Download PDF
JUDGMENT This action was commenced by way of complaint dated and filed the 7th day of August 2015, wherein the Claimant sought the following reliefs: 1. A Declaration that the Claimant’s employment with the Defendant still subsists until same is validly determined in law. 2. A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to payment of his accrued and unpaid salary and benefit as an employee of the defendant from the month of August 2014 till his employment with the Defendant is validly terminated in law. 3. An Order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant his accrued and unpaid salaries and allowances with effect from August 2014 till July 2015. 4. An Order of court directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant his accrued and unpaid salaries and allowances with effect from August 2015 till the day of judgment or till the Claimant’s employment is validly terminated in law by the Defendant. 5. 10% pre and post judgment interest until full and final liquidation of the judgment sum. 6. N2,000,000.00 being cost of this action and solicitor’s fees. Pleadings were accordingly exchanged and hearing commenced on the 7th day of February 2017. The Claimant testified for himself as CW1. One Henry Ibiam, the Defendant’s Regional Operations Services Supervisor for Rivers and Bayelsa States, testified on behalf of the Defendant as DW1. Hearing ended on 5th October 2017 and parties filed their final addresses. SUMMARY OF FACTS CLAIMANT’S CASE In proof of his claims, the Claimant testified as the sole witness in his case. His evidence is that he is a staff of the Defendant at the Defendant’s Nekede Branch in Owerri, Imo State having been employed by the Defendant on 5/1/2009. On 15/8/2014, one Henry Ibiam and Nnochim Onwuka, staff of the Defendant at the Ikenegbu branch of the Defendant invited the Claimant over to the branch. Upon arrival at the branch, these staff of the Defendant demanded the where-about of one Emmanuel Kalu, the Claimant’s co-worker, from the Claimant. When the Claimant told them he did not know Kalu’s where-about, they forced the Claimant to his house and ransacked his apartment without disclosing the reason for their action to the Claimant. Henry Ibiam and Nnochim Onwuka made away with the Claimant’s money and other valuables. Henry Ibiam and Nnochim Onwuka only informed the Claimant of their action of 15/8/2014 on 18/8/2014. Their explanation was that the Claimant is a friend of Emmanuel Kalu who is suspected of fraudulent cash suppression. The Claimant denied knowledge of the alleged act of fraudulent cash suppression and demanded the return of his money and properties. Henry Ibiam and Nnochim Onwuka rather ordered the suspension of the Claimant’s salary and entitlements till further notice. When the Claimant’s salaries were not paid till October 2014, he consulted his solicitor who wrote letters dated 22/10/2014 to Henry Ibiam and Nnochim Onwuka. Despite the letter, the Claimant’s salaries were not paid, the Claimant instituted suit HOW/762/14 in the Imo State High Court on 18/11/14. On 20/11/14, the Claimant’s solicitor wrote a letter to the Managing Director of the Defendant to complain about the victimization of the Claimant. Thereafter, his solicitor advised him to continue to discharge his duties. The Claimant continued to work despite non-payment of his salaries and entitlements since August 2014. The Claimant’s solicitor wrote another letter to the Defendant’s Managing Director on 14/5/2015 on the Claimant’s intention to sue for his unpaid salaries and benefits. In another letter dated 18/6/2015 to the Managing Director of the Defendant, the Claimant’s solicitor demanded verification of the termination of the Claimant’s employment. This letter was informed by the averments of Henry Ibiam and Nnochim Onwuka in their statement of defence in suit HOW/762/14 where they averred that the Claimant has been dismissed by a letter dated 3/12/2014. The Defendant did not react to these letters till date. The Claimant was not served any dismissal letter or any notice of termination of his employment. He was also not paid any salary in lieu of notice till date. The Claimant is still with his staff identity card and still discharges his duties to the Defendant. In the employment, the Claimant was paid the sum of N45,000.00 monthly basic salary, N8,000.00 performance allowances payable monthly and the sum of N22,000.00 payable every quarter of the year. These sums have not been paid to him since August 2014. He is entitled to be paid these sums with interest. DEFENDANT’S CASE The Defendant filed a statement of defence wherein it denied liability for the claims of the Claimant. Mr. Henry Ibiam who testified for the Defendant said he is the Defendant’s Regional Operations Services Supervisor for Rivers and Bayelsa States. He told the court that the Claimant was employed as a staff of the Defendant on 5/1/2009 but has ceased to be a staff of the Defendant. On 15/8/2014, the Claimant and Emmanuel Kalu were invited by him and Nnochim Onwuka to Ikenegbu branch over allegation of fraudulent suppression of sales proceeds. The Claimant and Kalu were issued queries dated 15/8/2014 and in their answers, they admitted fraudulently suppressing cash from sales proceeds at their duty posts. The Claimant admitted that he suppressed N500,000.00 and he lent part of the money to his friend in Portharcourt. The Claimant pleaded with the witness and Nnochim Onwuka to follow him to his house so he could give them N100,000.00. They followed him and he gave them N50,000.00, his WAEC and OND certificates without compulsion. The Claimant pleaded not to be taken to police station but be allowed to travel to Portharcourt and return the following Monday, being 18/8/2014, with the remaining money but he never returned till date. When the Defendant did not see the Claimant again, the matter was reported to the Nekede police station and the matter is still being investigated by the police The Claimant absconded from duty since 18/8/2014 and has never showed up at work till date. The Claimant last attended work on 15/8/2014. The Defendant considered the Claimant’s case and dismissed the Claimant from service. The Claimant knew he has been dismissed from the employment as he had been served with the dismissal letter. The Claimant’s suit HOW/762/2014 was against the witness and Nnochim Onwuka and not the Defendant. The Claimant is not entitled to notice of termination or salary in lieu of notice as his conduct attracted summary dismissal in line with his contract of employment and the Defendant’s handbook. The witness concluded that the Claimant is not entitled to his claims. Upon the close of evidence, counsels for the parties filed their final written addresses which were adopted on 4th July 2018. SUMMARY OF ADDRESSES DEFENDANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS The Defendant in his final written address filed on 9th April 2018, formulated two issues for determination to wit; a. Whether proper parties were before this court in this matter. b. Whether from the totality of evidence adduced before this court, the Claimant has made out any case to warrant the court granting the reliefs sought and that the Claimant was not properly dismissed in law. On Issue One, learned counsel for the Defendant submitted that the Claimant was employed by Fidelity Securities Limited but was sent on secondment to the Defendant and was subsequently dismissed when he breached the policy guidelines of his employer. Counsel placed reliance on the authority of MOBIL PRODUCING NIG UNLTD vs. FRANCIS J. ASUAH (2001) 16 NWLR (Pt. 740) 723 at 751 and HIGH FLOW FARM IND vs. UNIBADAN (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 290) 720 and submitted that since the Claimant is of the view that Fidelity Securities Limited is not his employer, he has not placed any material evidence at all to justify his claim that the Defendant is his employer. Counsel urged the court to strike out this suit for lack of proper parties. On Issue Two, Counsel urged the court to hold that the failure of the Claimant to produce any material evidence supporting his claim of employment with the Defendant together with the contract of service is fatal to his case. He cited the case of NIGERIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD. vs. OSHODI (1999) 8 NWLR 528 and submitted that the Claimant’s contract of service cannot be presumed. He urged the court to dismiss the suit. See UDEGBUNAM vs. F.C.D.A (1996) 5 NWLR (Pt. 449) 474 at 486 and NWAUBANI vs. GOLDEN GUINEA BREWERIES PLC (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 400) 184. Counsel submitted that the dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant was predicated on an allegation of suppression of cash and abscondment from duty in proof of which the Defendant tendered Exhibits D3, Exhibit D4 and Exhibit D6. See BELLO vs. SANDA (2012) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1281) 219 and BAKARE vs. LAGOS STATE CIVIL SREVICE COMMISSION (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 262) 641. Counsel urged the court to hold that the reliefs sought by the Claimant are unsupportable. He urged the court to dismiss the case against the Defendant. CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS The Claimant’s address was filed on 29th November 2017 while the final address of the Defendant was filed on 9th April 2018. The respective addresses were duly regularized and adopted on the 4th day of July 2018. The Claimant in his final written address filed on the 29th of November 2017 formulated a lone issue for determination to wit: Whether the Claimant is still not under the employ of the Defendant and therefore, entitled to payment of his salaries and allowances. In arguing the sole issue for determination, learned counsel for the Claimant submitted that the Defendant did not issue or serve on the Claimant any dismissal letter at all and consequently his employment with the Defendant subsists. He urged the court to so hold. Counsel also urged the court to discountenance Exhibits D1 and D2 as there is no evidence that the Claimant is an employee of Fidelity Securities Ltd which is a distinct and different company from Fidelity Bank Plc. Counsel also submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Claimant appeared before any disciplinary committee of the Defendant which made recommendation to the management of the Defendant to dismiss the Claimant on grounds of misconduct which attracted summary dismissal of the Claimant. It was the submission of counsel that Exhibit D4 cast doubt on the case of the Defendant and that Exhibit D4 and Exhibit D5 cannot be admitted in evidence as it was not frontloaded. Counsel urged the court to expunge same from evidence. He also contended, citing the case of UNIVERSITY OF MAIDUGURI TEACHING HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT BOARD & ANOR vs. DAWA (2002) FWLR (Pt. 108) 1402 @ 1419, that no notice of dismissal or payment in lieu of notice was given to the Claimant by the Defendant, and even where the Defendant alleged summary dismissal of the Claimant on grounds of misconduct, it is clear from the evidence that no dismissal letter emanated from the Defendant or could have been served on the Claimant. Counsel further contended that Exhibit D1 did not emanate from the Defendant but from a different company and was indeed not served on the Claimant at all. He urged the court to so hold. In objection to Exhibit D6, counsel submitted that Exhibit D6 was not pleaded in the Statement of Defence of the Defendant and also not frontloaded. Consequently, evidence not pleaded goes to no issue. See LANA vs. UNIBADAN (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 64) P. 245. Counsel urged the court to resolve the issue in favour of the Claimant and hold that the Claimant’s employment still subsists and that the Claimant is entitled to the sums claimed from the Defendant. COURT’S DECISION In view of the evidence adduced before the court, the issue to be determined in this case is whether the Claimant has proved his case to warrant the grant of the reliefs he sought in this case. The Claimant’s counsel has raised objection to the admissibility of Exhibits D4, D5 and D6 in the Claimant’s final written address. The grounds of objection by learned counsel is that Exhibits D4, D5 and D6 were not frontloaded and that Exhibit D6 was not pleaded. The fact that a document is not frontloaded is not a condition for its admissibility. Once a document is pleaded, relevant and in an admissible state, it is admissible in evidence. Exhibit D4 is a query and reply dated 15/8/2014. This document was pleaded in paragraph 5 of the statement of defence. It is also relevant to this case. Exhibit D5 is an email of a warning given to the Claimant on 24th June 2013. This document was also pleaded in paragraph 3 of the statement of defence. In paragraph 8 of the statement of defence, the Defendant pleaded that the Claimant last attended work on 15/8/2014 and has not been to work since then till date. Exhibit D6 is the attendance register of the Defendant. It is the evidence of the fact pleaded in paragraph 8 of the statement of defence. It is trite that only facts need be pleaded and not the evidence to prove those facts. Therefore, Exhibit D6 is evidence of a fact already pleaded. It is admissible in evidence. I overrule the Claimant’s counsel on his objections. I hold that Exhibits D4, D5 and D6 are properly in evidence. In the final written address of the Defendant, learned counsel for the Defendant argued in his 1st issue that the Defendant is not the proper Defendant to sue in this case because it was not the Claimant’s employer. According to counsel, the Claimant’s employer was Fidelity Securities Limited and he relied on Exhibits D1 and D2, which are the Claimant’s dismissal letter and employment letter respectively. The import of this submission by the Defendant’s counsel is that the Defendant is not the Claimant’s employer. However, I observe from the state of pleadings that the Defendant never made the employer of the Claimant an issue in this case. This issue raised by the Defendant’s counsel in the final written address was not pleaded by the Defendant. There is nowhere in the statement of defence or in the evidence of DW1 the fact that the Defendant was not the Claimant’s employer was pleaded or canvassed. In fact, what the Defendant pleaded is the fact that the Defendant was the Claimant’s employer. In paragraph 3 of the statement of defence, the Defendant pleaded thus: “The defendant admits paragraphs 3 of the statement of complaint only to the extent that that claimant was employed as a staff of the defendant on 5/1/2009”. This averment was made in response to the Claimant’s pleading in paragraph 3 of the statement of facts where the claimant averred that he was “employed as a staff of the defendant on 5/1/2009”. The Defendant, by its pleading in paragraph 3 of the statement of defence has admitted that the Defendant was the employer of the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant maintained the fact that that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant throughout the defence. Now, the argument of the Defendant’s counsel in the final written address is contrary to the facts pleaded by the Defendant. It is trite law that a fact which is admitted need not be proved any further. By the pleadings of the parties, the fact that the Defendant was the employer of the Claimant is not in dispute. Therefore, learned counsel for the Defendant was merely on a gamble when he argued that the Defendant is not the Claimant’s employer. Going by the claims sought by the Claimant, his case is that he is still an employee of the Defendant till date and he is therefore entitled to be paid his accrued salaries and entitlements from the month of August 2014 to the time his employment will be validly terminated. In his evidence, the Claimant stated that on 18/8/2014, Henry Ibiam and Nnochim Onwuka, the Defendant’s staff, ordered the suspension of the Claimant’s salary and entitlements till further notice. Since then his salaries and entitlements were not paid to him but in accordance with the advice of his solicitor, he continued to work despite non-payment of his salaries and entitlements since August 2014. The Claimant also said he was not served any dismissal letter or any notice of termination of his employment. He was also not paid any salary in lieu of notice till date and he still has his staff identity card with him. The testimony of DW1 is to the effect that the Claimant and one Emmanuel Kalu were suspected to be involved in fraudulent suppression of cash from sales proceeds. On 15/8/2014, the Claimant and Emmanuel Kalu were given query, and in his response, the Claimant admitted committing the offence and made part refund of the money in his house. That was the last day the Claimant attended work. He absconded from duty since 18/8/2014, being the day he promised to pay the remaining money, and has never shown up at work till date. Thereafter, the Defendant considered the Claimant’s case and dismissed the Claimant summarily from service in accordance with the Defendant’s handbook. The Claimant knew that he has been dismissed from the employment as he had been served with the dismissal letter. From the case of the parties, the Claimant maintains that his employment has not been terminated or dismissed by the Defendant and he has continued to work for the Defendant since August 2014. That is the reason he asserts that his employment still subsists. On the other hand, the Defendant avers that the Claimant absconded from work since on 18/8/2014 and was subsequently dismissed from the employment. The Defendant tendered the Claimant’s dismissal letter and the attendance register of the Defendant in evidence. These are Exhibits D1 and D6 respectively. Although the Defendant said the Claimant was dismissed summarily from the employment and he was served the dismissal letter, I find this not to be so. The Claimant said he became aware of the said dismissal from the statement of defence filed by Henry Ibiam and Nnochim Onwuka in suit HOW/762/14. The Claimant also said he was not served any letter of dismissal. Under cross examination of DW1 by the Claimant’s counsel, DW1 said the letter of dismissal was served on the Claimant on 3/12/2014 which was 4 months after he was last seen in the Defendant’s premises. DW1 said the reason was that the Claimant could not be reached. DW1 maintained that the Claimant was served the dismissal letter. DW1 did not however show evidence that the Claimant received the letter or prove the circumstances of service on the Claimant, having alleged that the Claimant was last seen on 15/8/2014. The dismissal letter is Exhibit D1. There is nothing on it to show that it was received by the Claimant. It is clear to me that the Claimant did not receive the said dismissal letter. The dismissal letter was written to the Claimant by Fidelity Securities Limited and signed by its Managing Director. I have made it clear earlier in this judgment that the Claimant’s employer is the Defendant in this case. Fidelity Securities Limited is not the Defendant in this case and there is no evidence before me showing a relationship between the Defendant and Fidelity Securities Limited. The dismissal letter is not from the Defendant. The Claimant cannot be dismissed from his employment with the Defendant by a non-party to the employment or a person not shown to be his employer or related to his employer. I find no evidence to support the allegation that the Defendant has dismissed the Claimant from the employment. From the case of the parties, it is agreed that the Claimant was no longer paid salary from August 2014. The Claimant stated that notwithstanding non-payment of his salaries, he continued to attend work till date. Under cross examination by the Defendant’s counsel, the Claimant said that he still goes to work but his sign-on was withheld. He cannot log into the system and he was not assigned duties relating to logging in into the computer. He also said he was not allowed to sign in upon getting to work. From the evidence of the Claimant, the Defendant stopped paying his salaries from August 2014 and also stopped assigning duties to him. The Claimant was not even allowed to sign in to work. The Claimant said he was not served any dismissal letter or any notice of termination of his employment nor was he paid any salary in lieu of notice of termination. These are the reasons why he contended that his employment has not been terminated. In master and servant employment, as in this case, termination or dismissal need not be in writing. In IFETA vs. SHELL (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 314) 305 at 334, the Supreme Court held that termination of employment can be done orally or in writing or by conduct. In this case, the Claimant’s evidence show that the Defendant made it known to him that he was no longer wanted into the office or in the employment. The Defendant has also not paid the Claimant any salary since the month of August 2014. It is obvious that the Defendant has clearly demonstrated, by its conduct towards the Claimant, that he was no longer needed in the employment. The attitude of the Defendant to him clearly shows that the Defendant was no longer interested in his services. I cannot also believe the Claimant has been attending work since August 2014 till date as claimed by him. The Defendant has denied this allegation of the Claimant. The burden of proof of his allegation rests on the Claimant. The evidence which could support the Claimant’s allegation that he has been working for the Defendant since August 2014 are proof of daily sign in to work and evidence of duties performed for the Defendant during the period. In his own evidence under cross examination, he made this court understand that he was not allowed to sign in to work and was not assigned any duty to perform. Furthermore, in the letter of his solicitor to the Managing Director of the Defendant dated 20/11/2014, that is Exhibit C2, it was stated in paragraph 5 therein that “our client was thereafter denied access to work and his salaries and allowances restricted for no just cause”. This letter was in November 2014. That is to say the Claimant did not attend work since August 2014. If the Claimant was “denied access to work” from August 2014 to November 2014, on what basis did he now claim that he has been going to work since August 2014? The Claimant has not adduced any credible evidence to establish the fact that he has been going to work and discharging his duties since August 2014. The Claimant’s averments disclose clearly that he did not attend work since August 2014. In my view, the employment relationship between the parties has been terminated in August 2014 when the Defendant stopped paying the Claimant’s salary and stopped recognizing the Claimant as its employee. In master and servant employment, where an employer exercises his right under the contract to terminate the employment by whatever mode or whether rightly or wrongly, the court will rarely declare the employment to still subsist. To do that will mean imposing a servant on the unwilling master, an act the court is precluded from undertaking. See OYELEYE vs. IBADAN ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 852) 1599. In the result, I find that the Claimant’s employment has been terminated since August 2014. The employment no longer subsists. The claims for payment of his salaries and benefits from August 2014 sought by the Claimant in reliefs (b), (c) and (d) are claims for salaries for period he was no longer in the Defendant’s employment. It is trite that a servant whose employment has been terminated cannot claim for salary or allowances for period he was no longer in the employment. See SPRING BANK vs. BABATUNDE (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 609) 1191 at 1205. Without further waste of time on this case, I find that the Claimant has not proved his claims. I find no merit in the Claimant’s case. The result is that the Claimant’s case is dismissed. Parties shall each bear their costs. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge