Download PDF
JUDGMENT The claimant commenced this action by way of complaint dated 16th December, 2013 in which she claimed the following: (a) A DECLARATION that the purposed termination of the claimants appointment contained in the defendant’s letter dated 11th day of February 2013 and addressed to the claimant is unlawful, wrongful, ultravires, void and of no legal effect as it is against natural justice. (b) AN ORDER setting aside the said purported termination of the claimant’s appointment as contained in the defendants letter dated 11th day of February, 2013. (c) AN ORDER directing the Defendant to pay forthwith to the claimant the sum Twenty-six Million, Six Hundred and Six Thousand, Eight Hundred Naira. (N26, 666,800) as entitlements for her salaries, emoluments, allowances remuneration, bonuses and other financial benefits due from the defendant to the claimant from 19th day of July, 2010 being the date of her indefinite suspension without pay up to the date of judgement. (d) AN ORDER directing the defendant to pay forthwith to the claimant, the interest on the said total entitlement of the claimant at the rate of 21% per annum from the 19th day of July 2010 until payment. The complaint was accompanied by a statement of Facts in support of the complaint witness statement on oath and all other documents to be relied upon at the trial, all dated 16th December 2013. The defendants on their part entered a conditional appearance and filed their statement of defence and counter claim dated 21st February 2014. Issues where joined and hearing commenced. At the hearing the claimant testified as CW 1, the sole witness for the claim, she adopted her two witness statements on oath of the 28th march 2014 and that of 20th June 2014. These statements flowed from the amended complaint dated 27th March 2014 which was endorsed with the following claims. (a) A Declaration that the purported indefinite suspension of the claimant from the (19th Day of July 2010 without pay up to the termination of the claimants appointment contained in the defendant’s letter dated 11th day of February 2013 is unlawful, wrongful, ultravires, void and of no legal effect in that it violates the rules of natural justice. (b) An Order directing the Defendant to pay forthwith to the Claimant a total sum of Sixteen Million, Five Hundred and Seventeen Thousand, Forty Five Naira (N16,517,045.03) being the Claimant’s salaries, emoluments, allowances, remunerations, bonuses and other financial benefits due from the Defendant to the Claimant from 19th day of July 2010 being the date of her indefinite suspension without pay up to the date of judgment. (c) The sum of Fifty Million Naira (N50,000,000.00) only as general damages. (d) An Order directing the Defendant to pay forthwith to the Claimant, interest on the said total emoluments of the Claimant at the rate of 21% per annum from the 19th day of July 2010 until payment. (e) The sum of One Million Naira (N1,000,000.00) being cost of the suit. To these, the Defendant also effected consequential amendments to their own filed processes in response. From the course of the hearing. The case of the Claimant is that she was employed by the Defendant on 21st May 2002 as an Executive Assistant. evidenced in Exhibit A & A1. That she rose to the rank of an Assistant manager in the service of the Defendant working at its Garki branch Abuja. She maintains that she served the Claimant diligently for a period of 8 years until April 2010 when the Defendant accused her of being involved and benefiting from fraud in the Defendant company to the tune of Seven Billion Naira (7,000,000,000) which the Defendant suspended her indefinitely without pay on the 16th of July 2010 vide exhibit G, the said memo/letter of the same date headed: Indefinite Suspension. She maintains that the Defendant later referred the matter of the involvement of the Claimant to the Nigeria Police for investigation and possible prosecution. That the police through exhibit E1 exonerated her. Exhibit E1 is dated 8th July 2013. The Claimant also maintains that the Defendant referred her to its disciplinary committee before which she appeared on the 12th June 2010, which committee recommendations report was not made known to her. That as she was on her annual leave she received a communication from the Defendant on 28th August, 2010 placing her on indefinite suspension without pay, pending the conclusion of investigations on the alleged co-ordinated fraud on Aso-saving and Loans account with the Defendant through a suspension letter dated 19th July, 2010. That the Defendant kept her in its employment until 11th February 2013 when she received a letter terminating her employment exhibit C1. It is the case of Defendant that the Claimant was until the 19th of July 2010 a staff of the Defendant. That the relationship of the Claimant and dependent was a simple employer/employee relationship wherein either party reserved the right to resile from the relationship giving one month notice or a month salary in lieu of notice; that the Defendants case that the relationship was governed by the terms contained in the appointment letter exhibits A & A1. The Defendant maintained that at no time did it accuse the Claimant of fraud. The Defendant maintain that the Claimant was a staff in the Defendant’s office at Garki, Abuja where a monumental fraud was discovered and consequently the Claimant was accordingly investigated alongside other staff, that the termination of her appointment had nothing to do with the fraud committed at the Garki branch of the Defendant. The Defendant maintains that its case is that the suspension and termination of the Claimant’s appointment was well within the rights of the agreement between the parties. The Defendant tendered the following through DW1 as exhibits: a. Letter of termination of appointment dated June 13th, 2013 marked as Exhibit DA2 & DA3 b. A DHL delivery note dated 11th June, 2013 and marked as exhibit DA. Exhibit DA1 is DHL Tracking document bearing the date 12th June 2013 c. A Statement of account of the Claimant with the Defendant bank for the period 1st January 2007 to 31st December 2008 marked as exhibit DB to DB20. d. Exhibits DC and DC1 were Zenith bank pay slips for the months of May and June 2010 respectively. e. Exhibit DD is a certificate pursuant to S. 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011. The Defendant in its counter claim to which the Claimant filed a reply and a statement of Defence, averred that whilst the Claimant/Defendant to-counter claim was in the Defendant’s employment she was indebted to the counter claimant as follows: Nature of indebtedness a. Prepaid Housing Balance N808,500.00 b. Personal Loan Balance N 71,335.97 c. Car Loan Balance N1,072,079.98 d. Over spent Leave days in 2010 (4 days) N148,684.93 e. Un earned leave allowance 2010 N94,233.42 Total N2,194,834.00 The Defendant counter claimant averred that after the termination of the employment of the Claimant/Defendant to counter claim, its human resources department observed that after deducting the Claimant/Defendant to counter claim’s terminal benefits from her entitlements she is indebted to the Defendant counter claimant in the sum of N1,464,885.55. The counter claimant averred that it requested for the said sum but the Defendant to counter claim, failed, refused or neglected to pay same till date. The Defendant to the counter claim denied the above counter claim in its entirety. She denied receiving any letter from the Defendant (Bank). Counter Claimant and insisted she was the one entitled to receive her salaries and entitlements. In the written address of the Claimant the following were formulated as issues for determination: (1) Whether the Claimant remained an employee of the Defendant from 9th July 2010 when she was placed on indefinite suspension without pay to 11th February, 2013 when her employment was terminated, to be entitled to payment of her salaries, emoluments, allowances and bonuses and other benefits as claimed from the Defendant. (2) Whether or not the termination of the Claimant employment by the Defendant constitutes a breach of contract and same amounted to wrongful Termination of Employment to which the Claimant is entitled to damages? (3) Whether the Claimant is entitled to the interest on the monetary entitlements and cost of the suit. The Defendant in its written address formulated one preliminary issue and 2 substantive issues for determination, viz; i. Whether the Claimant’s witness statement on oath tendered during reexamination is competent and if not whether there is any evidence in support of the Claimant’s case ii. Whether from the state of pleadings and evidence led in support of same, the Claimant has discharged the burden of proof placed on it and consequently is entitled to the reliefs claimed. iii. Whether from the state of pleadings and evidence led in support of same, the Defendant/Counter Claimant has discharged the burden of proof placed on it and consequently is entitled to judgment on the counter claim. On these, I shall deal with the substantive issues raised in issues 1 and 2 by the Claimant and issue 3 by the Defendant. I shall afterward proceed to issues 3 formulated by the claimant and issue 1 and 3 formulated by the Defendant. In the argument on issue one by counsel for the Claimant, it is stated at 4.1 that suspension is a disciplinary procedure adopted by an employer with a view to causing an investigation into an allegation against which the suspended employee is indicted in order to prevent unfettered interference with the cause of investigation. In the instant case, counsel maintained that the Claimant was asked to proceed on indefinite suspension vide an internal memo dated 19th July, 2010 which was served on her in September (Two months after completion of the Defendant’s investigation, he referred to exhibit G an internal memo dated Friday July 16,2010. Counsel submitted at 4,3 that the indefinite suspension of the Claimant was without logical explanation but shows a pre-planned and sinister motive to place the Claimant on indefinite suspension without pay to allow for a completed investigation by the Defendant. Counsel submits that the procedure adopted by the Defendant in suspending the Claimant is wrong in law as the Defendant cannot be said to have complied with the procedure and condition precedent within which the claimant may be suspended to allow for investigation. He relied on BABA V. N.C.A.T.C.C (1991) 5 NWLR (PT. 192) 383 @ 418 or (1991) 2 NSCC 145 @ 158, per Nnaemeka – Agu. Counsel contended that from the testimony of DW1 in paragraph 12 and 14 of the Defendants Statement on Oath that the Defendant already concluded investigation by its disciplinary committee and the primafacie point made out against the claimant, was not made known to the claimant to enable her refute, explain or contradict them; before requesting her to proceed on indefinite suspension. Counsel also asked if the Defendant complied with the procedure for suspending the Claimant without pay, would that entitle it not to pay the Claimant after she was cleared of the allegation by the Nigeria Police. He relied on YUSUF V. V.O.N. Ltd (1996) 7 NWLR, pt. 463. 746 @ 753-754. At 4.12 counsel states for the Claimant that the reliance placed on the said employee Handbook was never tendered in evidence before the Court to justify the power of indefinite suspension without pay (albeit after the police cleared the claimant), that it is informed both in law and in fact, that he who asserts must prove. He relies on MOBIL PRODUCTING NIG. UNCTD V. UDO (2009) ALL FWLR pt. 482 @ 1117. He submits that parties are bound by their pleadings and facts which are not pleaded goes to no issue and the Court has a duty to expunge such fact even if given in evidence. He relied on ABUBAKAR VS. WAZIRI (2008) ALL FWLR (PT. 436) 2025 SC where it was held that parties are bound by their pleadings that the Court should not allow evidence to be given of facts not pleaded or not clearly pleaded. On issue 2 as formulated by the Defendant whether from the state of pleadings and evidence led in support of same, the Claimant has discharged the burden of proof placed on her and consequently is entitled to the reliefs claimed. In the legal argument in respect of this issue at 4.3 counsel for the Defendant relied on the Provisions of S.131 (1) of the Evidence Act as well as Section 132 of the same Evidence Act. 2011 which stated that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on the person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. He relied on AKINYELE V. AFRIBANK PLC (2003) 7 NWLR (PT. 955) 504 AT 515. At 4.6 counsel for the Defendant states that the main relief of the Claimant as gleaned from paragraph 22 (a) of the Amended Statement of facts is to the effect that the Claimant’s suspension is unlawful and ultravires the rules of natural justice. At 4.9 counsel asked the question. How then was the indefinite suspension of the Claimant unlawful? He answered, that the contract of employment between the claimant and the Defendant is not one with statutory flavour. That the law is long settled that an employer of labour can hire suspend and fire for whatever reason whatsoever, that it is immaterial whether the suspension of the claimant in the circumstances of this case was for good reason or bad reason. He relied on NITEL PLC. V. AKWA (2006) 2 NWLR (PT 964) 417. At 4.10 counsel stated that the burden is on the Claimant to show that the way and manner in which he was suspended was wrongful or in contravention of the terms of her employment or at variance with any law in place that provides remedial benefits to which she is entitled. That it was never the Claimant’s case that the Defendant had no power to suspend the Claimant or to suspend her without pay. That the Claimant accepted the suspension and never challenged same during the pendency of the suspension. He referred to paragraph 15 of the Amended Statement of Facts wherein the Claimant averred that: ….While under suspension placed on her by the Defendant, she underwent tremendous emotional stress, anxiety and financial deprivation albeit placated with hope that the outcome of the Defendants investigation would vindicate her and restore her former positions and conditions. Counsel also referred to the cross examination of Claimant where she conceded that the Defendant has power to hire and fire any of its employees that the Defendant has power to suspend its employee. Upon these counsel for the Defendant urged the Court to hold that the Claimant accepted the suspension without pay as regular and was never the less optimistic that a vindication will result to her reinstatement. Counsel for the Defendant at 4.13 referred to paragraph 17 of the Claimant’s amended Statement of Facts which states that the act of the Defendant in terminating her appointment was unjust and inequitable owing to the periods between her indefinite suspension from the 19th of July, 2010 to the 11th day of February 2013, during which period she could have secured employment elsewhere had the Defendant communicated its findings and eventual termination of her appointment within a reasonable time as justice delayed is justice denied. To this, at 4.15 the Defendant maintains that the Claimant had ample opportunity to plead the way and manner a lengthy suspension offends the law. That she could have also pleaded and proved the remedies naturally and lawfully flowing from such breach of time. That the proper duration for a suspension and the penalty for exceeding same were not dealt with in the Claimant’s pleadings and such had become the subject of speculation. Counsel for the Defence maintained that parties are bound by their pleadings and referred to paragraph 20 of the amended Statement of Defence where the Defendant denied paragraph 15 of the Statement of Facts and averred that the Defendant was well within its rights to suspend the Claimant without pay in view of the ongoing investigation and maintained that the Claimant suffered no emotional stress, anxiety or financial deprivation or any loss whatsoever. Defendant also maintained at paragraph 25 of the amended statement of Defence that the suspension and termination of the appointment of the Claimant was fair and in consonance with the agreement between the parties. At 4.17 the Defendant referred to Article 21.4 (b) of the document Exhibit DE – DE 30 the Defendant’s staff handbook where it is provided that: It will be at the management’s discretion whether a staff on suspension is paid his/her salary. Counsel for the Defendant maintained at 4.18 that this discretion was exercised through Exhibit G, whose relevant portion provided: “We have received a report on a coordinated fraud scheme on Aso Savings and Loans account domiciled in your branch. Pending the conclusion of the investigations, management has directed that you proceed on indefinite suspension without pay effective July. 19, 2010…. Counsel then submitted that it is Crystal clear that the Defendant in exercise of its powers decided that the suspension of the Claimant was to be without pay, that it was not open to the Court to make a contract for the parties, that the duty of the Court is limited to enforcing the contract as agreed by the parties. He relied on OMEGA BANK (NIG) V. O.B.C (2005) 8 NWLR (PT. 9280 561 @ 574-575. Where it was held that the Court’s duty is to construe the surrounding circumstances including written and oral Statement as to effect the intention of parties. At 4.21 the Defendant submit that the suspension of the Claimant having been stated to be without pay, no claim based on funds that would have accrued to the Claimant during the period of her suspension is sustainable and to hold otherwise would be to disregard article 21.4 (b) of exhibit DE-DE30 which the parties themselves readily and deliberately consented to and which defines the perimeters within the lawfulness of the action of the parties can be assessed. Counsel submits further for the Defendant at 4.22 that it is clear from paragraph 20 of the amended Statement of Facts that the claim for N16,517,045.03 as the total of the salaries, allowances and bonuses purportedly owed the Claimant for the period of suspension, to the date of termination of appointment lumped together, that by exhibit DE-DE30 and Exhibit G, such claim cannot be sustained and should be accordingly dismissed. Now, it is the contention and submission of the counsel to the Claimant that the Defendant did not tender exhibit De-DE30 the Employee hand book, that the document (the handbook) was never tendered in evidence before the Court to justify the power of indefinite suspension. It is however curious to note on this point that the Defendant never tendered nor pleaded exhibit DE – DE 30, neither was it frontloaded by them. The Claimant also did not frontloaded or plead the document. It was rather, during the cross examination of the DW1, Tony Makwe, by the Claimant’s counsel, that Makwe was confronted with the exhibit that it was subsequently admitted as exhibit DE-DE 30 titled employee handbook. This was on the 10th of June, 2015. This sequence of question and answer had ensued at some point in the cross examination of DW1 by Mr. Nwoye: Q: I put it to you that the Defendants right to suspend any staff for any criminal cause as in this case, that upon conclusion of this investigation the staff is entitled to the balance of salary. Ans: You are still wrong Counsel then produced the hand book and asked the next question. Q: Look at this Employee Handbook Ans: Witness looks through Q: You referred to this handbook at paragraph 19 and 20 of your Statement on oath that the Defendant has the power to terminate the services of any of its staff at will. Ans: I have the original Q: it is the original Ans: No, it is a photocopy Q: Did you give your staff original or photocopies Ans: No Mr. Nwoye then sought to tender the handbook and Mr. Erameh objected: The objection was overruled; the handbook was marked as exhibit DE to DE 30. I had earlier found that this exhibit was not pleaded by Defendant. I had cause to read through paragraphs 19 and 20 of the DW1’s Amended Witness Statement of Defence, and the exhibit in question is not the one being referred to by the deponent witness. It similarly is not in his Additional Witness Statement on oath. I also find that the Claimant also did not plead or frontload this document, even though either or both parties should be placing reliance on it as they eventually and inevitably had to do in their bid to obtain the justice in the matter for their respective parties. The contention of counsel for the Claimant at paragraph 4.12 of Claimants Written Address is further contradicted by the reference Claimant counsel made in the Notice of Additional authorities filed on the 14th of October 2015. The notice reads: In further support of our submission in paragraph 4.5, and 4. 17 of the Claimant’s final address to the effect that the Defendant did not comply with the procedure and condition precedent for suspension of the Claimant, let alone, without pay-i.e. finding the Claimant guilty of “serious misconduct” in accordance with Article 21.4 (a) of the Employee handbook (Exhibit DE-DE30) before the suspension letter, was placed on her, please find submitted the following authorities: Three authorities are then listed of which copies of two were provided for the Court’s consideration. I shall return to them shortly, but it is sufficient to hold here that the contention by Claimant’s counsel that the handbook (Exhibit DE-DE 30) was never tendered before the Court is of no moment at all because it was he who tendered it in the first place. In resolving the issues 1 and 2 formulated in the Claimant’s written address and issue 2 as formulated by the Defendant. As to whether the Claimant remained an employee of the Defendant from 9th July 2010 when she was placed on indefinite suspension without pay to 11th February 2013, when her employment was terminated to be entitled to payment of her salaries and other benefits as claimed from the Defendant. And issue 2 whether or not the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendant constitutes a breach of contract and same amounted to wrongful termination of employment for which Claimant is entitled to damages, and issue 2 as formulated by the Defendant as to whether from the state of pleadings and evidence led, the Claimant has discharged the burden of proof placed on her and consequently is entitled to the reliefs claimed. On the above issues as joined the Supreme Court in the case of S.O Ilodibia V. Nigerian Cement Company (1997) 7 NWLR (pt. 512) 174 had to consider the effect of indefinite suspension of an employee. The Court held per Wali JSC that if the suspension was irregularly done, the employee is entitled to acquiesce in it, or seek to have the suspension set aside, or take such steps to show that he was not prepared to regard the suspension as still subsisting. Here, the Claimant has taken steps to have the purported indefinite suspension from the 19th July 2010 without pay up to her termination vide exhibit C1 dated February 11, 2013 declared unlawful, wrongful and ultra vires, in that it violates the rules of national Justice. In the case of Mobil Producing Nig Unlit v. Francis Johnson Asuah (2001) 16 NWLR (Pt.740) 723 the Court of Appeal held per Edozie JCA at g 751 that it is settled law where a Plaintiff is seeking a declaration that the termination of his appointment is a nullity or wrongful, it is necessary to plead the contract of employment which is the foundation of the action. Without the contract and its particulars being pleaded by the plaintiff, no evidence of the terms of the contract which has been breached would be admissible at the trial and this will be fatal since it will lack foundation. In the case of Mobil Producing Nig. Unlimited & Anor V. Udo Tom Udo (2008) ALL FWLR (pt. 421) 95 it was held on when suspension will be declared wrongful, relying on Freedman on Modern Law of Employment at p. 486 where he said, inter alia, that “whether the employer has the power to suspend the employee for misconduct depends upon the terms of contract of employment. Suspension will be wrongful on the part of the employer if there is no power to suspend given by contract. In the present case, I find and I hold that exhibits A & A1 together with exhibits DE to DE 30 constitute the employment contract. Exhibit A1 at paragraphs 5 & 6 provides: “Management of the bank reserves the right to review and vary the conditions of service of it its employees. You will be bound by the existing general condition of service of the bank and any future amendments”. In the process of going through the submission of the parties on the issues joined for determination, the Claimant placed reliance on the cases of BABA V. N.C. A.T.C. (supra), Yusuf V. V.O.N. Ltd (supra) and that of Mobil producing Un Ltd V. Udo (supra) counsel also relies on additional authorities of OGUNDALU V. MAIJOB (2015) 8 NWLR (PT. 1460) PG 96 at 133, paras (B-D) MTN COMMUNICATIONS LTD V. C.C. INVESTMENT LTD (20150 7 NWLR (pt. 1459) pg. 133, paras E-b and that ABDULAZEEZ IBRAHIM VS. ZENITH BANK PLC (unreported) of the NICN, Suit No. NICN/ABJ/266/2013. I read through the above mentioned cases except the MTN case which was not furnished, they all seemed to convey aspects of the law and facts akin to the case at hand; However that of IBRAHIM VS. ZENITH BANK decided in this Court per Shogbola J is one out of the same set of Facts and Circumstances as the present case, the same allegation around 7 billion naira fraud in the same branches of the Defendant bank. But the fact about all cases remain that no two cases can be exactly identical. There the Defendant remain the same, the Claimants are different as well as the set of counsel who litigated the matter to its conclusion. Indeed, in the conclusion of that case, at the crucial points of divergence with this case the learned trial judge found as a fact and with the law at pages 27 & 28 at the last paragraphs of pg. 27 there that- “In this case other than the letter of offer of appointment exhibit PW1 and the letter of confirmation Exhibit PW2 the Defendant did not refer to the provision of the terms of contract that gives the Defendant the power to suspend the Claimant indefinitely in the first. The Defendant pleaded the condition of service but did not tender it. The right to suspend a worker by an employer will not be implied. If an employer wishes to reserve the right to suspend an employee he must do so by express terms.” The learned Judge then went on to find for the Claimant. I hold that this is not the case here. I hold that this finding is only possible where the Claimant is able to prove that the suspension indefinite or not is unlawful or illegal; or it is not proved by evidence in terms of having been effected properly in reference to the requirements of the employment contract as in the case of the employment Handbook, Exhibit DE-DE30. I hold that once the Claimant counsel confronted the DW1 with the exhibit DE-DE30 in cross examination even though it was not pleaded by either party nor frontloaded, the DW1 having acknowledged the said document which was then admitted as an exhibit, it became a vital part of the proceedings and the Court became entitled to look at it in the interest of the justice of the case, and by the same token, either party could then rely on it for their own purposes. Counsel for the Claimant had relied on the provision of Article 21.4 (b) Exhibit DE-DE30 where it stated, it will be at the discretion of the Defendant whether a staff on suspension is paid his or her salary. He then relied on exhibit G the relevant part which states: “Pending the conclusion of the investigations, management directed that you proceed on indefinite suspension without pay effective July, 19, 2010”. The Claimant had also contended that indefinite suspension leading to her termination was in violation of the rules of natural justice. At paragraph 10 of the Claimant amended Statement of Claim the Claimant averred that she received a query from the Defendant concerning one of her customers, PAVILION MOTORS LTD who allegedly was used as conduit for the fraud, the Claimant stated that on the 12th May 2010, she appeared and explained to the Defendant’s disciplinary Committee that the account under question albeit transferred to her by predecessor she was not the one managing the account at the time the alleged fraudulent fund passed through it. It had been established in cross examination of the Claimant in the following manner: Q: You had a personal interest in pavilion Motors Ans: I did not have a business with them, I purchased a bus from them, it was a company of which I was a shareholder Q: It was your company? Ans: I was a shareholder in the company, yes Q: You were the majority shareholder in the company Ans: Yes. The cross examination showed some conflict of interest between banker customer and the bank. The above establishes that the Claimant was given an opportunity to be heard by the Defendant. Which I so hold. I so hold that the case of YUSSUF V. V.O.N LTD (supra) is distinguishable from this case, having read that case as the jurisprudence represented there is the old one which as held in ration 2 pg. 748 of the report that: If the appellant was exonerated by the police the basis of his suspension without pay no longer existed and he ought to be paid in full for the period he was placed on suspension. This was per the Court of Appeal in 1996. In Eze V. SPRING BANK PLC (2011) vol. 12 (pt.) MJSCI. On whether an employer must wait until an employee is prosecuted by the police before terminating or dismissing him the Supreme Court held as it did in FRANCIS ARINZE V. FIRST BANK OF NIG LTD (2004) 12 NWLR pt. (888) 663 that, since the appellant had been confronted with the accusations and he was given opportunity to explain, it was not necessary for the employer to initiate criminal prosecution before taking disciplinary measures against the employee. In the premises of the above I find and I hold that issues 1 & 2 as formulated by the Claimant as well as issue 2 as formulated by the Defendant is determined in favour of the Defendant. As regards the preliminary issue of the admitted Witness Statement on Oath exhibit H of the Claimant, I find that nothing out of the ordinary was occasioned because the contents were the same as that in the Court’s file and the Ostensible reason given that the Claimant change counsel midway into the case. Regarding the counter claim, I find the denial of the Claimant to be sufficient as the counter claimant apart from itemizing the nature of indebtedness the counter claimant having terminated the claimant employment and having suspended her between 2010 and 2013 without pay it would be inequitable to seek payment from the Claimant when the court has found that her suspension without pay was lawful according to the employment conditions as there is no salary from which the counter Claimant could have drawn the loan re payments, which is not the case here. The counter claim fails. Similarly interest on the Claimants claim fails. So also does the Claimants case. Judgment is entered accordingly. There are no awards as to cost. ¬¬¬¬¬¬___________________________ HON. JUSTICE E. D. E. ISELE JUDGE