013, the Claimant claimed against the Defendant the following reliefs; A Declaration that the dismissal of the Claimant from the services of the Defendant vide the letter dated 14th March, 2011 is illegal and unlawful. The sum of N100,000.000.00 (One Million Naira) being special and general damages for the unlawful dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant. The Complaint was accompanied by other relevant originating processes including the Statement of Claim, wherein the particulars of damages were broken down as follows: Special damages of N49,495,056.88 made up as follows: 1. Basic Salary N981,500.00 2 Transportation N377,500.00 3 Housing/Rent allowance N755,000.00 4 Lunch allowance N220,000.00 5 Utility allowance N128,385.00 6 Tea allowance N70,000.00 7 Domestic staff allowance N100,250.00 8 Entertainment allowance N55,000.00 9 Passage allowance N739,750.00 10 13th month allowance N81,267.00 11 Leave pay N157,040.00 12 Staff pension contribution N158,550.00 13 Current guaranteed pay N3,824,767.00 14 Variable pay N600,000.00 Total pay per annum N4,424,767.00 15 Calculation: outstanding working period in months & years up to 35 years official working retirement year, 2020 = From 1/3/2011 – May 2020 i.e. Nine (9) years & three (3) months Period all in months = 9 years x 12 months = 108 Add: March, 2011 – May 2011 = 3 11 months 16 Total current guaranteed pay per annum = N3,824,767.00 17 Total current guaranteed pay per month N3,824,767 12 = N318,730.58p/m 18 Outstanding working period in (months) x claim per month = N318,730.58 x 111 months N35,379,094.38 19 Add: variable pay per annum = N600,000 12 months = N50,000p/m x 111 = N5,550,000.00 Sub Total (total pay) N40,929,094.38 20 Gratuity for (30 years’ service as per attached service year’s calculation). N6,945,375.00 Pension per annum (after 30 years-service) i.e (pension per month = N135,048.96) N1,620,587.50 TOTAL N49,495,056.88 General Damages = N50,504,943.12 Total special and general damages = N100,000,000.00 Pleadings were exchanged and hearing commenced on the 1st day of July 2014. The Claimant testified for himself as CW1. One Sebastine Ogbonna testified as CW2 while one Bertha Ajike, a staff of the Defendant, testified as DW1. Hearing was concluded on the 26th day of October 2016 and parties were ordered to file their final written addresses in accordance with the Rules of this Court. The Claimant’s counsel filed his address on the 3rd day of April 2017 while the Defendant’s final address was filed on the 21st day of June 2017. The Claimant filed a Reply on points of law on 7th July 2017. Parties regularized and adopted their respective final written addresses on the 7th day of July 2017. In the Claimant counsel’s written address, counsel identified two issues for determination as follows: Whether the Claimant's dismissal by the Defendant was not unlawful and wrongful. Whether refusal by the Defendant's management to invite the Claimant to the Head Office to explain himself as they did to other staff involved in the allegation namely: the Branch Manager - Mrs. C. A. Pat Nnaji and Mrs. T. Uba, does not amount to denial of fair hearing. With regard to issue one, counsel argued that the Defendant gave its reasons for dismissing the Claimant via his letter to Public Complaint Commission to include: the suppression of Okigwe branch inward clearing cheques, unauthorized payment against uncleared effects, and fraudulent withholding of cash at Okigwe Branch. It is counsel’s view that the position of the law is that he who asserts must prove, and in the present case the Defendant did not prove the commission of the fraud mentioned above; while the Claimant defended himself by stating that he was not involved in inward clearing cheque duties and neither were the inward clearing instruments of Okigwe branch under his custody. Hence he was not involved in suppression of Okigwe Branch inward clearing cheques. Counsel submitted that the Claimant had stated that it is only the manager that has the sole authority to authorize payment against uncleared effects, and that for the seven years he worked in Okigwe branch, there was no time he made payment against uncleared effects to any customer. The Defendant failed to produce any evidence of uncleared cheque payment. In this vein, counsel submitted that facts not proved goes to no issue, and the allegation of unauthorized payment of uncleared effects is not only a false allegation, but a calculated attempt to tarnish the image of the Claimant. Counsel submitted that the allegation of fraudulent withholding of cash at Okigwe branch was not substantiated by the Defendant. On the allegation of debit balance of N50,383,366.00 as at May 2007, counsel submitted that the DW1, under cross examination admitted that the debit balance was in the record of Okigwe branch before Mr. Sebastine Nnadi, who was the branch Operations Manager, handed over to the Claimant. DW1 stated unequivocally under cross-examination that the Claimant did not commit any fraud. Rather, his offence is that he did not report irregularities perpetrated by the branch manager Mrs. C.A. Pat Nnaji as contained in the contract of employment. Counsel drew the court’s attention to the contents of the contract in this regard to be: “if the official shall become aware of any irregularity on the part of any other member of the staff of the bank which in the official's opinion affects the interest of the bank, he shall give immediate information thereof to his manager or next senior executive official of the branch at which he is employed”. It is the view of counsel that this position in the Claimant’s employment contract reveals that in this present case when the branch manager gave authority to the Claimant to hand over the sum of N4,069,485.00, which was in her possession to the relief manager, Mr. C. N. Ezeala, the Claimant’s compliance with this directive showed that there was no intention to defraud the bank. Also, counsel contended that the said sum of N4,069,485.00 was handed over to the incoming Relief Manager, Mr. C. N. Ezeala on 30/7/2009, same day out-going Manager, C. A. Pat Nnaji brought the money, before the inspectors arrived the bank-branch on 04/8/2009. This according to counsel, shows that no offence was committed, as there was no actus reus and mens rea. Again, counsel argued that in the instant case, the irregularity came from the manager and there was no other executive officer senior to the Claimant that he could report to. Regarding issue two, counsel submitted that an employee who is accused of misconduct must be availed the opportunity of being heard and calling a witness before his contract of service can be terminated. In support of this submission, counsel referred to FUTMINNA vs. MAIWUGO (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 677) 753, where the Court of Appeal held as follows: “an employee who is accused of misconduct is entitled to call his witness if he had any and they must be heard. This means that he should be present when witnesses are testifying against him. If this procedure is not adopted, it would amount to a denial of natural justice... it therefore presupposes that an employer who intends to dismiss an employee for wrongdoing must accord him the basic principle of law i.e. “audi alteram partem and nemo judex in causa sua” Similarly, counsel argued that evidence of an accused cannot be used against a fellow accused, and while Mrs. C. Pat-Nnaji and Mrs. T. Uba were invited to the head office where they stated their cases, the Claimant was not given such opportunity and so the management relied heavily on what they heard from Mrs. C. Pat-Nnaji and Mrs. T. Uba to dismiss the Claimant. In other words, counsel asserted that the Claimant in this suit having not been given the opportunity to explain himself before any disciplinary committee, fair hearing was denied. Again, counsel asserted that the account number 5752000531150 that was alleged by the Defendant to be Claimant's account was opened as a (MINOR ACCOUNT) with the name: Oluchukwu Ben Chinonye Pat. Nnaji (O.B.C. Pat. Nnaji) on 07/06/2007; when Mr. Sebastine .O Nnadi was the Okigwe branch Operations Manager. In addition, counsel submitted that the Claimant was also not given fair hearing to explain the internal reversal entry of N58,383,470.65, from Unpresented Managers Cheque account to managers’ cheque (draft) account, during joint account reconciliation of the branch books. This transaction, was authorized by the Defendant's acting Operations Manager, Mrs. Ubah Theresa, into her computer system and voucher also endorsed by her. The same entry was also checked by the Relief Chief Marketing Officer, C. N. Ezeala, prior to signing audit inspector's letter dated 08/02/2010. Also, counsel pointed out that these submissions were affirmed by the DW1 during cross-examination who admitted that it was not possible for one person, to single handedly transfer N58,383,470.65 without the approval of the Branch Manager. In conclusion, counsel submitted that by the entirety of the evidence in this case, the Defendant wrongfully terminated the employment of the Claimant, and for this reason, the Claimant is entitled to specific damages and general damages. Counsel urged the court to enter judgment in favour of the Claimant. The Defendant’s counsel in his final written address, distilled two issues for determination as follows: Whether having sequel to the circumstances of case, the Claimant did not breach the provisions of his contract of service dated 18/4/85 (Exh. D1). Whether the dismissal of the Claimant from the service of the Defendant is wrongfully by reason of not affording him fair hearing. In counsel’s argument, counsel stated that from the Claimant’s written depositions the Claimant informed the court that while he was at the Okigwe Branch of the Defendant, he was appointed the Branch “Acting Operations Manager” on the 28/8/2008, a position that made the Claimant fully in charge of accounts. Again, counsel submitted that the Claimant did not controvert the Defendant’s averment stated in paragraph 4 of the Statement of Defence, that the Claimant was queried by the letter dated 25/8/2009 by the Inspection Team of the Defendant for the balance of N50,385,366.87 on the Manager's Cheque Account, which as an officer-in-charge of Accounts. He should have promptly reported, as such account should at all times carry credit balance. Similarly, counsel argued that the Defendant’s statement that the cash sales that were not lodged into the said account and that 60 drafts were not liquidated into her account contrary to the Defendants Rules and Procedures, indicated questionable and fraudulent intentions on the part of the Claimant. It is counsel’s opinion that the Claimant's response to these allegations that he was appointed Acting Operations Manager without a letter of authority and, his orders could not be obeyed, and that the Okigwe Branch Bank operation's is not a one man affair; are unsatisfactory considering he assumed the duties of that office over a long period of time without any complaint and without resigning. Furthermore, counsel contended that the Claimant’s admissions in his depositions to the effect that on an ad-hoc arrangement, draft account number 5751000014550 was opened and the proceeds were credited therein; revealed that the Claimant did not follow proper procedure in conducting the Defendant’s business. It is the submission of counsel that the Claimant did not tell the court whether the said cash in the accounts that were opened were transferred before or after the Defendant's audit; or place evidence before the court to prove his assertion that the sum was actually transferred, as the Claimant's only defence is that the Defendant did not lose any fund while the accounts were operated. Counsel went further to argue that from the Claimant’s admission under cross-examination that it was improper to use a private account to transact the business of the Defendant, and that the controversial accounts were being used until after he handed over to Mrs. T. I. Uba as the Acting Operation's Manager in February, 2009; the Claimant cannot claim not to have used the said account or being aware of it. Similarly, counsel submitted that from paragraph 8 of the Claimant's further deposition, that the cash of N4,069,485.00 was handed to him by Pat Nnaji with instruction that he should submit same to Mr. C. N. Ezeala, and that the said sum was eventually credited to the same draft account 5751000014550 showed the inconsistency in the Claimant’s admissions. In the same vein, counsel contended that the admission by the Claimant that the two personal accounts were created and used in the Defendant's Okigwe Branch before and while he was in Okigwe branch as a staff, and that he handed over some cash which the recipient admitted he paid into one of the said unauthorized personal accounts is wrong and enough to constitute breach of his contract of service with the defendant. Counsel argued also that such acts of the Claimant amounted to gross misconduct which entitles the Defendant to terminate the Claimant's employment. Counsel submitted that the Claimant admitted that it was improper to use those private accounts to transact the business of the Defendant, told the court during cross-examination on 04/11/14 that he apologized to the Defendant (in the reply to a query) for using those personal accounts to transact the Defendants business. Further, counsel argued that with the Claimant conversant with the Regulations and other Rules of the Defendant as contained in her Hand Book; he was supposed to report any fraudulent act such as opening and using of private accounts by the manager and other staff, and the transaction of Defendant's business through those accounts, yet, the Claimant never reported same to the appropriate quarters until the fraud was discovered by the audit inspectors of the Defendant. it is counsel’s submission that the acts of the Claimant simply amounted to diversion of funds contrary to the Rules, Regulations and Procedures laid down by the Defendant for the proper operation of her banking business, because the opening of these accounts were without the authority of the Defendant. Also, counsel asserted that the Claimant admitted that the Okigwe Branch Manager of the Defendant is under the Owerri Headquarters the Defendant has Regional Headquarters and the National Headquarters; and the Claimant never reported these fraudulent acts to any of these higher authorities until he was sacked. Counsel referred the court to Exhibit D2 and D3, and added that the only explanation for this inaction is that the Claimant partook in the said fraud. . Again, counsel was of the view that the Claimant never adduced any evidence to controvert the fact that was the subject of the query issued to the Claimant by the relief marketing officer about series of cheques, cash and vouchers issued between November to December, 2008 which were not captured in the computer system of the Defendant contrary to the Defendant's Rules and Regulations, and the sum of N4,069,480.00 that did not pass through the Defendant's account, but was held over from November to December 2008 to 30/7/2009, and the manager’s cheque was not credited. Counsel referred the court to the query dated 28th August, 2009 attached to the Claimant’s reply to statement of defence. Also, counsel submitted DW1 deposed in paragraph 4 of her Written Statement on Oath that it was sequel to the findings by the Audit Inspectorate of the Defendant’s Head Office Lagos in connection with the debit balance of N50,385,360.87 on manager's cheque account, the fraudulent withholding of cash of N4,194,835.00 meant for liquidation of manager's cheques, and manipulation of records (for which the Claimant was issued queries (dated 24/8/2009, 25/8/2009, 26/8/2009 and 6/10/2009) that the Defendant dismissed the Claimant. Counsel urged the court to exercise its inherent powers, and admit the said queries and their answers attached to the statement of defence for purposes of the just determination of this case. More so, counsel contended that the Claimant’s employment was terminated in accordance with clause 3 the agreement (Exhibit Dl) between the parties dated 20/5/85 where it was provided that “in the event of the official being guilty of any breach of the provisions of that agreement or any misconduct of any kind (whether during or out of office hours) of which the Bank shall be the sole judge…it shall be lawful for the Bank to determine this agreement at any time without notice in which case the official shall only be entitled to salary accrued up to the date of such dismissal” It is counsel’s contention that the dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant was done pursuant to this agreement and therefore lawful, because the Claimant's knowledge of the existence and usage of personal accounts to transact the business of the Defendant amounts to gross misconduct especially when the Claimant admitted that he made available funds belonging to the Defendant which was paid into such personal account for whatever reason. Counsel argued that the Claimant’s apology in his answer to query dated 7/10/2009 was hinged on the fact that the opening and usage of the said accounts were not authorized by the Defendant and therefore improper, as such accounts must be authorized by the Headquarters of the Defendant and no other, to the knowledge of the Claimant. Similarly, Counsel submitted that the Claimant failed to deny the averment in paragraph 8 of statement of defence to the effect that the Claimant mishandled official records P & L which were taken to his home contrary to banking Rules and Regulations while official audit was in progress, an unethical act done with intent to defraud the Defendant and falsify official records by the Claimant; which amounts to gross misconduct. In the same light, counsel contended that the Claimant’s admission in his reply dated 7/10/2009 that the sum of N4,069,485 was withheld by the staff of the Okigwe branch including him, is an indication that the said fund was fraudulently withheld by the above-mentioned parties, and this act amounts to gross misconduct which entitled the Defendant to dismiss the official involved. Counsel contended further that all the officials involved in the act including the Claimant were all dismissed by the Defendant. Counsel referred the court to the inspectorate’s report (Exhibit D2), letter of C. N. Ezeala to the Defendant dated 7/10/09, and the case of IMONIKHE vs. UNITY BANK (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1262) Pgs 624 to 649, where it was held that an employer that accuses an employee of misconduct by way of query and allows the employee to answer the query before the employer takes a decision on the employment of the employee, has satisfied the requirements of fair hearing or natural justice because he answered the employer's queries before he was dismissed from his employment. Counsel submitted that in the instant case, the Claimant was issued with numerous queries over fraudulent acts and misconducts and he did not answer them to the satisfaction of the Defendant, and having failed to clear himself of the allegations leveled against him, his employment was terminated. According to counsel, the termination of the Claimant was valid, irrespective of the fact that the Defendant did not constitute a tribunal to try the Claimant, or that the Claimant was not referred to the Headquarters of the Defendant for further trial, because the inspectorate Department gave him fair hearing opportunities. Also, counsel argued that nothing in the Claimant’s contract of employment stipulated that the Claimant must be tried at the Headquarters of the Defendant for gross misconduct before he could be dismissed. Again, counsel argued that the argument that the Claimant was not afforded fair hearing is misconceived in law, particularly as all the cases cited in support of that argument are against the facts of the case of the Claimant, because after due investigation, the Inspector Department of the Defendant indicted some staff of the Defendant via a report dated 21 October 2009. (Exhibit D2) and recommended their dismissal. It is the argument of counsel that having proved the Claimant guilty of gross misconduct contrary to his contract of service, the Defendant dismissed the Claimant, in line with the decision in OLANREWAJU vs. AFRIBANK PLC (2001) FWLR (Pt. 72) 2008, where the court held that an employer may either exercise his discretion in favour of prosecuting the erring servant or dismissing him summarily, when an employee is found guilty of gross misconduct. Counsel referred the court to the case of ONALAJA vs. A.P. LTD (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt. 206) 691, and submitted that an unwilling employer will not be compelled to keep an employee he or she no longer wants, because the court cannot foist on an employer an employee in whom he has lost confidence. In conclusion, counsel submitted that the Claimants failed to place credible evidence before the court showing that his dismissal by the Defendant was unlawful, and also that the cases cited by the Claimant’s counsel were quoted out of context. Counsel urged the court to dismiss this suit in its entirety for being an academic exercise, lacking in merit and award punitive cost against the Claimant for wasting the time of the court and that of the Defendant. The Claimant’s counsel further filed an address he titled reply on point of law. The submissions of counsel in the address departed from a reply on points of law. Save for paragraphs 3.01 to 3.06 which addressed the admissibility of Exhibits D2 and D3, the totality of the reply is an address on the facts of the case and it in fact dwelt more extensively on the facts than the final written address of the Claimant. The supposed reply on point of law of the Claimant is contrary to what a reply on points of law should contain. I will discountenance the said reply of the Claimant save the aspect on the admissibility of Exhibits D2 and D3. COURT’s DECISION On the 7th day of July 2017 during the adoption of Final Written Addresses, an issue of the competence of the Defendant to be a party to this suit was raised by the Defendant’s counsel. The issue raised by counsel to the Defendant is an issue that affects the jurisdiction of this court to entertain or determine this suit. It also has to do with the competence of the Claimant’s suit. It is therefore important I resolve the issue as it will determine if I will proceed with the judgment or not. The Defendant’s counsel submitted that the Defendant whom the Claimant brought to court is non juristic and as such, there is no proper Defendant in the matter. The Defendant’s counsel urged the court to dismiss the suit for having the wrong Defendant. On his part, the Claimant’s counsel applied to amend the name of the Defendant to “Union Bank of Nigeria PLC”. The Claimant’s counsel submitted that the name with which the Defendant was sued was a misnomer and ought to be amended to reflect its correct name. Issues were joined on the subject and counsels were heard on their submissions. It is a settled principle of law that only natural or juristic persons can sue or be sued. All the parties to a suit must be juristic or natural persons existing or living at the time the action was instituted. The name of a competent party to a suit must be the real name by which he is known in the case of a natural person and its corporate name in the case of a non-natural juristic person. See THE ADMINISTRATORS/EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF GENERAL SANI ABACHA (DECEASED) vs. EKE-SPIFF (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 467) 1 at 31; ABUBAKAR vs. YAR’ADUA (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 457) 1 at 136. Therefore, an action cannot be maintained against a Defendant who is not a legal person. Where it is clear that a Defendant or any party to a suit is not a legal person, the party must be struck out. The name of the Defendant on record is “Union Bank Plc”. The Defendant’s counsel stated in his submissions that the name is non juristic. Counsel also mentioned that the proper name of the Defendant is “Union Bank of Nigeria Plc”. The Claimant has now applied to amend the name of the Defendant to its proper name. The issue here is whether to strike out the suit for having the wrong person as a Defendant or to allow the Claimant to amend the name of the Defendant. The Claimant’s cause of action in this suit is his dismissal from his employment by his employer. The Defendant admitted in its statement of defence that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant and dismissed from the employment by the Defendant. In addition, the Defendant has expressed the name of the Defendant as “Union Bank of Nigeria Plc” in all the processes it filed in this action. It is clear to me the parties know who the Claimant intended to sue as Defendant in this action. But in bringing this action, the Claimant omitted the words “of Nigeria” from the name of the Defendant. Clearly, there was a mistake in the name of the Defendant. The omissions of the words “of Nigeria” from the name of the Defendant does not render the Defendant non juristic nor does it mean that the Defendant is different from “Union Bank of Nigeria Plc”. From the case before me, I am satisfied that it is the bank the Claimant intended to sue. The expression of the name “Union Bank Plc” on the Complaint is a clear case of misnomer. A misnomer arises where a party is sued in the wrong name. In other words, misnomer occurs when a mistake is made as to the name of a person who sued or was sued or when an action is brought by or against the wrong name of a person. Better still, misnomer occurs when the correct person is brought to court under a wrong name. Where the description of a party on the Complaint was a misnomer, such can be corrected by amendment provided that the person misnamed but intended to be sued is a juristic entity and it is also in existence. Therefore, the fact that the name of the person sued is not the name of a legal person does not preclude the court from amending the title of the action to show the correct name of the party sued if it is clear to the court that it was a case of misnomer. See MAERSK LINE vs. ADDIDE INVESTMENT LTD (2002) FWLR (Pt. 125) 608 at 655-656; NWABUEZE vs. NIPOST (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt. 983) 480; FCE (TECHNICAL) GUSAU vs. ABUBAKAR (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 709) 1130 at 1145. NKOCHA vs. FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 422) 112. In the circumstance of this case, I am of the view that the mistake in the name of the Defendant is a mere misnomer. In that case, this suit cannot be dismissed because the Defendant was not expressed in its correct name. I will allow the amendment of the name of the Defendant to read its correct name of “Union Bank of Nigeria Plc”. This name is deemed to reflect on all the processes already filed in this suit. I will now proceed to determine the case. Having reviewed the submissions of the counsels to the parties in their final written addresses let me now examine the facts of the case. The Claimant testified as the 1st witness in his case. His evidence, which is in line with the facts pleaded in his statement of facts, is that he was employed by the Defendant in 1985 vide a letter dated 18/4/85 as a clerk. He worked in several branches of the Defendant and progressed from the position of a clerk to the position of Officer I in 2007. At the time of his last promotion, he was at the Defendant’s Okigwe Branch, Imo State where he worked until his dismissal by the Defendant. At the Okigwe branch, it was the duty of the branch manager, Mrs. C.A. Pat-Nnaji, to assign duties to officers in the branch. In her discretion, the branch manager appointed the Claimant as the branch operations manager on 28/8/2008. However, the issuance of bank drafts to customers and non-customers was not under the Claimant’s schedule but the duty was assigned to a sub-manager, Mr. Onyemaechi Anyanwu, by the branch manager. The sub-manager and the branch manager are responsible for co-ordinating issuance of bank drafts. On 30/7/2007, the branch manager handed over the sum of N4,069,485.00 which was cash collected from non-customers who were issued bank drafts, to the branch secretary, Mrs. E. U. Njoku, with instruction that the Claimant should submit same on her behalf to the Relief Branch Manager, Mr. C. N. Ezeala. The Claimant complied with the instruction. On 4/8/2009, the Defendant’s inspectors or internal auditors from the head office visited Okigwe branch of the Defendant bank on routine checks. The inspectors discovered the lodgement of N4,069,485.00 and queried the lodgement. The Relief Branch Manager, Mr. C. N. Ezeala, in turn issued a query dated 24/08/2009 to the Claimant to explain what happened. In his reply to the query dated 24/08/2009, the Claimant explained that it was the Branch Manager, Mrs. C. A. Pat Nnaji, who instructed him through the branch secretary to submit the said sum to the Relief Manager, Mr. C. N. Ezeala. The Claimant also received another query on 6/10/2009 signed by J. C. Iroh, a Deputy Manager, and one P. A. Nwachukwu, titled "cash sales of Managers cheque". The Claimant’s reply to this query was dated 7/10/09. Again, on 8/2/2010, the Inspectorate Department of the Defendant’s Head Office, phoned the Relief Branch Manager, Mr. C. N. Ezeala to ask for explanation on the said sum of N4,069,485.00 and manager's cheque account debit balance of N50,385,366.57. The phone was handed over to the Claimant and he answered the questions of the Inspectorate Department. The department further demanded a written explanation on the sum of N4,069,485.00. The Claimant, together with the Relief Manager, wrote a letter dated 8/2/2010 to the Chief Inspectorate of the Inspectorate Department of the Defendant. On 14/3/2011, the Claimant received a letter from the Defendant dismissing the Claimant from services for gross misconduct without giving him an opportunity to explain what happened and without regard to the collective agreement guiding the employment. He was dismissed after 25 years and 9 months in the Defendant’s employment. The Claimant appealed against his dismissal in a letter to the Defendant dated 21/3/2011 but the Defendant wrote him a letter dated 28/7/2011 dismissing his appeal. As a result, the Claimant sent a complaint to the Public Complaints Commission on 12/11/2011. The Defendant’s response to the letter of the PCC is dated 26/4/2012. The Claimant avers that the reasons given by the Defendant in its letter to the PCC for dismissing the Claimant are not true. The Claimant stated that he was not involved in suppression of inward clearing cheques at Okigwe branch, he was not involved in unauthorized payment against uncleared effects and he did not fraudulently withhold cash at the branch. The Claimant averred that he was not given fair hearing by the Defendant. The Defendant did not invite the Claimant to hear his own side whereas the branch manager and another staff, Mrs. T. Ubah, where invited to the head office for fact finding on the issue. The Defendant acted on what it was told by the two staff thereby prejudicing the Claimant’s civil rights. The Claimant also adopted his further witness statement on oath sworn to on 4th February 2014. His evidence in that deposition is mainly on the point that the debit balances in the manager’s cheque account in the Defendant’s Okigwe branch resulted from the upgrade of the Defendant’s computer system and he was not involved in any act of misconduct in the irregularities discovered in the branch. I see no need to set out details of the evidence here but I shall make use of relevant portions of the further evidence when necessary in the course of this judgment. The evidence of CW2, Mr. S. O. Nnadi, follows the pattern of the Claimant’s further evidence. CW2 said he was the Operations Manager of the Defendant’s Okigwe branch and worked with the Claimant in the branch. He handed over the duties of operations manager to the Claimant on 28/8/2008 when he was transferred from the branch. He testified that at the time of handover, there were several unbalanced accounts in the branch including manager’s cheque or draft account. This accounts had fluctuating un-reconciled debit balances of more than N50 Million Naira resulting from upgrade of the computer system in May 2007. The manager’s cheque account has debit balances of various sums from March 2008 to July 2008. This unbalanced amount of the manager’s cheque account continued up to the time of the system upgrade. The account never had a credit balance since May 2007. Part of the debit balance of the account was caused by computer system error which came about during the system upgrade in May 2007. The manager’s cheque account had remained unbalanced throughout his tenure as operations manager and this was the situation inherited by the Claimant. The Claimant did not contribute to the debit balance of the account. Account no. 57520000531150 was opened during his tenure as operations manager in the name of Oluchukwu Ben Chinonye Pat Nnaji (O.B.C-Pat Nnaji) as an underage account. It was opened on 7/6/2007 by Mr. P. O. Ogbonna, Head of Current Account and Savings Account, at the instance of the branch manager, Mrs. Pat-Nnaji. The Claimant knew nothing about the account. The defence of the Defendant, as pleaded in the statement of defence and as heard from DW1, Bartha Ahurchi Ajike, a Compliance Officer at the Internal Control Department of the Defendant, is that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant on 18/4/85. Upon his employment, the Claimant’s employment was regulated by terms and conditions contained in his employment letter, the Defendant’s handbook, Main Collective agreement, contract of service agreement signed by the Claimant and other circulars. The Claimant was issued queries on account of his acts of gross misconduct and fraud and he responded to the queries. The queries were issued following the findings by the Audit Inspectorate of the defendant in connection with the debit balance of N50,385,366.87 on manager’s cheque account and fraudulent withholding cash of N4,194,835.00 meant for liquidation of manager’s cheque and manipulation of records. Queries dated 24/8/2009, 25/8/2009, 26/8/2009 and 6/10/2009 were issued to the Claimant. The Claimant answered the queries where he gave explanation of his improper actions and misconducts. He could however not exculpate himself from manipulation of records, accounting fraud, suppression of cheques and diversion of funds. These were contrary to the rules and procedure of the Defendant. Following the Audit Inspectorate findings and recommendations, the Claimant was dismissed on 14/3/2011 in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment. The Claimant petitioned the Public Complaints Commission and the Defendant forwarded a letter to the Commission on 26/4/2012 to explain the reasons for the Claimant’s dismissal. Having examined the facts of the case and having also reviewed the submissions of the counsels to the parties in their final written addresses in the case, I am of the view that the issues which are to be determined in this case are the following: 1. Whether the Claimant has proved that his dismissal from the employment of the defendant is illegal and unlawful. 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs he sought in this suit. Before I determine the issues, let me consider the admissibility of some documents already marked as exhibits on this matter. During the evidence of CW1, the Defendant’s counsel raised objection to the admissibility of the documents marked as Exhibits CC7 and CC8. Ruling on the objection was reserved. I will now determine that objection. The ground of objection of the Defendant’s counsel with respect to Exhibits CC7 and CC8 is that the documents are photocopies. The Claimant did explain when he tendered Exhibit CC7 that the document is an original. It is written by him and signed by him with a black ink. The Claimant’s counsel submitted that the document is primary evidence and it is admissible by the effect of Section 86 of the Evidence Act. The Exhibit CC7 document is the Claimant’s reply to a query. It is handwritten in black ink. Upon scrutiny, it is observed that it is an original handwritten copy. It is not a photocopy as alleged by the defendant’s counsel. The document is a primary copy and it is admissible in evidence. With respect to Exhibit CC8, it is observed that it is a photocopy of a query dated 6/10/2009 pleaded by the Claimant in paragraph 10 of the statement of facts. The query emanated from the Defendant. The Defendant too pleaded this query in paragraph 9 of the statement of defence and also frontloaded it. Both parties have agreed that the said query was issued to the Defendant. The document is also relevant to the determination of this case. I will therefore admit it in evidence. The Defendant’s counsel also indicted his desire to raise objection to the admissibility of the documents marked Exhibits CC15, CC16, CC17, CC18, CC19, and CC20 at the stage of final address. Leave was accordingly granted while the documents were marked as Exhibits in the meantime. The Defendant’s counsel however did not raise the objections in his final written address. It implies that counsel has abandoned his intended objection. The result is that no objection was raised to the admissibility of the documents. I find that they are therefore properly admitted in evidence. On 25/4/2017, the Defendant’s counsel tendered Exhibits D2 and D3 from the bar with leave of this court. The documents were admitted in evidence with leave granted to the Claimant’s counsel to address the court on the admissibility of the documents or why the court should not place reliance on the documents in the reply on point of law. In paragraphs 3.01 to 3.06 of the Claimant’s reply on points of law, the Claimant’s counsel submitted that documents are overreaching on the Claimant as they were brought in after hearing had been closed in the matter. The Claimant did not have opportunity to cross examine on the document and a reliance on the documents will cause miscarriage of justice to the Claimant. I totally agree with the Claimant’s counsel. The Defendant did not front load these documents and they were not brought in during hearing. The Claimant had no opportunity to join issues on the documents. To allow the documents in evidence will not serve the interest of justice. Exhibits D2 and D3 are hereby expunged from evidence. ISSUE 1: In relief 1 of the Complaint, the claimant sought a declaration of the court to the effect that his dismissal from the employment of the Defendant is illegal and unlawful. In his case, he stated that he was dismissed from the Defendant’s employment on 14/3/2011 for gross misconduct. After a thorough evaluation of the Claimant’s case, it is observed that his complaints in this suit against the dismissal are these: i. He was not given fair hearing by the Defendant before he was dismissed. ii. He did not commit the misconducts for which he was dismissed. Where an act is alleged to be illegal or unlawful, it presupposes that the act was done against a statute or a law. Although the Claimant did not make any case suggesting that his dismissal from the employment offended any law, however, by the prayer in relief 1, he, perhaps, likened his employment to that regulated by statute. It is the law that in employments regulated by statute, where a dismissal or termination of the employment is done contrary to the provisions of the relevant statute, such a dismissal or termination is liable to be declared unlawful and illegal. See ESIEVWORE vs. NEPA (2002) FWLR (Pt. 124) 398 at 408. Let me observe that under the Nigerian Labour Law, employment can be those regulated by statute or those under common law relationship of master and servant. Where the terms and conditions of a contract of employment are specifically provided for by statute or regulations made under the statute, it is said to be an employment with statutory flavour or protected by statute. Where this is not the case, the employment is merely that of master and servant. See OBAJE vs. N.A.M.A (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 732) 1811 at 1826; ODONIBOYE-OBU vs. N.N.P.C (2003) FWLR (Pt. 146) 959 at 992; N.I.I.A. vs. ANYAFALU (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 325) 141 at 162. In this case, the Claimant pleaded in paragraph 2 and 3 of the statement of facts that he was employed by the Defendant, who is a financial institution registered under the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, in 1985 through an employment letter dated 18/4/85. The employment letter was admitted in evidence as Exhibit CC1. I have examined the Claimant’s employment letter, other documents of the employment tendered in this case and the incorporation of the Defendant as pleaded in paragraph 2 of the Claimant’s statement of facts and the condition of service but find that the Claimant’s employment does not have the character of employment under statute. From my assessment of the nature of the Claimant’s employment, I have no doubt that it has no statutory flavour but an employment of master and servant. Therefore, the Claimant’s employment is that of master and servant and not one governed by statute. In such an employment of master and servant, dismissal from the employment or termination of the servant’s employment cannot be declared unlawful or illegal or null and void as sought by the Claimant. These remedies are available only to employment with statutory flavour. See ESIEVWORE vs. NEPA (supra); OPUO vs. N.N.P.C. (2002) F.W.L.R (Pt. 84) 11 at 27; UNION BEVERAGES LTD vs. OWOLABI (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 86) 128. In master and servant relationship, as in this case, it is a general rule that where in the employment contract a procedure is provided for termination of the contract or dismissal, none compliance with that procedure amounts merely to wrongful dismissal or termination but does not render the act unlawful. See EZE vs. SPRING BANK PLC (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 609) 1076; UZONDU vs. U.B.N PLC (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 443) 1389. Perhaps, the Claimant’s claim that his dismissal from the Defendant’s employment is illegal and unlawful is based on his assertion that he was not given fair hearing before he was dismissed. In paragraphs 12 and 21 of the statement of facts, the Claimant averred that when he was dismissed from the employment, the Defendant did not give him an opportunity for an interactive session to explain what happened. Although some affected officers of the Defendant were invited to the Defendant’s head office to explain themselves, he was not so invited. He contended that the Defendant’s refusal to invite him in order to hear his side of the story amounted to denying him his right to fair hearing. The Claimant’s counsel cited the case of F.U.T, MINNA vs. MAIWUGO and submitted in the final address that failure of the Defendant to invite the Claimant to explain himself before a disciplinary committee amounted to denial of the Claimant’s right to fair hearing. Let me first point out that the F.U.T, MINNA vs. MAIWUGO case was decided on the basis of the Federal University of Technology Act which laid down procedure for hearing in a disciplinary action against employees of the Federal Universities of Technology. It is a different situation in this case. The employment of the Claimant is not protected by statute and the Claimant has shown, whether in his pleadings or evidence, any condition of service where a disciplinary procedure was laid down in the employment to include a hearing before a committee. Similarly, the Defendant denied the Claimant’s allegation of denial of fair hearing and through DW1, told this court that the Claimant was issued queries on account of his acts of gross misconduct and fraud and he answered the queries where he gave explanation of his improper actions and misconducts. The Claimant could not absolve himself from the allegations and he was consequently dismissed on 14/3/2011 in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment. In his evidence, the Claimant told this court that when the Defendant’s Internal Inspectors discovered the lodgement of N4,069,485.00, they queried the lodgement and the Relief Branch Manager in turn issued a query dated 24/08/2009 to the Claimant to explain what happened. The Claimant replied the query and made explanations. He also received another query on 6/10/2009 titled "cash sales of Mangers cheque" and he replied the query on 7/10/09. On 8/2/2010, the Inspectorate Department of the Defendant’s Head office, phoned the Relief Branch Manager, Mr. C. N. Ezeala to ask for explanation on the said sum of N4,069,485.00 and manager's cheque account debit balance of N50,385,366.57. The phone was handed over to the claimant and he answered the questions of the Inspectorate Department. The Inspectorate further demanded a written explanation on the sum of N4,069,485.00 and the Claimant, together with the Relief Manager, wrote a letter dated 8/2/2010 to the Chief Inspectorate of the Inspectorate Department of the Defendant. Exhibits CC4 and CC8 are the queries issued to the Claimant while Exhibits CC7, CC9 and CC10 are his replies to the queries. Under cross examination, the Claimant stated that he received up to 3 queries while in the Defendant’s employment. He was queried for a debit balance of N50,385,366.00 in the bank’s account. He also received a query from the Inspectorate on 26/8/2009. He apologized for his misconduct in his reply to the query. Another query was issued to him on 24/8/2009 in respect of cash proceed from sale of drafts. The query was issued because the cash handed over to him to hand over to Mr. Ezeala was not captured in the bank’s computer system. It is the Claimant’s evidence that he answered all the queries. From the foregoing, it is clear that prior to the Claimant’s dismissal on 14/3/2011, he was given queries and he answered them. Fair hearing in master and servant relationship is no more than the disclosure of the allegation to the employee and giving opportunity to the employee to answer to the allegation. In NATIONAL BANK OF NIGERIA vs. OMOTAYO (2002) FWLR (Pt. 114) 454 at 466, it was held that- “To satisfy the rule of natural justice and fair hearing, a person likely to be affected by a disciplinary proceeding must be given adequate notice of the allegation against him to enable him make a representation in his own defence”. Further, at the same page of the report, the court commented thus- “In this case, the plaintiff was given fair hearing when the defendant issued him a query which was answered by the plaintiff/respondent before a decision was taken against him” Also, in NEPA vs. ENYONG (2003) FWLR (Pt. 175) 452 at 472, it was held as follows- “Where an employee is confronted with an allegation of crime by the employer and the former is given an opportunity of explaining himself, then he cannot later turn around to say he was not given a fair hearing” Therefore, once the employee is confronted with the allegation and opportunity is given to him to react to it, the requirement of fair hearing is satisfied in master and servant employment. The fact that the Defendant did not invite the Claimant to face a panel is inconsequential. He was given ample opportunity to explain his role in the improprieties discovered in the operations of the Okigwe branch of the Defendant and he did explain himself in his answers. In my view, the Claimant’s allegation that he was not heard or given fair hearing before his dismissal is baseless. Let me add that what determines wrongfulness of a dismissal in master and servant employment is the terms of the contract of service and not lack of fair hearing. See OSAKWE vs. NIGERIAN PAPER MILL (1998) 7 SCNJ 222 at 231. In this case, the Claimant has not made out a case that the requirement for a hearing before dismissal was a term of the condition of service. In Exhibit D1, which is a contract of service agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant dated 20/5/85, clause 3 thereof permits the Defendant to dismiss the Claimant from the employment if found guilty of any breach of the provisions of the agreement or of any misconduct. In master and servant employment, it is the law that the employer has the right to terminate the employment or dismiss the employee at any time whether with a reason or not. See TEXACO NIG. PLC vs. KEHINDE (2002) FWLR (Pt. 94) 143 at 160. But where an employee complains that the dismissal is wrongful, he has to show that the dismissal was done in violation of the condition of service. That is to say wrongfulness of a dismissal must be founded on the terms and conditions of service which the employee is also required to plead and prove the circumstances under which he can be dismissed; the procedure for dismissal under the condition of service and the manner in which the dismissal breached the terms and conditions of the employment. See UZONDU vs. U.B.N PLC (supra) at 1440-1441; PETROLEUM TRAINING INSTITUTE vs. MATTHEW (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 623) 1949 at 1967. Therefore, the dismissal of the Claimant from the employment can only be wrongful if done contrary to the terms and conditions of the employment. It is the duty of the Claimant to plead and prove the circumstances under which he can be dismissed; the procedure for dismissal under the condition of service and the manner in which the dismissal breached the terms and conditions of the employment. In TEXACO NIG. PLC vs. KEHINDE (supra) at 157, it was held thus: “The terms of the contract of service are the foundation of any case where the issue of wrongful termination of dismissal of employment falls to be determined. Therefore where an employee complains that his employment has been wrongfully terminated or dismissed, he has the onus to produce before the court the terms and condition of employment and follow same up by proving in what manner the said terms and conditions were breached by the employer. It follows therefore that the success or other wise of such a party depends solely on the terms and conditions of that employment since the court is not permitted to go outside the agreed terms and conditions”. In paragraph 3 of the statement of facts, the Claimant pleaded his letter of employment and in paragraph 12, he mentioned that there is a collective agreement guiding the employment. Only the employment letter was tendered in evidence. It is Exhibit CC1. Nowhere else, either in his pleading or evidence, did he mention or relate his dismissal to any of the terms in these documents. In fact, the Claimant’s complaints against his dismissal are simply that he was not given opportunity to be heard on the allegation of gross misconduct before he was dismissed and that he did not commit the any misconduct to merit a dismissal. He did not say that these factors breached any condition of service or violated the conditions of his employment. The Claimant also did not put the said collective agreement in evidence and did not plead or prove specific terms of the collective agreement breached in his dismissal. The Claimant has placed nothing before this court from which to determine whether his complaints against his dismissal were breaches of the condition of his employment. The claimant has not established any breach of the condition of service with respect to his dismissal. It is evident that a declaration that the dismissal of the claimant is illegal and unlawful sought by the Claimant is unsubstantiated. The Claimant’s case is lacking in merit. The entire gamut of the Claimant’s case is dedicated to presenting a defence to the allegations of misconduct for which he was dismissed. This is seen in the statement of facts and the reply to the statement of defence. His further evidence and the evidence of CW2 are for this purpose. The summary of the Claimant’s case is that he did not commit any of the misconducts discovered in the Okigwe branch of the Defendant. What the Claimant contends in effect is that the Defendant had no cause to dismiss him from the employment. The agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant in Exhibit D1 include the right of the Defendant to dismiss the Claimant from the employment in the event of being guilty of any breach of the provisions of the agreement or of misconduct of any kind of which the Defendant shall be the sole judge. See Clause 3. By this provision of the agreement, the Defendant is at liberty to dismiss the Claimant and the conducts for which the Claimant can be dismissed are at the sole discretion of the Defendant. There is no dispute in this case that the Defendant issued the Claimant with queries regarding the discoveries in the Okigwe branch and the Claimant answered those queries. I will examine some of the queries and replies. Exhibit CC4 is the query dated 24/8/2009 from the Relief Chief Marketing Officer, C. N. Ezeala to the Claimant. Its Highlights are: While the Claimant was operations manager, drafts issued to customers since Nov/Dec 2008 were not performed in the system nor were the vouchers, commission entries or cash seen. On 30/7/2008 the Claimant brought internal manager’s cheque credit and cash totalling N4,069,485.00 unprocessed which caused debit position of the branch manager’s cheque account. The Claimant was asked to explain where and how the cash and vouchers were kept since Nov/Dec 2008. The Claimant’s reply to this query is Exhibit CC7 dated 24/8/2009. In summary, the Claimant explained that he was not involved in sale of manager’s cheques but he knows that there was difficulty in generating liquidation numbers for issued cash drafts which made it impossible to credit the manager’s cheque account. The monies were deposited into and liquidated through account number 5751000014550 opened for cash sales of managers cheque. The amount involved was N4,069,485.00 which had been deposited into account 5751000014550 and liquidation numbers have been generated. Another query is Exhibit CC8 dated 6/10/2009. The Claimant was asked to explain the period he was in charge of sales of manager’s cheque in the branch; what prompted use of accounts numbers 5752000531150 and 5751000014550 for the sale of manager’s cheque; the mode of their use and what is the total cash involved; who had possession of case sales of N4,069,485.00 for period 28/11/08, 30/12/2008 and 17/4/2009 paid into account No. 5751000014550 on 30/7/2009. The Claimant’s reply to that query is Exhibit CC9 dated 7/10/2009. His response is that he was involved in sale of managers cheque from October 2003 to November 2004. Accounts numbers 5752000531150 and 5751000014550 were used for cash sales of manager’s cheque because of difficulty in generating liquidation numbers for cash sales of manager’s cheque. The usage of account number 5752000531150 was stopped on 14/5/2009 when account 5751000014550 was opened for manager’s cheque sold for cash. When the branch experienced difficulty in generation of liquidation numbers for manager’s cheque, they called the help desk several times for assistance but none came. The total cash deposit into the account as at 7/10/09 are-(a) 5752000531150 = N27,367,071.86 and (b) 5751000014550 = N15,988,743. The cash sale of N4,069,485 was in possession of the Chief Marketing Officer, Mrs. Pat-Nnaji, for the period in question till 30/7/09 when it was given to him to hand over to Relief Chief Marketing Officer, Mr. C. N. Ezeala. He regretted and apologized for error in decision for the usage of the accounts. There is also Exhibit CC10 which is the response dated 8/2/2010 by the Claimant and Ezeala to the Chief Inspector where explanation was made regarding the debit balance of N50,385,360.87 on manager's cheque account and the cash of N4,194,835.00 meant for liquidation of manager's cheques. These are the allegations for which the Claimant was queried. Now, if from his replies to the queries, the Defendant was not satisfied that the Claimant was absolved from blame, by the agreement of the parties in Exhibit D1, the Defendant has the right to dismiss the Claimant. Exhibit D1 was an agreement entered into by the parties and it is the duty of the court to interpret and enforce terms of agreement freely made by parties. Once the Defendant had deemed the Claimant’s involvement to be an act of gross misconduct, it is not the duty of the court to inquire whether the Claimant committed the misconduct or not. It is settled principle in master and servant relationship that where an employer losses confidence in an employee or the employee commits an act which is injurious to the business of his employer and is incompatible with the faithful discharge of his duties, it is justifiable for the employer to dismiss him. In EZE vs. SPRING BANK PLC (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 609) 1076 at 1089 the Supreme Court stated the position of the law as follow: “It cannot now be disputed that in a mere master and servant relationship, the servant may obviously be dismissed for dishonesty or fraud in his employment… Once he is satisfied that the servant has done something which is incompatible with the faithful discharge of his duty or has displayed conduct such that would be injurious to the masters business to retain him, the master may dismiss the servant” Also, in the case of YUSUF vs. NATIONAL TEACHERS INSTITUTE (2002) FWLR (Pt. 129) 1509 at 1526, it was held that- “There are no fixed rules of law defining degree of misconduct which would justify a dismissal. It is enough that the conduct of the servant is of grave and weighty character as to undermine the confidence which would exist between him and master. Working against the deep interest of the employer clearly amounts to gross misconduct entitling the employer to peremptorily dismiss the employee irrespective of the condition of service”. I hold therefore that the Defendant rightly exercised its right under the agreement to dismiss the Claimant. In any case, the Claimant has not given this court a reason to probe into the justification of his dismissal. This is because the Claimant did not allege any breach of the condition of service in his dismissal. Once an employer has exercised the right under the contract to dismiss an employee, the only instance the court will interfere is when the dismissal was done in breach of agreement or the condition of service. The case of the Claimant is not on that course. In the circumstance, this court cannot proceed on an inquiry into whether or not the Claimant’s dismissal was justified. I find in the result that the Claimant has failed to prove his claim in Relief 1. I also do not find any evidence to suggest that the dismissal of the Claimant was wrongful. I therefore resolve issue 1 against the Claimant. ISSUE 2: Going by the findings of this court in issue 1 of this judgment, it is evident that relief 1 has failed. Relief 2 on the complaint is a claim for the sum of N100,000.000.00 broken down into N49,495,056.88 special damages and N50,504,943.12 general damages. The claim is sought on the basis of the alleged unlawful dismissal. The Claimant’s failure to prove that his dismissal was unlawful or wrongful negatively affects the success of this claim. This claim will also fail. The long list of items constituting special damages has not also been substantiated by the Claimant. It is observed that the items are his expected earnings and allowances after the period he had been dismissed from the employment. It is important to mention that what the Claimant is entitled to at dismissal is stated in clause 3 of Exhibit D1 to be the salary that accrued to him up to the date of dismissal. The Claimant did not plead neither did he lead evidence to show that he was not paid his salaries up to the date of his dismissal. The Claimant is therefore not entitled to his claim for special or general damages. Issue 2 is also resolved against the Claimant. In conclusion of this judgment, I hold that the Claimant did not establish his case. His claims fail and the case hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge