Download PDF
JUDGMENT By a Complaint filed on the 11th May 2015, the Claimant filed a Complaint wherein he claimed against the Defendant the following: (1) A DECLARATION that the dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant by virtue of the letter dated 9th September, 2014 is wrongful, unconstitutional, unlawful, null and void. (2) A DECLARATION that the dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant by virtue of the letter dated 9th September, 2014 was not in accordance with the Claimant's Contract of Employment and the Defendant's Employment Handbook. (3) A DECLARATION that the Claimant is entitled to the arrears of his salary from the 1st day of October, 2012 to September, 2014 based on the salary review as contained in the letter to the Claimant dated the 28th of February, 2013. (4) A DECLARATION that the failure and or refusal of the Defendant to remit the Claimant's pension benefits to the Claimant’s retirement savings account is unlawful. (5) AN ORDER that the dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant be commuted to voluntary resignation. (6) AN ORDER that the sum of N561,251.98 (Five Hundred and Sixty-One Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty-One Naira, Ninety-Eight Kobo) only be paid to the Claimant by Defendant, being his unpaid arrears of salary from October, 2012 to September, 2014. (7) AN ORDER directing the Defendant to pay into the Claimant's "Retirement Savings Account" with Stanbic IBTC Pension Mangers the sum of N1,936,705.00 (One Million, Nine Hundred and Thirty-Six Thousand, Seven Hundred and Five Naira) only, being the total amount of unremitted pension deductions and contribution to the Claimant's pension fund and unpaid arrears to the said fund respectively from September, 2006 to September, 2014. (8) AN ORDER directing the Defendant to issue to the Claimant, Tax Clearance letters to enable the Defendant process his Tax Clearance Certificate in respect of his Personal Income Tax with the Rivers State Board of Internal Revenue for three consecutive years from 2011 -2013; or in the Alternative, where the Tax deductions from the Claimant remuneration where not remitted to the Board of Internal Revenue. (9) AN ORDER that the Defendant remit the said taxes and issue to the Claimant Tax Clearance letters to enable the Defendant process his Tax Clearance Certificate in respect of his Personal Income Tax with the Rivers State Board of Internal Revenue for three consecutive years from 2011-2013. (10) AN ORDER for the cost of the litigation of the suit. Pleadings were duly exchanged and hearing commenced on the 17th day of February 2016. The Claimant testified for himself as CW1. One Mr. Matthew Okonkwo testified on behalf of the Defendant as DW1. Hearing ended on the 5th day of October 2017, and parties were ordered to file their final written addresses in accordance with the rules of court. The Defendant’s Final Address was filed on 14th November 2017 while the Claimant filed his Final Address on 19th April 2018. The addresses were duly regularized and duly adopted on the 4th day of July 2018. In the Defendant’s Final Written Address on the 14th of November 2017, the Defendant’s counsel formulated a sole issue for determination to wit: Whether the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to judgement In arguing the sole issue for determination, it was the submission of learned counsel for the Defendant that the Claimant has failed to prove his case to be entitled to the grant of the reliefs claimed in his Statement of Facts. Under the subhead of wrongful dismissal, learned counsel for the Defendant focused on Exhibits C8 and D7, submitting that the Claimant did not show that he took advantage of his options before proceeding to file this suit; and that having failed to request for a review as provided in Exhibit D7, the Clamant has accepted the dismissal; and as a consequence, he is estopped from challenging it. Counsel placed reliance on ABEKE vs. ODUNSI & ANOR (2013) LPELR- 20640 (SC); KAYODE vs. ODUTOLA (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt.725) 659; AWOYEMI vs. FASUAN (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt. 996) 86; GBEJE & ORS vs. OKE & ANOR (2017) LPELR- 42662 (CA). Counsel argued that the Claimant is only entitled to one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu of notice. See CWAY NIGERIA DRINKING WATER SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY CO LIMITED & ANOR vs. MR. EMMANUEL OGWUCHE (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 848) 684 @ 709 Para F – G and Section 11 of the Labour Act Cap 11 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004. Counsel submitted that in the unlikely event that the court should hold that the Claimants employment was wrongfully terminated, the Claimant is only entitled to one month's notice to validly terminate his employment and his salary at the time he was dismissed was N272,500.00 (Two Hundred and Seventy-Two Thousand, Five Hundred Naira). Counsel urged the court to hold that Reliefs 1, 2 and 5 have failed. On the Claim For Salary Arrears, the Defendant counsel placed emphasis on Exhibits C4 and C5 and paragraph 4 of the witness statement on oath of DW1 and submitted that the Claimant is not entitled to any arrears of salary from 1st October, 2012 to September, 2014 or any other date on account of alleged salary review vide Exhibits C4 and C5; as the said Salary Review by the Defendants was put on hold vide Exhibit D1 which was sent to all the Defendant's staff in line with Exhibits C9 and D7. Counsel urged the court to hold that Reliefs (3) and (4) have failed. On the Remittance of Pension Benefit, the Defendant counsel submitted that the deductions made by Defendant from the Claimant's salary were done according to the provisions of Section 11 of the Pension Reform Act, 2004 and that all such deductions were remitted to the designated pension manager of the Claimant, IBTC Pension Managers. Counsel reiterated that the Claimant conveniently disobeyed the Court order to produce the Statement of his Pension Account by 3/05/2017 and withheld material evidence crucial to the determination of the issue in dispute. The Defendant counsel urged the court to hold that Reliefs 4, 5 and 7 have also failed. On the Claimants Income Tax Payment, counsel submitted that it remitted to the Rivers State Government all monies deducted as 'Pay As You Earn' in respect of the Claimant and that the Claimant had not requested for his tax clearance certificate from the Defendant. Counsel argued that it is not the duty of the Defendant to issue the Claimant a Tax Clearance Certificate but that of the Rivers State Internal Revenue Service (RIRS). Therefore, the Claimant's Reliefs 8 and 9 ought also to fail. Counsel urged the court to so hold. On the cost of Action, the Defendant’s counsel submitted that the claim is against public policy and not grantable. Counsel argued that the Claimant did not lead any evidence in support of his claims and that the claim is in the nature of special damages; hence the onus is on the Claimant to specifically plead it and strictly prove it; failure of which is fatal to his case. See AGUNWA vs. ONUKWE (1962) 1 All NLR 537; UBA vs. OZOEMENA (2007) LPELR - 3414 (SC). Counsel urged the court to dismiss Relief 10 and find in favour of the Defendants. Learned Counsel for the Claimant filed his final written address on the 19th of April 2018 wherein he raised 9 issues for determination to wit; 1. Whether in the circumstances of this case the Claimant was accorded fair hearing by the Defendant before his dismissal from their employ. 2. Whether the dismissal was not unconstitutional, unlawful and wrongful. 3. Whether the court can commute the unconstitutional, unlawful and wrongful dismissal to voluntary resignation. 4. Whether the Defendant increased the Claimant’s salary by letter dated 28th February, 2012. 5. Whether from the evidence before the court the salary increment was revoked by the Defendant. 6. Whether the Claimant is entitled to be paid the arrears of the unpaid salary increment to the date of the 9th day of September 2014 when his employment was unlawfully determined by the Defendant. 7. Whether Defendant failed and or neglected to pay to the Claimant his pension contributions. 8. Whether the Claimant in the circumstances of this case is entitled to be paid by the Defendant the arrears of the unpaid and unremitted pensions into the Claimant's fund. 9. Whether the Defendant in the circumstances of this case is entitled his tax clearance certificate in respect of the personal income tax regularly deducted from his salary by the Defendant. Counsel in arguing Issues 1, 2 and 3 together, placed reliance on the case of MOMOH vs. CBN (2007) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1055) 504 at 526, and submitted that the Defendant failed to contradict the evidence of the Claimant in Paragraphs 36-43 of his Statement of Claim and in paragraphs 38-45 of the Claimant's deposition, which is his evidence-in chief. Counsel in emphasizing that the principle of fair hearing was not adhered to, further submitted that it is not sufficient to appear before a panel for fair hearing, but to ensure that the person whose proprietary right or interest is to be determined knows the case against him in good time and make representations by himself or through someone on his behalf and effectively prepared his defence and answer the case against him. See OYEYEMI vs. COMM LOCAL GOVERNMENT (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 226) 661 at 678. Counsel submitted that that the procedure leading to the dismissal of the Claimant was not fair, open and consistent with the requirement of law and the policy of the Defendant as required by the provisions Exhibit C9. Counsel also submitted that the procedure adopted by the Defendant at the claimed investigative hearing constituted a denial of the Claimant's right to fair hearing under the provisions of Section 36(1) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as Amended) which counsel described as a clear aberration and an irregularity that cannot be cured or waived. Counsel urged the court to so hold, reiterating that a person cannot elect to waive his right to fair hearing under the constitution See ALIMI vs. KUSEBIU (2016) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1542) 337 at 357 Para E. Counsel also urged the court to hold that the dismissal of the Claimant was unconstitutional, unlawful, invalid, null and void. It was the submission of learned counsel for the Claimant that the Defendant did not invite the Claimant to any disciplinary hearing and no previous query or investigative hearing took place with the Claimant. According to counsel, the terms and conditions for the Claimant to be dismissed under the contract were not followed by the Defendant. He urged the court to so hold. It was the submission of learned counsel for the Claimant that Exhibit C8 and Exhibit D7 were not admissible before the court and counsel argued that the court cannot rely on its Rules to admit a document which was not pleaded by the parties, particularly where the Defendant did not amend its pleadings to plead the document. Counsel urged the court to expunge Exhibit D7 as it was wrongly admitted. It was also the submission of counsel that the Defendant had failed to discharge the burden on him to establish the reason for dismissing the Claimant. He urged the court to so hold. See GEORGE OZOANI vs. FCMB (unreported). On Issues 4, 5 and 6, the claimant counsel argued that Exhibit D1 was unsigned and that where Exhibit D1 is for any reason accorded any weight, it cannot override Exhibit C5 signed by the Managing Director of the Company reaffirming the salary increment in Exhibit C4. Counsel submitted that the increment of the Claimant's salary was never put on hold and the Defendant is obligated to honour its commitment to the Defendant under Exhibits C4 and CS as there is no evidence that it was suspended. Counsel urged the court to grant the claim of the Claimant. On Issues 7 and 8, the Claimant’s counsel recalled that in the course of proceedings, the Defendant tendered in evidence, a Zenith Bank cheque dated 26/7/2016 which was admitted as Exhibit D4. Counsel submitted that the sum of N1.5 million was due and owing as at 26th of March 2015 and had not been remitted to the Claimants pension fund. Counsel added that the payment is an admission of the Defendant's indebtedness to the Claimant. This, counsel argued was part payment of the Defendant’s indebtedness as sought by the Claimant in Exhibit C12 which the Claimant argued was uncontradicted. Counsel urged the court to so hold. On Issue 9, it was the submission of the Claimant’s counsel that the Defendant failed to show that it had paid any personal income tax in the name of the Claimant. Counsel argued that none of the documents tendered as Exhibits D2 to D6 had any reference to the Claimant, including the summary of Tax Remittance which is an unsigned paper not emanating from any custody. Counsel urged the court to grant the Claimant his claim on this issue. COURT’s DECISION Having reviewed the submissions of counsels for the parties in their respective final written addresses, I shall proceed to determine this case. I will begin by examining the facts of the case. THE CLAIMANT’S CASE The Claimant testified as the only witness in his case. From the facts pleaded by the Claimant and the evidence adduced by him, the case of the Claimant is that he was employed by the Defendant, an airline company, on 5/9/2006 as Duty Manager, Portharcourt. Upon the confirmation of his employment on 12/6/2007, he was promoted to the post of Station Manager. In 2013, his salary was increased to the sum of N3,600,000.00 per annum effective from 1/3/2013 in a letter dated 28/2/2013. He was also informed that arrears of his salary from 1/10/2012 will be paid to him. By virtue of the increase in his salary, his monthly salary was the sum of N300,000.00. By an internal memo dated 2/8/2013 from the Managing Director of the Defendant, he was informed that the new salary will commence from September 2013 but until the day of his dismissal in September 2014, the Defendant never paid the revised salary to him. The Claimant stated further that his monthly salary remained at N272,500.00 up till September 2014. After tax and pension deductions, his monthly net pay was the sum of N241,843.74 from October 2012 to September 2014 instead of N266,250.00 based on the revised salary. The Claimant then contended that the Defendant owes him arrears of salary from October 2012 to September 2014, which is a period of 23 months. The unpaid sum for each of these months is the sum of N24,402.26 and the total unpaid salary for the 23 months is N561,251.98. The Claimant went further to say that in accordance with the contract of employment and the Pension Reform Act, the Defendant usually deducts 7.5% from his monthly earnings which were to be remitted into his Retirement Savings Account with Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers with account number PEN100020023222. The Defendant is also under obligation to contribute 7.5% of the Claimant’s monthly salary into the Claimant’s RSA from September 2006 to August 2014. The Defendant made the monthly deductions from the Claimant’s salary but failed to remit same into the Claimant’s RSA and also failed to make its own contributions into the Claimant’s RSA. The total sum deducted from the Claimant’s salary from September 2006 to August 2014 but not remitted into his RSA and the Defendant’s unremitted contributions for the period amounted to the sum of N1,936,705.00. There is also the sum of N6,188 being arrears of unpaid pension for the months of March and April 2013. The Claimant also alleged that the Defendant made monthly tax deductions from the Claimant’s monthly salary for the Claimant’s Personal Income Tax but the Claimant is yet to obtain the tax clearance certificate in respect of the deducted tax from the Rivers State Board of Internal Revenue before his dismissal. By a letter dated 9th September 2014, the Defendant dismissed him from the employment based on Section 13.4.13 of the disciplinary procedure in the Human Resources Manual and Employment Policies which provide that serious breach of company procedure and regulation will result to summary dismissal. On 3rd September 2014, he was invited to Lagos Headquarters of the Defendant. Before then, he was not given notice, warning or query of any wrongdoing in the course of his employment. He was not given invitation to appear before any investigation or disciplinary panel on allegation of issuance or payment for tickets with his debit card. He appeared before a panel on 3/9/2014 and the panel accused him of paying for tickets with his debit card to the tune of N9,445,263.00 within a 6-month period; that some of the tickets were paid 2 to 3 hours after the flight had departed and that the Claimant received cash refund for tickets paid via Point of Sale terminal. The panel insisted the Claimant respond immediately to the allegations. The Claimant was not given time to adequately prepare to respond to the allegations. After the hearing of the panel, the Claimant made efforts for an opportunity to present a defence and an appeal to the Executive Chairman but his efforts were rebuffed. On 11/9/2014, he was given a letter of dismissal dated 9/9/2014. The Claimant averred that the allegations for which he was dismissed are not contained in the Employee handbook of the Defendant. The allegations against him were not misconducts or gross misconducts in the employee handbook for which he can be dismissed summarily. The Claimant concluded that his dismissal is wrongful, unconstitutional, unlawful, null and void. THE DEFENDANT’S CASE The Defendant also called one witness in defence of this action. He is Mr. Matthew Okonkwo, a Senior Manager, Human Resources of the Defendant. From the evidence adduced by the witness and the facts pleaded in the statement of defence, the Defendant admitted that the Claimant was its employee and that it wrote to the Claimant on 28/2/2013 and also an internal memo of 2/4/2013 for the increase in the Claimant’s salary. This was done in a salary review for senior staff but the review was stopped and all excess payments made to staff were recovered in 3 equal installments. There was no increment in the Claimant’s salary and his monthly salary as at the time he left the employment was the sum of N272,500.00. The deductions made from the Claimant’s salaries and the Defendant’s contributions have been remitted to the Claimant’s pension account in IBTC pension managers. The Defendant does not owe the Claimant any unpaid arrears of pension. The Defendant also averred that it remitted monies deducted from the Claimant’s salary for Pay As You Earn tax to the Rivers State Government. The Claimant can obtain his PAYE tax clearance certificate from the Rivers State Government. It was stated in addition that the Defendant does not owe the Claimant deductions from salaries and contributions for 30 months. The Claimant is not entitled to arrears of salary from October 2012 to September 2014 based on the said salary review. The salary review was put on hold as communicated to all staff in an email of 6/5/2013 and it has not been implemented as at the time of the Claimant’s dismissal. The Claimant was dismissed in accordance with the provisions of the Defendant’s employee handbook. The Claimant was indicted by an investigation panel and he was invited to face a panel. The Claimant was informed of the allegations against him and was given fair hearing before a decision was taken against him. Based on the decision of the panel, the Claimant was dismissed by the Defendant. The Claimant accepted the decision of the panel and did not appeal against the decision. The Defendant urged the court to dismiss the claims. COURT’S DECISION In view of these facts presented before the court, I will adopt the issue formulated by the Defendant’s counsel in the final written address of the Defendant to determine this case. The issue is: Whether the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to judgment. The fact that the Claimant was an employee of the Defendant and was dismissed from the employment on 9th September 2014 is not in dispute. The Claimant’s reliefs 1, 2 and 5 of the Complaint are a result of the Claimant’s complaint against his dismissal. He is seeking a declaration to the effect that his dismissal is wrongful, unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void. He is also seeking an order to convert his dismissal to a resignation. From facts pleaded by the Claimant and in his evidence, the complaints made by the Claimant against the dismissal are as follows: That he was not given notice, warning or query of any wrongdoing in the course of his employment; that he was not given invitation to appear before any investigation or disciplinary panel; that he appeared before a panel on 3/9/2014 but he was not given time to adequately prepare to respond to the allegations; that after the hearing of the panel, he was not afforded the opportunity to present a defence and an appeal to the Executive Chairman; and that the allegations for which he was dismissed are not contained in the Employee handbook of the Defendant neither did the allegations against him amount to misconduct or gross misconduct in the employee handbook for which he can be dismissed summarily. On the other hand, DW1 told the court that the Claimant was dismissed in accordance with the provisions of Defendant’s employee handbook. The Claimant was indicted by an investigation panel and he was invited to face a panel. The Claimant was informed of the allegations against him and he was given fair hearing before a decision was taken against him. Based on the decision of the panel, the Claimant was dismissed by the Defendant. DW1 also stated that the Claimant accepted the decision of the panel and did not appeal against the decision. The letter of dismissal of the Claimant is Exhibit C8 dated 9/9/2014. The summary of its content is as follows: That on 3/9/2014, the Claimant was invited to an investigative hearing by an investigative panel over allegation of fictitious ticket re-confirmation and payment of ticket with his debit card to the tune of N9,445,263.00 within the last 6 months; some payments were made after the flights had departed; and receiving cash refund for tickets paid via POS terminal. These allegations are serious breaches of company procedure and regulations and abuse of office viewed as gross misconduct. The panel report reveals that the allegations were true and the Claimant accepted responsibility for them. Consequently, management decided to dismiss the Claimant from employment with immediate effect, based on Section 13.4.13 of disciplinary procedure (Part B of the Human Resources Manual, employee policies) which state that serious breach of company procedure and regulations will lead to summary dismissal. Going by the content of the dismissal letter, the Claimant was dismissed summarily for gross misconduct being serious breach of company procedure and regulation pursuant to Section 13.4.13 of the disciplinary procedure in the Human Resources Manual, Employment Policies. The Claimant contended that he was dismissed pursuant to Employee Handbook, which he tendered as Exhibit C9, that was why he alleged that the allegations for which he was dismissed are not stated to be a misconduct in the Employee Handbook. However, the dismissal letter reveals that the Claimant’s dismissal was carried out pursuant to the provisions of disciplinary procedure in Part B of the Human Resources Manual, Employment Policies of the Defendant. The Defendant tendered this document in evidence as Exhibit D7. It is titled Human Resources Manual. Part B: Employment Policies. The document shows on its front page that it was issued on 1/8/2010 and came into effect on 1/9/2010. In paragraphs 45 and 46 of his statement of facts, the Claimant averred that other than the employee handbook, he was not aware of or given the said Human Resources Manual. This allegation is not to say the Human Resources Manual does not exist in the Defendant’s employment as part of the documents regulating the employment. Under cross examination, DW1 did explain that the Claimant was dismissed based on Section 13.4.13 of disciplinary procedure which is not the same as the handbook. DW1 also said that the Human Resources Manual was a revised version and it was uploaded in the internet and accessible by all staff. Nonetheless, the fact clearly disclosed in the dismissal letter is that the dismissal was done under the Human Resources Manual. I have examined the provision of the Human Resources Manual in order to determine this issue at hand. Section 15.9 of the Human Resources Manual provides that the Defendant may dismiss an employee without notice for gross misconduct in accordance with disciplinary procedure contained in the manual. Section 13.3 also provides that the penalty for gross misconduct will be summary dismissal without notice or payment in lieu of notice. Section 13.4 of the manual went further to list the offences regarded as gross misconduct with a proviso that the list is intended as a guide and not exhaustive. One of the offences considered as gross misconduct is serious breach of company procedure and regulations. From these provisions of the manual, the Defendant has the right under the contract to dismiss the Claimant for gross misconduct, one of which is serious breach of company procedure and regulations. The misconduct, for which the Claimant was dismissed, as stated in the dismissal letter, is a serious breach of company procedure and regulations. In his evidence, the Claimant said the allegations he was confronted by the panel were that he paid for tickets with his debit card to the tune of N9,445,263.00 within a 6 months period; that some of the tickets were paid 2 to 3 hours after the flight had departed and that the Claimant received cash refund for tickets paid via Point of Sale terminal. Under cross examination, the Claimant confirmed these facts when he also said that in the meeting with the panel, he was confronted with documents relating to payments he made from his debit card over a period of time for tickets for various individual customers. He was also confronted with the fact that from the print out there was lapse of time between issuance of ticket and when payments were made. Gross misconduct is defined in section 13.3 of the manual as “misconduct serious enough to prejudice the business or reputation of the company and damage the working relationship, in particular the trust and confidence of the company in the employee”. It is even a 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”. The fact that the Employee Handbook did not mention any of the allegations against the Claimant to amount to gross misconduct is immaterial. The Defendant has the right to dismiss its servant for any act it consider to amount to gross misconduct whether specifically stated as gross misconduct in the condition of service or not. From all the foregoing, the Claimant’s allegation that the dismissal is wrongful because the allegations for which he was dismissed were not contained in handbook has no merit. I hold that the Defendant rightly exercised its right under the contract to dismiss the Claimant. The Claimant also alleged that he was not given any invitation to appear before any investigation or disciplinary panel. He said he was only invited to Lagos Headquarters of the Defendant on 3rd September 2014 for a meeting but on getting there he was made to appear in a meeting which happened to been a panel sitting. In its statement of defence and the evidence of DW1, the Defendant averred that the Claimant was invited to face a disciplinary panel. From the evidence of the Claimant, he did not deny the fact that he appeared before a panel on 3/9/2014 where he was confronted with allegations of misconducts. His complaint is that he was not invited or told to come to Lagos to face disciplinary panel. The facts disclose that the Claimant was invited to the Defendant’s headquarters in Lagos on 3/9/2014 and when he got there, he appeared before a disciplinary panel where he was confronted with the allegations against him. It is clear that the Claimant’s invitation to Lagos was for the purpose of facing the disciplinary panel. Therefore, whether specifically told that he was invited to face a disciplinary panel or not does not matter, in my view. The Claimant’s invitation to Lagos suffices as invitation to appear before a disciplinary panel since the purpose of the invitation was to face a disciplinary panel on the allegations against him. The Claimant has further alleged that he was not given notice, warning or query of any wrongdoing in the course of his employment. This is one of the reasons he said his dismissal was wrongful. It was his evidence however that in the panel sitting on 3rd September 2014, he was confronted with the allegations against him and he responded. In master and servant employment, fair hearing is no more than the disclosure of the allegation to the employee and giving the employee an opportunity to answer to the allegation. See NEPA vs. ENYONG (2003) FWLR (Pt. 175) 452 at 472; NATIONAL BANK OF NIGERIA vs. OMOTAYO (2002) FWLR (Pt. 114) 454 at 466. From the Claimant’s evidence, the allegations were disclosed to him and he had the opportunity to defend himself. The fact that a query or notice or warning was not given to him does not affect his dismissal. Since the allegations were disclosed to him and he was given an opportunity to respond, fair hearing has been satisfied. This takes me to the Claimant’s further contention that he was not given time to adequately prepare to respond to the allegations. He said this because, according to him, when the panel accused him of the allegations, the panel insisted he respond immediately to the allegations. In the entire case presented by the Claimant, he has not said he requested for time to respond and it was refused. When the panel confronted him with the allegation and insisted he respond, the Claimant responded anyway. It is now late in the day for the Claimant to complain that he was not given adequate time by the panel to respond. In the statement of defence, the Defendant averred that the Claimant accepted the decision of the panel and did not appeal against the decision. The Claimant did not deny this fact. Under cross examination, the Claimant said few days after the panel meeting, he received the letter of dismissal which made reference to the meeting of 3/9/2014 and containing the findings of the panel. He also said he did not appeal against the findings of the panel. In view of these facts, I cannot find merit in the Claimant’s allegation that he was not afforded the opportunity to appeal to the Executive Chairman after the hearing of the panel. It is obvious that the Claimant knew he had the right to appeal after the decision of panel was communicated to him but he failed to utilize it. The Claimant cannot now be heard to say that it was the Defendant who refused to give him opportunity to appeal. Having considered all the allegations the Claimant made against his dismissal, I cannot find any reason to declare his dismissal wrongful. Accordingly, reliefs 1, 2, and 5 have not been established. In relief 3, the Claimant asked this court to declare that he is entitled to arrears of his salary from 1/10/2012 to September 2014 based on the revised salary communicated to him in the letter dated 28/2/2013. In the same vein, his claim in relief 6 is for the payment of the sum of N561,251.98 he said was the unpaid arrears of his salary from October 2012 to September 2014. In his evidence, the Claimant stated that by a letter dated 28/2/2013, his salary was increased to N3,600,000.00 per annum with effect from 1/3/2013. He was also informed that arrears of his salary from 1/10/2012 will be paid to him. By virtue of the increase in his salary, his monthly salary was the sum of N300,000.00. Later on, he received an internal memo dated 2/8/2013 from the Managing Director of the Defendant informing him that the new salary will commence from September 2013. However, up till the date of his dismissal in September 2014, the Defendant never paid him the revised salary. Rather, his monthly salary remained at N272,500.00 and after tax and pension deductions, his monthly net pay was the sum of N241,843.74 up till September 2014. Consequently, the Defendant owes him arrears of salary for 23 months, that is from October 2012 to September 2014. The Claimant said his total unpaid salary for these months is N561,251.98. This is the sum he claims in relief 6. In the evidence of DW1, he stated that it was true that the Defendant wrote a letter dated 28/2/2013 and an internal memo of 2/4/2013 to the Claimant increasing the Claimant’s salary. DW1 stated however that the Claimant is not entitled to arrears of salary from October 2012 to September 2014 based on the said salary review. His reason is that the salary review was later put on hold and this was communicated to all staff in an email of 6/5/2013. The salary review was never implemented up to the time the Claimant was dismissed. DW1 further stated that there was no increment in the Claimant’s salary and his monthly salary as at the time he left the employment was the sum of N272,500.00. Exhibit C4 is a letter dated 28/2/2013 from the Defendant to the Claimant informing the Claimant that his salary has been increased to N3,600,000.00 per annum effective from 1/3/2013 on the new approved salary scale. The Claimant was also informed that his salary arrears from 1/10/2012 to 28/2/2013 will be paid to him. It is obvious in Exhibit C5 that the salary increase did not take effect on the effective date because, as stated in Exhibit C5, an internal memo From the Managing Director to all staff of the Defendant dated 2/8/2013, the salary increase was still being reviewed. The memo reads: “RE: SALARY REVIEW Following the Group CEO’s brief to me this morning, I am glad to inform you that the salary review is at the final stage of completion. This process which also involved external professional consultants, will be completed by the end of this month. Payment of the new (enhanced) salary package will commence in September 2013.” From the content of the memo, it is clear that the revised salary, as communicated to the Claimant in Exhibit C4 was not a completed process. It was still undergoing consideration hence it was not implemented on the effective date. The new date the increment was to take effect was September 2013 but it was not implemented still on that date. In the evidence of the Claimant, it is clear to me that the Defendant did not pay the increment to the Claimant at any time up till the time the Claimant was dismissed from the employment. The explanation of the Defendant is that the increase of salary was done for all senor staff but the process was stopped and those staff who had been paid the revised salary were made to refund them. The Defendant’s witness tendered Exhibit D1, a memo by email dated 6/5/2013 from one Tunde Docemo to all staff of the Defendant. The content of the memo is to inform staff of the Defendant that the salary review was put on hold to allow for comprehensive salary review to be carried out. Although the Claimant claimed under cross examination not to have received this memo, it does not remove the fact that it was made by the Defendant to all staff, in a similar manner as Exhibit C5. Then Exhibit D1 memo was done in May 2013, after the letter of increment of the Claimant’s salary. Exhibit D1 read in conjunction with Exhibit C5 reveals clearly that there was an issue with implementation of the salary increase. Then, after Exhibit C5, the Claimant was not paid the said revised salary at any time until he was dismissed. In view of all the facts before me, I find that the Defendant stopped the increment in the Claimant’s salary and did not proceed with it till the Claimant was dismissed. The fact that the increased salary, as communicated to the Claimant in Exhibit C4, was not paid to the Claimant was not outside the right of the Defendant in the contract of employment. Section 5.1 of the Employee Handbook, Exhibit C9, the 4th paragraph thereof provides as follows: “Salaries are normally reviewed annually on 1st April each year. Reviews do not automatically result in salary increase and we reserve the right to change the salary review date and the date any change in salary comes into effect. The above provision of the condition of service makes it clear that it is within the right of the Defendant in the contract of employment to suspend or extend the time any review in salary takes effect. Therefore, to order the Defendant to pay the Claimant arrears of salary based on the said salary review in Exhibit C4 is to compel the Defendant to implement a salary review it never implemented. It will be unjust and against the terms of the contract between the parties to make such order in this suit. The Claimant is not entitled to these reliefs. In relief 7, the Claimant sought an order directing the Defendant to pay into his Retirement savings account the sum of N1,937,705.00 being the total amount of unremitted pension deductions and contributions due to the Claimant and unpaid arrears from September 2006 to September 2014. It is the Claimant’s case that his contract of employment and the Pension Reform Act require that the Defendant deduct 7.5% from his monthly salary and remit same into his Retirement Savings Account with Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers with account number PEN100020023222. The Defendant is also under obligation to contribute 7.5% of his monthly salary into his RSA. the Defendant made the monthly deductions from his salary from September 2006 to August 2014 but failed to remit same into his RSA and also failed to make its own contributions of 7.5% all through these years. The Claimant stated that the total sum deducted from his salary from September 2006 to August 2014 but not remitted into his RSA and the Defendant’s unremitted contributions for the period amounted to the sum of N1,936,705.00. The Claimant said there is also the sum of N6,188.00 being arrears of unpaid pension for the months of March and April 2013. The Claimant tendered his appointment letter and statement of account of his RSA in proof of this claim. These are Exhibits C1, C11 and C12. In defence of this claim, the Defendant averred that the deductions made from the Claimant’s salaries for pension and the Defendant’s equivalent contributions have been remitted into the Claimant’s RSA in IBTC pension managers. As a result, the Defendant does not owe the Claimant the sum of N1,936,705.00 or any unpaid arrears of pension. DW1 tendered in evidence a deposit slip dated 26/7/2016 and a payment request dated 13/7/2016 to establish the fact that the Claimant’s pension entitlements have been paid into his RSA. These are Exhibits D4 and D5. Exhibit D4 shows the sum of N1,507,219.26 paid into RSA number 100020023222 being pension contribution up to August 2014. Exhibit D5 is payment request for the outstanding pension contribution in the sum of N1,507,219.26 in favour of the Claimant into his RSA account PEN100020023222. In the attachment to Exhibit D5, deductions from the Claimant’s monthly salaries from May 2007 to August 2014 and the Defendant’s contributions for the period were computed. The Claimant’s total pension remittance for the period was the sum of N2,657,250.72. Exhibit D5 discloses that the total sum of N1,150,031.46 had been remitted into the Claimant’s RSA previously while the outstanding monthly deductions and contributions of the Defendant in the total sum of N1,507,219.26 was paid into the Claimant’s RSA on 26/7/2016 vide Exhibit D4. From the Defendant’s case and Exhibits D4 and D5, the Defendant paid the sum of N1,507,219.26 into the Claimant’s pension account after this suit has been filed. In order to clear the air on this allegation of the Defendant that it paid the sum of N1,507,219.26 into the Claimant’s RSA, I ordered the Claimant to produce an updated statement of his RSA from which to ascertain the veracity of the Defendant’s allegation but the Claimant did not produce same to the court. However, on the date of adoption of the final written addresses in this suit, the Claimant’s counsel admitted that the sum of N1,500,000.00 was paid to claimant. Counsel then sought to reduce the claim from N1,936,705.00 to N436,705.00. This new claim appears to be the remaining balance after subtracting the sum paid to the Claimant. I observe that the Claimant’s calculation of his pension contributions for the months from October 2012 to August 2014 was based on the unimplemented revised salary. I have held in this judgment that the Claimant is not entitled be paid that revised salary, hence, the sums he calculated as his pension based on the revised salary for October 2012 to August 2014 is affected according. The Defendant’s computation of the Claimant’s pension in Exhibit D5 appears to be his correct accrued pension based on his actual salary for the years involved. The Claimant’s outstanding pension entitlement in the sum of N1,507,219.26 has been paid to him in Exhibit C4. The Claimant is therefore not entitled to his claim in relief 7 or to any balance of N436,705.00. The Claimant further alleged that the Defendant made monthly tax deductions from the Claimant’s monthly salary for the Claimant’s Personal Income Tax but the Claimant is yet to obtain the tax clearance certificate in respect of the taxes from the Rivers State Board of Internal Revenue before his dismissal. The claimant also said he need a letter from the defendant to enable him obtain his tax clearance certificate from the Rivers State Board of Internal Revenue. On the basis of these facts, the Claimant sought reliefs 8 and 9 of the Complaint where he claims for orders directing the Defendant to remit the taxes to the Rivers State Board of Internal Revenue and to issue him a tax clearance letters to enable him process his 3 years tax clearance certificate from Rivers State Board of Internal Revenue for the years 2011 to 2013. The position of the Defendant with respect to these claims is that the monies deducted from the Claimant’s salary for Pay As You Earn (PAYE) tax were remitted to the Rivers State Government. The Defendant averred further that the Claimant can obtain his PAYE tax clearance certificate from the Rivers State Government. DW1 proceeded to tender Exhibits D2 (1 to 31) and D6 in evidence to establish the fact that the Claimant’s PAYE were remitted to the Rivers State Government. In view of the claim of the Claimant and the response of the Defendant, the issue here is quite simple. Since the Defendant maintains that the Claimant’s PAYE have been remitted to the Rivers State Government, all the Claimant requires is a letter from the Defendant to Rivers State Board of Internal Revenue stating the fact of payment of the Claimant’s PAYE for the years 2011 to 2013 so that the Claimant can be issued his tax clearance certificate for these years. I think such a letter from the Defendant is necessary in view of the fact that the remittances of taxes in Exhibits D2 (1-31) and D6 did not disclose anywhere that the Claimant is the payer or that he is one of those on whose behalf the taxes were paid. In conclusion of this judgment, I find that the Claimant is not entitled to the grant of reliefs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10. These reliefs are dismissed. Reliefs 8 and 9 are granted. Accordingly, the Defendant is ordered to issue to the Claimant, tax clearance letters in respect of his Personal Income Tax for the years 2011 to 2013 to enable the Claimant process his tax clearance certificate with the Rivers State Board of Internal Revenue. No order as to cost Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge