Download PDF
The case of the claimant as per her witness statement on oath is that she was employed into the services of the defendant in June, 1989 and by letter dated 29th of March, 2005, she was promoted to the rank of Senior Banking Officer (SBO) and that the payment schedule for this rank was attached to the said letter of promotion putting her salary at N1,750,000 per annum. That sometime in 2005, the defendant merged with Standard Trust Bank. She stated that in April, 2007 the management decided to bridge the gap in salary scale having seen the salary difference between the STB and UBA staff by effecting “harmonization of salaries” of all UBA staff, including the subsidiaries operating under UBA HR and this brought her salary from N1,750,000 to N3,500,000.00 per annum. That the defendant, in an effort to gradually follow up the arrears of the increment credited her account to the tune of N628,005.45 effective on the 2nd May, 2007. However, her account and that of other UBA Registrars staff accounts were debited in the same amount few days after the credit of the payment. Claimant stated further that after reporting the debit, she was subsequently informed that the head of department UBA Registrars ordered for the said debit and that on this strength, she wrote a letter of complaint dated 31st of October, 2007 to the management. She stated that the response of the management was an order that she was rebellious and that she should resign her employment or the management would be forced to terminate same. She continued that another increment of salaries was effected during this period and that this brought her salary scale to N5,050,000.00 and that she resigned from the employment of the defendant by a letter dated 2nd November, 2007. That her terminal benefits was wrongly calculated to be N1,776,356.77 by the defendant by a letter dated 4th December, 2007, that it ought to have calculated same with her salary of N3,500,000.00 or the improved salary of N5,050,000.00. The claimant went on that the defendant refused to settle her salaries based on the new salary of N3, 500,000 or the improved one of N5,050,000 in spite of reminder letter dated 18th December, 2007. Consequent upon which she filed a complaint before this court against the defendant on the 14th November, 2014, seeking for the following reliefs:- a. A Declaration that the action of the defendant in compelling the claimant to resign against her will was unlawful. b. An Order setting aside the purported resignation. c. A Declaration that the claimant is still a bonafide staff of the defendant. d. Salary at the rate of N5,050,000.00 per annum together with any due increments and allowances from November, 2007 until claimant is reinstated. ALTERNATIVELY: e. Re-computation of the terminal benefits of the claimant at the rate of N5,050,000 and payment of the balance due thereon to the claimant. ALTERNATIVELY: f. Re-computation of the claimant’s terminal benefits at the rate of N3.5 million and payment of the balance due thereon to her g. Interest on claims (d) and (e) at 18% until same is liquidated. h. Cost of the action in the sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira only) The claimant during trial tendered documents which were admitted and marked as Exhibits TI (1) and TI (9). She reiterated under cross examination that she was a former employee of the defendant and that she was forced to resign by the defendant but she wrote a letter of retirement. She stated that she did not reach the age of retirement as provided for in exhibit TI9 because she was forced to resign by the defendant. She admitted that exhibit TI2 advised her on her entitlement but that there was another letter that advised her about another entitlement that is exhibits TI3 which was sent by mail and in the sum of N3,500,000. She stated that her salary was reviewed to N5 million plus but that was done after she left. That she was transferred to UBA registrars in 1998. It is claimant’s testimony that upon the harmonization process, the defendant acted on the payment of N3,500,000 million Naira by paying the arrears of N3,500,000 in the sum of N628,005.45which was later debited by the defendant without notice. She stated that the action of the defendant is discriminatory against her. The defendant in its defence admitted that the claimant was its employee until she put in her letter of voluntary retirement from its service on the 2nd November, 2007 through a letter dated same date. Defendant admitted that the claimant’s salary was reviewed upward to N1,750,000 when she joined UBA Registrars but denied to the extent that she was offered an increment of salary from N1,750,000 per annum to a new salary of N3,500,000 per annum as alleged. It also admitted that the posting of N628,005.45 was made in error and was therefore reversed when noticed, and that it was not applied to the claimant only. That under the contract of service between it and the claimant, she had a right to ventilate her grievances and also had a right to voluntary retire from the service of the defendant. It stated that it cannot have reviewed claimant’s salary upward twice in a year and that upon her resignation, her entitlement due to her was clearly stated in advance to be in sum of N1,776,356.77 which was paid to her. Defendant stated contrary to claimant’s statement of facts that there was any outstanding entitlement due to the claimant from it which it could have refused to honour. It pleaded and relied on all legal and equitable defences including: Laches, Acquiescence, Standing by, Stale claim and Limitation Law/Act. Defendant stated further that the claimant has failed and omitted to take any step since 18th December, 2007 which is over 6 years to seek redress and that she has received monthly salaries on the basis of the agreed N1,750,000 per annum up till her voluntary retirement without complaint. One Gbenga Ogunleye the defendant team member in human capital management gave evidence in prove of defendant's case. He adopted his witness statement on oath and testified that he joined the company in 2008 and thus his testimony is based on documents available as they are document issued by the defendant. He stated that there are issues between the claimant and defendant with regards to the issues before the court but he is not aware of any issues between them before this case. He stated with respect to the relationship of the defendant and its staff that the defendant shows concern for the welfare of its employee and that there are rules governing such relationship. He also stated that exhibit TI13 has been contradicted by a document tendered through defence counsel. That there is no letter to retract exhibit TI13. He denied that the credit on TI4 was made in fulfillment of exhibit TI3. He stated that it was an erroneous payment and had to be reversed. He admitted that the credit was made on the 2nd of May, 2007 and reversed on the 7th of May, 2007 and that the claimant voluntarily retired. He admitted that it is immediately after the letter of complain that claimant retired. He testified that by the policy of the bank, both parties to the contract of employment has liberty to discontinue its service at any time. That he is not aware of the specific age of retirement from the defendant’s bank. Moreso, he stated that he is not aware if it is normal for an intending retiree to give notice upon retirement. He was not also aware if the defendant upon the claimant tendering her letter of retirement inquired on her reason and was not in the know if the claimant was coerced by the defendant. He testified that the issue raised by TI18 has been resolved by the defendant but he is unsure if it is before the court. Upon re-examination he posited that there is no terms in the defendant’s regulation that says that the defendant has to enquire why an employee seeks to resign. At the close of trial, the defendant on the 3rd August, 2016, filed its final written address and framed two issues for determination viz: 1. Was claimant an employee of defendant and if so, did the claimant “voluntarily resigned” as alleged by her or “voluntarily retired” as an employee of the defendant as alleged by the defendant. 2. Whether upon preponderance of evidence the claimant has proved her allegations against the defendant to justify granting any of the reliefs sought. Addressing issue 1, defendant relied on the cases of Onuminya v. Access Bank Plc [2004] 30 WRN pg. 100 at 119 and College of Education Ediadolor v. Osayande [2010] 6 NWLR (Pt. 1191) pg. 423 and submitted that for a contract or an agreement to exist there must be an offer by one party to another and an acceptance by the party to whom the offer is made and also that the court can only interpret the contents of the terms of the contract with a view to discover the true intention of the parties. It submitted that by the admission of the claimant both in the facts pleaded and documents tendered by her as Exhibits shows that UBA Registrars Limited is a necessary party and that the failure to join it in this suit makes the claim incompetent as the reliefs sought will by necessary implication affects UBA Registrars Limited. It relied on the case of Ojo v. Adedeji [2009] 23 WRN pg. 67; Onwudinjo v. Dimobi [2004] 34 WRN pg. 126. The defendant also submitted that in this case, it is incumbent on the claimant to tender her letter of Appointment as an employee of the defendant notwithstanding any perceived admission as the declaratory reliefs of the claimant must be established by credible evidence and not upon admission by the defendant. That this is because it is when the claimant tender her letter of appointment that the court will be able to know the terms of engagement and establish whether or not same has been breached by it. The cases of Asafa Foods Ltd v. Alraine Nig Ltd [2002] 5 SC Pt. 1 pg 8 and Kwali v. Dobi [2010] All FWLR (Pt. 506) pg 1883.Continuing counsel submitted that a careful look at paragraphs 3, 5, 9, 10 and 11 and Exhibits T1.2 and T1.6 of the statement of facts clearly show that the claimant was an employee of the subsidiaries of the defendant (UBA Registrar, UBA Securities Ltd and UBA Global Market at one time or the other). He posited that the case of the claimant as pleaded was “resignation” (albeit forcefully) while the defendant’s case was that the claimant herself “retired voluntarily” and that an employee relationship with the employer can only be in only one mode out of the 7 modes as stated by Section 8 clause 8.1 of Exhibit T1.1 titled “Disengagement” which reads: “Employment with the bank may cease in any of the following ways: 8.1.1 Resignation 8.1.2 Retirement 8.1.3 Termination 8.1.4 Dismissal 8.1.5 Redundancy 8.1.6 Invalidation on medical ground 8.1.7 Death” That disengagement cannot be more than one at a time because each mode has its own consequences both in law and in fact to the future of the employee. Furthermore, the defendant submitted that the implication of the “Resignation and “Retirement” is not lost to both parties and this it inferred that if the claimant actually resigned as an employee as alleged, an exit interview must have to be conducted and that total compliance with the provisions of Clause 8.2 of the Exhibit T1.1 must follow. He also posited that the claimant failed to show that the necessary appropriate advance notice or payment in lieu of such notice was given to the defendant as required under the Exhibit T1.1 Clause 8.2. He cited the case of Oruboko v. Oruene (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt. 462) pg 555. It is also the submission of the defence counsel that the conclusion to arrive at from the evidence of CW is that the evidence as contained in her Witness Statement on Oath wherein she averred that she resigned on the 2nd of November, 2007, is in sharp contradiction to the Exhibit T1.17 tendered by same witness and that it is trite law that documentary evidence serves as a hanger from which to assess oral testimony. Counsel relied on the case of Kindley v. Mil. Gov. of Gongola State [1988] 2 NWLR (Pt. 77) pg 473. In the light of the above, it urged the court to resolve issue 1 in its favour. On issue 2, defendant submitted that it is an established law that civil cases are decided on preponderance of evidence and not upon proof beyond shadow of doubt, in this regard it relied on the decided cases in Mogaji v. Odofin (1978) 4 SC pg 65; Ibiyeye v. Fojule (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 968) pg 640 at 662 and Adeleke v. Iyanda (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt. 729) pg. 1 at 21-22.He contended that the reliefs sought by the claimant in alternatives are declaratory reliefs and monetary compensation and then asked this question: “Which of the Exhibits tendered is credible enough to support the declaratory reliefs sought”. He submitted that Exhibit T1.2 tendered ex-facie shows that the claimant worked in the defendant subsidiary and that there is no evidence of employment of the claimant by the defendant jointly or severally with the subsidiary company and that the court cannot speculate that the defendant was the employer of the claimant. That it is therefore the duty of the claimant to prove by preponderance of evidence that he was actually an employee of the defendant as it will simply mean that no declaration can be granted in her favour if the documentary and oral evidence fail to establish her employment by the defendant. The case of Okhuarobo v. Egharevba [2002] 5 SC (Pt. 1) pg 141 at 146 lines 25-30.He posited that Exhibit T1.4 that is the claimant’s statement of account alleged to have been issued by the defendant was an unsigned document that emanated from one Tewe, Olujimi to Idehen, Tessy and that it is the law that a document can only be valid if duly signed by the author. That the court has to carefully examine a document admitted in evidence to see if it proves what the party who put it in as evidence seeks to prove as admission of a document in evidence is totally different from their evidential value/weight. It is also the submission of the defendant’s counsel that the request for computation of terminal benefit at the rate of N5,050,000or on N3.5 million is not supportable from the available evidence and exhibits before the court. He submitted on claim of 18% interest that there is no fact pleaded either in the pleading or in the evidence to support the claim of interest to show whether it is a claim pre-judgment or Post judgment interest or from the particular period. He went on to posit that for any of the above claims to succeed, the claimant must provide sufficient, cogent and credible evidence that support such claim he stated that having failed to so prove, he urged the court to so hold and to resolve issue 2 in its favour and dismiss the claimant’s case in its entirety with substantial cost. The claimant filed her final written address on the 6th December, 2016 wherein three issues were formulated for determination, they are: 1. Whether the claimant provided sufficient facts and evidence to prove her case before this Honourable court which would entitle her to the reliefs sought. 2. Whether the defendant has presented a defence which is worthy of credibility before this Honourable Court. 3. Whether the action of the claimant is statute barred. In arguing issue 1, claimant counsel submitted that claimant was poorly treated by forcing her to resign. That Exhibit T16 (Letter of retirement) clearly shows that she did not leave the employment of the defendant on her own volition as she did not resign but retired. Counsel argued that the time for retirement is 60 years of age or 30 years in service as contained in Exhibit T19 which is the contract between defendant and herself and that as at November, 2011, she had neither attained the age of 60 nor had she is been in defendant’s service for up to 30 years. She further argued that it is clear that she never had any problem with the defendant for the whole 18 years that she worked for it and that this was confirmed by the defendant’s witness until she protested the reversal of N628, 005.45 on her account. She submitted that her letter of retirement came just 2 days after she had complained of the debit on her account. She urged the court to use the power vested on it to apply equitable norms of labour jurisprudence as presented by international best practices. Counsel relied on the case of Mariam v. University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital Management Board [2013] 35 NLLR at 66. It is claimant counsel’s submission that by Exhibit T19, the defendant made provision for retirement and financial empowerment during retirement but that it never made any of such available to her. Claimant also submitted that the defendant made no effort to question her action or follow up on the reason for her retirement. Also that the refusal and negligence of the defendant to advice her on the terms pertaining to retirement as contained at page under the heading “Retirement” in Exhibit T9 and its delay for entire one month before responding to her letter and its reference to her letter of retirement as resignation in its response indicate it was responsible for her retirement. The claimant therefore submitted that she is entitled to relief (b) of her claim. b. Claimant’s Entitlement to Remuneration: The claimant argued that in 2005, she was promoted and was upgraded to the position of SBO (Senior Banking Officer) and that in August, 2005 the defendant by Exhibit T1 2 at paragraph 4 gave the assurance of harmonizing the remuneration of all its employees in the spirit of unity equality and fairness. That this was further confirmed by email sent to her from the defendant Exhibit T1 3 which detailed breakdown of reviewed compensation of SBO. Also that the credit of N628,005.45 was made with a view to harmonizing the salaries of the old and the new UBA staff that is the claimant being the old staff while the new staff are other employees from the Standard Trust Bank and that this action of defendant was discriminatory. She submitted that she had shown credible evidence that her salary was reviewed upwards to N3,500,00.00 to make up the difference of N1,800,000.00 per annum from 2015 till 2007 and that this was not controverted by the defendant. Counsel further submitted that the defendant only denied by word of mouth having advised her of a new salary scale but had no credible evidence to back same. He cited the case of Agbareh&Anor v. Mimra& 2 Ors [2008] 12 WRN at pg 8, counsel posited that oral evidence cannot be taken to replace documentary evidence as the facts on the documents are clear. Also, it is the submission of the claimant counsel that the action of the defendant in crediting and debiting her account is not within its powers because salaries and allowances are undeniable rights of an employee and once the employer/employee relationship has been established, it is the obligation of the employer to the employee and that by this, the defendant lacks the requisite powers to withdraw or make deductions from her salary. The court was referred to the case of FCRN &Anor v. Rattau [1978 – 2006] DJNIC pg. 272 and urged the court to find and hold that the defendant’s action is unlawful, illegal and discriminatory and that she is entitled to refund of the same as per her claims. Counsel urged the court to consider that the claimant not only testified in substantiation of her claim but also produced documents in support and the same should not be lightly regarded. On issue two, counsel adopting her arguments on issue one of the address submitted that the defendant cannot fault the correctness of the defendant being sued in place of UBA Registrars because it is the defendant that employed her and also forced her to retire and that the defendant has been responsible for the payment of her salaries over the years. I have carefully and calmly considered all the processes filed in this suit. I have equally perused and read both written addresses filed and the case law authorities cited by both parties in support of their respective claims. It is the humble view of the court that the issue to be determined is whether or not the claimant was coerced by the defendant to retire from its employment; whether defendant action could be said to be an unfair labour practice and whether she is entitled to her claim based on increased emolument of N3,5000,000.00. It is important to state that I observed the inelegant way claimant's written statement on oath was written. Specifically paragraphs 9 to 19 of her sworn deposition, claimant was using the word ''I'' and the word ''claimant'' interchangeable. For instance in paragraph 11, she averred thus '' I also approached her boss,....'' Instead of stating thus '' I approached my boss''. I expect counsel who filed this processes to make necessary corrections to this half hazard and inelegant manner the sworn deposition was written. As counsel are supposed to be skillful in the act of writing. Be that as it may, it is the claimant’s contention that upon her promotion in 2005 as a senior banking officer, the defendant in its bid to bridge the salaries difference between Standard Trust Bank and United Bank for Africa staff including the subsidiaries operating under UBA HR increased her salary from N1,750,000 to N3,500,000.00 per annum. That in an effort to gradually follow up the payment in arrears credited her account to the tune of N628,005.45 effective on the 2nd May, 2007. However, her account and that of other UBA Registrars staff accounts were debited in the same amount few days after the credit of the payment. She stated that she complained of the debit and was informed that the head of department UBA Registrars ordered for the said debit. She decided to formally complain vide a letter dated 31st of October, 2007 to the management but she got a response stating that she was rebellious and that she should resign her employment or the management would be forced to terminate same. Hence on the 2nd of November, 2007 she retired from her employment. To the claimant, the defendant coerced her into doing so. The defendant on the other hand contended that the claimant was its employee until she put in her letter of voluntary retirement from its service on the 2nd November, 2007 through a letter of same date. Defendant admitted that the claimant’s salary was reviewed upward to N1,750,000 when she joined UBA Registrars but denied to the extent that she was offered an increment of salary from N1,750,000 per annum to a new salary of N3,500,000 per annum as alleged. It also admitted that the posting of N628,005.45 was made in error and was therefore reversed when noticed, and that it was not applied to the claimant only. That under the contract of service between it and the claimant, she had a right to ventilate her grievances and also had a right to voluntary retire from the service of the defendant. A fundamental principle of law which has gained notoriety over the years and has its statutory blessing in Section 137 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 is that in civil cases the burden of proven the existence or none existence of a facts lies upon the party against whom judgment would be given if no evidence were adduced by either party; regard being had to any presumption that may arise in the pleadings. It is claimant’s claims that she was coerced by the defendant’s management into retiring her employment. In support of this assertion she tendered her letters of promotion dated 29th March, 2005 and the attached salary review, She also tendered a letter signed by the MD/CEO of the defendant and another reviewed compensation- SBO, sent to her from one Tewe Olujimi dated 24th, April, 2007, this is an upward review of compensation from N1,750,000.00 to N3,500,000.00. Claimant put before the court her statement of account which evinces the payment of the sum of N628,005.43 into her account on the 2nd of May, 2007 and the debit of same from her account on the 7th of May, 2007. By exhibit TI5 dated 31t October, 2007, claimant complained to the Group MD of the reversal of her account with the said sum of money which according to her was paid as the difference for the upward review of salary and 2 days after as admitted by DW, she tendered her retirement letter, i.e. exhibit TI6. To the claimant she was forced or coerced by the defendant to retire in view of her complain and that the court should hold it to be an unfair labour practice. A careful perusal of all the documents on record especially, exhibits TI3, TI4, TI5 and TI6, clearly show that the claimant's salary was infact upwardly reviewed from N1,750,000.00 in 2005 to N3,500,000.00 in 2007 by exhibit TI3, in tandem with that increment her account was credited with the sum of N628,005.43 as salary difference on the 2nd May, 2007 but was later debited from her account on the 7th May, 2007. Which in effect gives credence to claimant's contention that the defendant subsidiary where she was posted to from the main Banking section as Senior banking Officer after the rationalization of the bank with STB, deducted this amount on a pretext that it cannot pay that amount. Consequent upon which she was asked to resign. In Mr. Patrick Obiora Modilim v. United Bank for Africa Plc unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/353/2012, the judgment of which was delivered on 19th June 2014, the defendant bank has given the claimant a commitment that it is willing to review the claimant’s position to the level of General Manager upon the satisfaction of certain conditions, which conditions the claimant met. This court held the commitment to be a binding term of the contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant. Since the defendant did nothing to indicate the willingness to review the claimant’s position to the level of General Manager, the court held the defendant to be liable to the claimant for breach of that commitment, which commitment was held to be a term of their contract of employment. In other words, the defendant is in breach of the contract of employment between it and the claimant. To this court, the commitment on the part of the defendant to be willing to review the claimant’s position to the level of General Manager gave rise to an expectation interest on the part of the claimant. This is similar to the instance case where the defendant had infact issued to the claimant a compensation memo evincing an upward review of her salary from N1,750,000.00 to N3,500,000.00 as a SBO, giving rise to an expectation interest in the claimant. That is binding on the defendant and it cannot thus resile from it. I find from the community of evidence before me coupled with the thread of documents before me and placing heavy reliance on the case of Mr. Patrick Obiora Modilim supra, that claimant was shortchanged by downward reversal of her salary from N3,5000,000.00 per annum to N1,750,000.00. The complaint of which led to her forceful retirement by the defendant. There is no denial of claimant's letter of upward review of salary, i.e. exhibit TI3 by the defendant. I believe the claimant from the circumstances of this case that she was coerced to resign and she rather retired after serving the defendant for 18 years. This is so in view of the letter of complaint written by the claimant wherein she complained about the action of the defendant and just 2 days after she tendered her retirement letter. It goes without saying that a reasonable man of claimant's status will never leave a gainful employment after expressing in exhibit TI5, paragraphs 3, at page 1, 1 and 2 of page 2 her desire to continue with the bank and earn her living to support her family, she will retire from the establishment she so much cherished. I also find the defendant's denial of claimant's right to annual salary of N3,5000,000.00 as an unfair labour practice by Section 254C(1)(f) of the 1999 Constitution as amended. See Mariam v. University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital Mgt Board, Supra. I hold that claimant was constructively retired from defendant's employment and that is wrongful. Now having held that the defendant constructively retired the claimant from its employ, Is she entitle to her claims for reinstatement? The law is that specific performance of a contract of service will not be ordered by the court when the master brings the contract to an end as in this case, this is because to do so would be tantamount to forcing a willing employee on an unwilling employer. The only remedy for wrongful termination or dismissal is a claim for damages. See U.BN. LTD V. OGBOH [1995] 2 NWLR (PT.380) 647 SC; see also Umoh v. I.T.G.C.[2004] NWLR (PT.703) 281 CA. Claimant is seeking an alternative claim for the recomputation of her terminal benefit based on the sum of N3,500,000.00. Having held that claimant has successfully proven her increment of salary from N1750,000.00 to N3,500,00.00 per annum. I hold that claimant's terminal benefit/gratuity is to be recomputed in accordance with her annual salary of N3,500,000.00. I so find and hold. In all I find that claimant was constructively retired from the services of the defendant and that her salary is to be computed in accordance with her salary of N3,500,000.00. Claimant's claim for reinstatement fails. I award the sum of N100,000.00 to the claimant as compensation, this is pursuant to Section 19(d) of National Industrial court Act 2006 for defendant's unfair treatment towards her which is held to be an unfair labour practice. Cost is assessed at 50,000.00. Hon. Justice Oyewumi Oyebiola O. Presiding Judge