Download PDF
JUDGMENT The Claimant originally commenced this suit against the Defendant who were sued as Mainstreet Bank by a complaint filed on the 26th of September, 2013. In the course of the proceeding the Claimant on the 29th September, 2014 filed a further amended Statement of Facts. On the 2nd of December 2014 he filed an amended complaint and a further amended Statement of Facts, and, subsequently by leave of Court joined Skye Bank as Defendant and subsequently applied orally to have the name of Mainstreet Bank struck out from the proceedings which was granted. In the amended complaint of the 2nd December 2014 the Claimant seeks the following:- A. DECLARATION that the Claimant who was a Receiving Cashier Teller to the Defendant was not at any time paid the sum of N135Million from account 110010001028 as alleged by the defendant, therefore the suspension of the claimant by the defendant letter dated March 5th 2012 was wrongful, unlawful, unmitigated and inimical to the smooth working operation of the claimant for the defendant. B. DECLARATION that the issuance of the suspension letter dated March 5th 2012 to the Claimant by the Defendant without being heard from the Claimant as to whether he was the paying Teller or not was wrongful, unlawful, unmitigated and a deprivation of the Claimant right to fair hearing. C. DECLARATION that the subsequent correspondence by the Claimant in view of the letter dated June 14th, 2012 informing the defendant (Compliance Department) on what transpired between him & E.F.C.C as directed the Claimant so to do by the Defendant who ignored same information without giving the Claimant any reply amount to the deprivation of claimant right to fair hearing. D. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court for reinstatement of the Claimant to his position of work/job from March 5th 2012 till date. E. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court for payment of special Damages of N8,253,967.8 from March 2012 to December, 2014 and thereafter payment of accrue sum of salaries and perquisite allowances calculated at the sum of N242,763.73 from January, 2015 till the determination of the Claimant suit be paid to the Claimant with immediate effect by the Defendant. OR In the alternative an order of this Court compelling the Defendant to pay all salaries and perquisite allowances accrue to the Claimant in the Defendant establishment from the date of the Claimant suspension till the determination of this suit with immediate effect. F. Payment of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) general damages G. And for such further order or orders as this Honourable Court will deem fit to make in the circumstance of this case The amended complaint was accompanied with a further amended Statement of Facts, Witness Statement on Oath of the Claimant and documents to be relied on at the trial. On the 12th of May 2016 the Defendant filed its 1st and 2nd Defendants’ Statement of Defence together with a Witness Statement on Oath and documents to be relied on at the hearing. Hearing in this matter eventually commenced on the 14th October and the 2nd of November 2015. Both parties called one witness each which were both cross examined after exhibits had been tendered on each side, It is the case of the Claimant that he was initially employed by Afribank Nigeria PLC as an Executive Assistant and he was assigned to the Bwari Branch Abuja as a Receiving teller and later converted as a marketer before the Main Street bank Ltd took over from Afribank Nigeria PLC in the year 2011. He tendered exhibits A his letter of Employment with Afribank as well as Exhibit A1 his Confirmation of Appointment dated April, 2008. The Claimant maintains that when Mainstreet Bank took over he was still retained as an Executive Assistant as a relationship officer (marketer) by the Defendant. He tendered Exhibit A2 to A5 dated 5th August, 2011 headed: RE: EMPLOYMENT which was an offer of employment which contained the terms of his employment. He also tendered exhibit B as his salary package. The Claimant maintains that before the Defendant retained him as relationship officer when the Defendant took over from Afribank he had already ceased to be a Receiving Teller. He maintains further that while in active service with Defendant, the Defendant sent him a suspension letter Exhibit C, dated March 5th 2012 alleging that the he (the Claimant) was the paying Teller who paid N135 Million from Account Number 1100100010128. He averred that he was surprised to receive the suspension letter as the Defendant did not even issue him with a query or offer him an adequate opportunity to explain, justify or defend himself with the said misconduct of payment of N135 Million Naira from the said account before he was suspended. The Claimant maintains that upon receipt of the suspension letter he wrote the defendant that he had never been a Paying Teller but a Receiving Teller during his time at Afribank. This letter was admitted as exhibit C1, dated 23rd March 2012. The Claimant also maintained that exhibit “D” dated June 14, 2012, a letter from Mainstreet Bank informing him of his invitation. This letter to the EFCC (Economic and Financial Crimes Commission). He states that he was interviewed by the EFCC on the 19th of June, 2012, at which interview one Mulikat Musa and Ifeoma Nwosu both employees of the Defendant were in attendance with him before one ‘Aminudeen Muhammed of the E.F.C.C. He stated that at the interview both Mulikat and Ifeoma Nwosu admitted and confessed that they were the paying tellers who paid the said sum of N135 Million. Based on the instruction from their boss which also put down in their Statement to the EFCC. He maintained before the E.F.C.C that he knew nothing about the transaction since he was only a Receiving Teller and had no authority to pay such money. He said he put this in his Statement. The Claimant averred that immediately the E.F.C.C discovered the truth on that same date (June 19th, 2012) the E.F.C.C asked him to go on bail after which he reported as directed on 4 occasions till he was asked by the E.F.C.C to stop coming. He maintained that since then he had been writing to the Defendant’s compliance department as in exhibit D1 dated June, 2012 but there was no reply. He also maintained that since he had been on suspension effective from March 5th 2012 his salaries were stopped till date while Mulikat Musa and Ifeoma Nwosu who paid the sum of N135Million were not suspended but still working and receiving salaries. He averred further that all his transactions as receiving teller were authorised by one Abdul Nasir (head Teller) and Emmanuel Nyipira (Head Operation) with the Defendant at Bwari Branch, Abuja where the alleged payment of N135Millon took place for which he was not involved. That he wrote exhibit C1, of March 23, 2012, Exhibit C2 of 5th March, 2013 (appealing for lifting of the suspension) exhibit C3 of April 9, 2013 appealing the suspension without pay. He also briefed lawyers who wrote exhibit E & E1 dated July, 2013 all to the Defendant who did not respond. The Claimant also tendered exhibit F to F5 to buttress his averment that Skye Bank purchased Mainstreet Bank and took over control of the said Mainstreet Bank. The Defendants in their defence maintain that the Claimant was employed by the 1st Defendant as an Executive Assistant as contained in exhibit A2 and denied that the first Defendant neither took over Afribank PLC or employed the Claimant as relationship officer marketer as the Claimant alleged. The Defendants admitted the Claimants net salary at the time of his employment with the Defendant was N396,1500.00 but the Claimant had ceased to be in the employment of the 1st Defendant. The Defendants also admitted that following the fraud at the 1st Defendant’s branch at Bwari, access to the Claimant’s internal work email address was disabled by system control in accordance with the 1st Defendant’s Human Capital Disciplinary Manual, which is incorporated as part of the Claimant’s term of employment. As to the letter of suspension exhibit C of 5th March 2012 the Defendants stated that the Claimant was suspended without query in accordance with the 1st Defendant’s manual as applicable to the Claimant in order to allow for unimpeded investigations into N135,000,0003.00 fraudulent payment at Bwari Branch of the 1st Defendant where the Claimant was implicated. The Defendants also admitted that the Claimant’s salary was stopped as he was under fraud related suspension and in accordance with the 1st Defendant’s Manual as applicable to the Claimant. On the take-over of Afribank Nigeria PLC the Defendant maintained that it did not take over Afribank but merely acquired all assets and assumed specified liabilities of Afribank Nigeria Plc. The Defendants went on to stress on the Claimant’s employment and terms that the Claimant was employed by the 1st Defendant by exhibit A2 the said letter of employment dated 5th August, 2011. That the Claimant was still under probation and yet to be confirmed when the letter of suspension was issued to him. The Defendants also maintain that the Claimant’s letter of employment and terms of employment attached, the Claimants employment was regulated by the 1st Defendant’s code of conduct and rules. The Defendants maintained that the EFCC to which the fraud which implicated the Claimant had not informed the 1st Defendant that it has concluded investigation into the complaint or exonerated the Claimant in relation to the said fraudulent payment. They also maintained that, following the suspension of the Claimant for unimpeded investigation of the alleged fraud, the Claimant was not expected to report to work but to report weekly to the investigation unit to sign attendance register for effective monitoring as prescribed in the Defendant’s manual Exhibit DA and that where after two weeks the Claimant fails to report he is deemed to have abandoned duties and thus unilaterally terminated his employment with the 1st Defendant effective from March 27, 2012 as stated in the letter dated 23, March 2012 (exhibit C1) written to the 1st Defendant that he received the letter of suspension on 13 March 2012. On these bases the Defendant contended that the Claimant is not entitled to any or all of the declarations and orders he seeks in the suit. At the hearing both parties called one witness each and both were cross examined. At the close of which, parties filed their written addresses. In the Defendant’s written address 2 issues were formulated for determination. These were: a. Whether the Claimant’s suspension by the then Mainstreet Bank Limited was wrongful. b. Whether the Claimant’s employment by the then Mainstreet bank has not been lawfully determined. The Claimant through counsel formulated 2 issues for determination. These being: a. Whether the Claimant established his case b. The propriety of the Defendant’s Statement of Defence. To this, the Defendant’s filed a reply on point of law. However, for the purpose of this Judgement, I shall treat issue 2 as formulated in the Claimants address on the proprietariness of the Defendant’s Statement of Defence together with the response of the Defendant in the 4th to 8th paragraphs of the reply on points of law. Here, counsel for the defendants had maintained that the Defendant’s Statement of Defence dated 30th April, 2016 is carrying an invalid lawyer stamp, which became invalid on the 31st March 2016 and was deliberately fixed on same to overreach the Court. That from the date when the Statement of Defence was improperly filed and now, it has taken over 6 months. And the Defendant’s counsel has neglected to take steps to regularize his stamp to make the process duly filed. That by deliberately affixing an invalid stamp, the Defendant seeks to circumvent, outwit or get something out of cunning or artifice and urged the Court to hold the Statement of Defense as not properly filed. He relied on the Supreme Court case in YAKI VS BAGUDU 2015 FWLR PT 8101026 @ 1059 paras E-F that processes without stamp are voidable and deemed not to have been properly signed which offends Rule 10(1) of the RPC, 2007 that the Court should hold the invalid stamp tantamount to no stamp. In the reply, on points of law the Defendant maintained that the case of Bagudu as relied on by the Claimant was inaptly cited out of context. He referred to the proceedings of 21.11.16 where the Court entertained arguments on the same issue and the Court gave bench ruling thereon ruling that the Defendant’s Statement of Defense was not void and that the Defendant’s counsel “May” whenever he obtains the new NBA seal affix same on the said Statement of Defense and that the Defendant had since affixed a new NBA seal on the Statement of Defense. Now, in determining this issue once again as it were. The Court would state that having ruled on the matter one way, the Court would not rule any other way because the Court cannot sit on appeal over its own ruling. See A.I.C LTD V. NNPC (2005) 1 NWLR (Pt 937) 563 @597-8 paras G H. I hold therefore, that the Statement of Defense is not void. Next, I would consider the two issues formulated by the Defendant on whether the Claimant’s suspension by Mainstreet Bank Limited was wrongful and whether it was lawfully determined together with that formulated by the Defendant on whether the Claimant had established his case. On issue one the Defendant after having stated that the Claimant’s suspension was not in dispute, counsel went on to state at paragraph 11 that the linch pin upon which the Claimant rest his case is that the Claimant assumes that his suspension via exhibit ‘C’ was a sanction for infractions which he was alleged to have committed, and that he ought to have been afforded as opportunity to be heard before the sanction (by way of suspension) was meted out to him, and that the Claimant further assumes that to be lawful his suspension via exhibit ‘C’ ought to have been preceded by a query. The Defense maintained further that the fatal flow in the Claimant’s case is that those assumptions are totally erroneous and not borne out of the terms and conditions of the Claimant’s employment with the then Mainstreet Bank. The Defence maintain that the Claimant’s suspension was merely an administrative step expressly provided for in the terms and conditions which governed the Claimant’s employment to allow unimpeded investigation of the fraud related allegation against the Claimant. That contrary to the Claimant’s case the applicable suspension regime under the said terms of employment binding on the Claimant does not contemplate the issuance of a query as a condition precedent to suspension in fraud related cases- that the suspension in such cases is not a sanction. The Defendant referred to paragraph 17.2 of exhibit DA 27 which identifies three types of suspension being (a) Credit suspension (b) Fraud related suspension and (c) Suspension as sanction for misconduct. Now paragraph 17.2 of exhibit DA provides: i. Staff shall be placed on suspension in cases of suspected misapplication, mis appropriation, conversion insubordination, severe negligence and integrity issues, or where the suspension is necessary to allow for unimpeded investigation of an allegation. ii. A thorough investigation by the investigation Team shall be carried out and a report submitted to HIM within 1 week. iii. Where investigation cannot be concluded within 1 week due to involvement of external parties in the process, the concurrence of Head, Resources shall be obtained. iv. In all cases of fraud – related suspension, staff shall not be expected to report for duty, but shall report weekly to investigation Unit to sign an attendance register, for effective monitoring. Where staffs fail to report after two weeks such staff shall be summarily dismissed in line with the policy. v. During the period of suspension the staff shall be on zero pay. vi. Where a staff is completely exonerated either at the instance of investigations or DC decision, the suspension shall be reimbursed with his/her withheld salaries for the period of suspension vii. Where staffs have spent more than 3 months on suspension and the case has not been decisively concluded, EMDC shall review such case and take appropriate decision. viii. In all cases of suspension, systems control and relevant units shall be promptly informed by intend control/ chief inspector to disable the affected staff and supervisors shall be advised to ensure strict enforcement of the suspension. In the cross examination of the Claimant he had been asked the following questions for which he gave answers. Q: You were suspended on 5th March 2012? Ans: Yes Q: Following your suspension were you reporting to the investigation unit on a weekly basis to sign the register at the investigation unit. Ans: I was not asked to report. I was only given suspension letter and asked to go on suspension immediately. Q: You did not report? Ans: I did not report. The Claimant went on to say in the rest of the cross examination that he was employed first by Afribank and Re employed by Mainstreet Bank. He was not reexamined and was discharged. Through its witness the Defendant (DW1) tendered exhibit DA the Defendant’s Human Capital Disciplinary Manual which it relied on and which the Court had only just reproduced the clauses relied on by the Defendant. In the Cross examination of DW1 he admitted the Claimant was reported to the EFCC for fraud. The DW1 told the Court that the Claimant’s case went beyond being reported or invited by the EFCC in his words: “In this case he received 18 Oceanic Bank cheque for customers without a relationship with the Bank i.e. Mainstreet. The Cheques were processed through clearance and paid.” He said the Claimant had not been involved in payment to an unknown person and that the Claimant had not been prosecuted criminally by Skye Bank. He said he was not aware that the EFCC found no fault with the Claimant. He admitted that the sum of 135Million Naira was a huge amount and that Mainstreet Bank is now Skye Bank. The Claimant through counsel in his very brief written address in arguing issue one whether the Claimant had established his case without a valid challenge from the Defendants. At paragraph 3.2. He stated that there may be allegation of fraud but it is not shown anywhere that the fundamental principle of natural justice was complied with in the termination of the Claimant’s appointment. No investigation was carried out into any such allegation by any disciplinary authority under which the Claimant was either found guilty of any fraud or even given any opportunity to be heard in defense. Counsel submitted the Claimant’s suspension was without time frame and his termination or dismissal violated S.36 of the CFRN as amended and urged the Court to so hold. Now the Claimant has 7 heads of claims which he claims. In the first head the Claimant claims a declaration that he was a receiving cashier teller to the Defendant and he did not at any time pay the sum of N135 Million from account no. 110010001028 as alleged by the Defendant, the suspension of the Claimant was wrongful and unlawful unmitigated and inimical to the smooth working of the Claimant for the Defendant. In the written address of the Defendant the 1st issue formulated therein is whether the Claimant’s suspension by then Mainstreet Bank was wrongful. Counsel submitted for the Defendant that contrary to the Claim of the Claimant, the suspension was not a sanction imposed on the Claimant but was merely an administrative step expressly provided for in the terms and conditions which governed the Claimants employment. The Defendant relied on paragraph 17.2 of exhibit DA which the Claimant did not respond to in the brief written address. The Defendant witness told the Court in cross examination that the Claimant was involved in receiving 18 Oceanic Bank Cheques for customers without a relationship with the Bank. The witness was not pressed further in a bid to shake the veracity of this claim but it does seem plausible as the Claimant was a receiving Teller and the Defendant said he was implicated in the fraud over the payment of N135 Million Naira. To my mind, its seems quite clear that the balance tilts in favour of the Defendants who through exhibit DA paragraph 17 showed the steps, processes by which the Claimant lost his job. I need not re state it here as the Claimant did not challenge this in cross examination or bring it up in his written address. I hold therefore that the suspension of the Claimant was not wrongful. I hold that it followed the process laid down in paragraph 17.2 of exhibit DA. The first head of claim is hereby refused. As to the second head of claim for a declaration on the issuance of a suspension letter dated March 5th 2012 to the Claimant by the Defendant without hearing from the Claimant as to whether he was the paying teller or not was wrongful, unlawful, and a deprivation of the Claimants right to fair hearing. Here, it should be restated that the Defendant had insisted that the Claimant was implicated in the fraudulent transaction involving the said N135 Million Naira. It was for the Claimant to show which provisions regulating the Claimant’s employment giving him the right to being heard that had been infringed upon by the Defendant. The law is that every employer has power to investigate any allegation of impropriety or misconduct levelled against his employee, this may lead to suspension pending investigation. In the case of AYEWA V. UNIVERSITY OF JOS (2000) 6 NWLR (pt. 65a) 142 the Supreme Court held per Uwaifo JS.C in “…… That this is a matter of master and servant. The law is that a master can suspend his servant when necessary and there can be no issue of breach of fundamental rights.” I hold that the above proposition of the law applies to the case at hand. Consequently the 2nd head of claim fails and by the same token the other heads of claim similarly fails in head, C, D, and E. The alternative prayer seeking the order of Court to compel the Defendant to pay the Claimant all salaries and perquisites allowances accruing to the Claimant in the Defendant establishment from the date of the Claimant’s suspension till the determination of this suit fails similarly as the evidence from the Defendant on the provision of paragraph 17.2 and the Claimants own admission that he was not going to sign the Register at the investigation unit of the Defendant for the required period was already before the Court. And automatically by Operation of the law. Here the provision of S.17.2.V which provides staff shall be on zero pay applies. And I so hold. I hold further that by the Provision of (iv) the Claimant’s absence at the investigation unit to sign the attendance register for effective monitoring meant the Defendant was entitled to deem Claimant abandoned his duties and be dismissed in line with the policy. In view of the failure of the above heads of claims the claims in heads F & G also fail. Judgment is entered accordingly for the defendant the Claimant having failed to establish a case against them. There are no awards as to costs. _________________________ HON. JUSTICE E. D. E. ISELE JUDGE