Download PDF
JUDGMENT In his Complaint filed on 13th June 2016, the Claimant claimed the following reliefs against the Defendant: (a) A Declaration that the series of transfers from Abuja to Lagos and vice versa meted out to the Claimant by the Defendant and the refusal by the Defendant to pay the Claimant his transfer benefits amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment. (b) An Order directing the Defendant to pay forthwith to the Claimant a total sum of N672,000.00 (Six Hundred and Seventy Two Thousand Naira Only), being gratuity and unpaid transfer benefits that accrued to the Claimant. (c) An Order directing the Defendant to pay forthwith to the Claimant interest on the said total entitlements of the Claimant at the rate of 15% per annum from 05/02/2016 until payment. (d) The sum of N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira) only as general damages. (e) The sum of N3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira Only) being the cost of this suit. Pleadings were duly exchanged and hearing commenced on the 13th day of December 2017. Parties called one witness each. The Claimant testified for himself as CW1 while one Mr Hyacinth Eze, a manager of the Defendant, testified as DW1. Hearing ended on the 8th day of March 2018 and the court ordered the parties to file their final written addresses in accordance with the rules of court. Both parties adopted their final written addresses on the 10th day of July 2018. In proof of his claims, the Claimant testified as the only witness. It is his case that he was employed by the Defendant as an Internal Auditor vide a letter of appointment dated 23rd July 2008 with an annual salary of N600,000. The Claimant commenced work on 1/9/2008 and was being paid monthly salary of N50,000. By a letter dated 27/10/2015, he was transferred to the Defendant’s office in Lagos. While on his way to Lagos, he received a phone call directing him to return to Abuja. On getting to the Abuja office, he received another letter transferring him back to Abuja. On 2/2/2016, he was given another letter of transfer to Lagos. While he was seeking an appointment with the Chairman of the Defendant to discuss his loan request, one Mr. Hyacinth Eze, the Claimant’s supervisor, drew his attention to a text message sent by the Chairman of the Defendant ordering the Claimant to resign immediately. The Claimant obediently tendered his resignation and it was accepted by the Defendant. The Claimant was not called to answer any question relating to the transfer and the instruction to resign. No reason was also given by the Defendant for demanding his resignation. Throughout his employment with the Defendant, there was no cause for him to appear before the disciplinary committee. By virtue of the Defendant’s handbook, he is entitled to be paid gratuity for 8 years of continuous service in the Defendant. The gratuity is calculated at 70% of his annual basic salary, which is N120,000 for every year of the 8 years of service. The total gratuity he is entitled to be paid is the sum of N672,000. After his resignation, he demanded payments of his gratuity and terminal benefits but the Defendant refused his requests. In his further evidence, the Claimant stated that he took a 3-day leave to enable him dispose of his apartment in Abuja in preparation to relocate to Lagos. The leave he took was not meant to reverse the transfer. He was on his way to Lagos when he was called to report back to Abuja office. The series of transfers was to frustrate him into resigning from the Defendant. When he was given the 2nd letter of transfer to Lagos, he wrote an acceptance letter to the Defendant and copied same to the Chairman, the auditor, his supervisor and to the Managing Director, Mr. Zulu Obolu, for his approval. However, Mr. Zulu Obolu directed on his application that his employment be terminated with immediate effect and a letter of termination of the Claimant’s appointment was prepared in accordance with that directive. It was later he was shown the text message from the Chairman directing the Claimant to resign. Mr. Eze, who showed him the text message, asked the Claimant to choose between resignation and termination. It was this situation that forced him to resign. The staff handbook was provided to all staff of the Defendant. The Claimant’s copy was sent to him by e-mail by Mr. Hyacinth Eze on 2/12/2013. The handbook is binding on staff and it was used to run the company. The Defendant filed a statement of defence to the claim of the Claimant and also included a counter claim against the Claimant. In the counter claim, the Defendant claims a sole relief which is this: The sum of N2 million for resigning from the employment without paying the required month’s notice and other necessary damages. The Defendant called one witness also. He is Mr. Hyacinth Eze, a Manager in the Defendant. He told the court that the Claimant was employed as Internal Auditor but when found to have lacked requisite qualification as a chartered accountant, he was redeployed to the operations department. The Claimant was transferred to Lagos but when he complained, the transfer was put on hold and he was recalled back to Abuja. Every employee of the Defendant is subject to transfer to any of the Defendant’s offices. The Claimant tendered his resignation without any threat or coercion from the Defendant and without giving the Defendant one month notice or payment of salary in lieu as provided in the Claimant’s appointment letter. The Claimant is not entitled to gratuity. The handbook was a mere proposal initiated by the then MD, Dr. Victor Osita. The handbook was given to each staff to make input and submit for collation and presentation to the Board of Directors. The proposal was never approved by the Board of Directors and thus, it was not a document of the Defendant. No staff of the Defendant has ever been paid gratuity. Rather, the Defendant pays its contribution into the pension scheme of each staff including the Claimant until January 2016 when the Claimant resigned. The Claimant is not entitled to any of his claims. In his further evidence, the Defendant’s witness also told the court that he sent a copy of the handbook to the Claimant’s e-mail, just like was done for every staff, for the Claimant to scrutinize and make input on it before it can be adopted, approved and signed by the Board of Directors as staff handbook. The handbook relied on by the Claimant was only a proposal and it was never approved by the Board of Directors. As the Branch Manager, he has never used the said handbook to run the company. Upon the close of evidence, counsels for the parties filed their final written addresses which were adopted on 10/7/2018. DEFENDANT’S ADDRESS The Defendant in his final written address filed on the 3rd of April formulated two issues for determination to wit; 1. Whether the Claimant has been able to prove his case as required by the law so as to be entitled to his claims. 2. Whether the Defendant is entitled to the relief sought on her counter claim. On Issue 1, learned counsel for the Defendant placed reliance on the provisions of Section 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act and the case of UBA vs. JARGABA (2007) 5 SCNJ 127 at 142 and submitted that the Claimant could not prove how degrading the transfer was to him when he never reported even once to the place of transfer. Counsel argued that the Claimant did not prove any coercion or threat to resign and submitted that the law is that where a criminal offence is alleged in a civil proceeding, the allegation has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. See the case of MARINE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION INC vs. NATIONAL MARINE AUTHORITY (2012) 12 SCNJ 128 and Section 135 (1) of the Evidence Act. Counsel submitted that Exhibit 6A was not authenticated as the approving officer did not append any signature on the hand book but that it was a mere proposal which the Claimant could not prove by showing any other instance of the handbook except the unauthorized payment of funds which DW1 was queried for. Counsel urged the court to discountenance with that line of argument and find in favour of the Defendant. On Issue 2, learned counsel for the Defendant submitted that the Claimant was aware that when he was resigning without a month notice he was to pay the Defendant the salary in lieu of notice as supported by Exhibit C1 emanating from the Claimant. Counsel submitted that when the Evidence of the Claimant supports that of the defence, then the defence needs no further proof. Counsel urged the court to uphold issue 2 and award the counter claimant/defendant the damages she deserves and dismiss the Claimants claim in its entirety. CLAIMANT’S ADDRESS The Claimant filed his final written address on the 9th day of May 2018 wherein counsel formulated four issues for determination to wit; 1. Whether the habituated transfers of the Claimant from Abuja to Lagos and vice versa for a consecutive three (3) times within a period of five (5) months by the Defendant amounts to unfair, inhumane, and degrading treatment aimed at frustrating the Claimant out of his effective employment with the Defendant. 2. Whether the Claimant was forced/coerced to resign by the Defendant amounting to constructive termination and thereby rendering the Defendant liable to damages to the Claimant. 3. Whether the staff handbook is a legal document of the Defendant regulating the relationship between the parties. 4. Whether the Defendant has proved his counter claim. On Issue 1, learned counsel answered the question posed in the affirmative and submitted that the Defendant failed to state the reason for the transfers to Lagos admitted of the three letters of transfer before the court. Counsel urged the court to hold that the series of transfers meted out to the Claimant by the Defendant forcing the Defendant to embark on a relocation trip with his family is unfair to the Claimant. On Issue 2, learned counsel answered the question posed in the affirmative and submitted that it had been the Defendant’s ambition to terminate the employment of the Claimant. Counsel submitted that in preparation for his transfer, the Claimant sought a loan to facilitate his transfer hence the claim of the Defendant that the Claimant did not accept his transfer. The claim of the Defendant that the Claimant did not accept his transfer and that no such demand was put up for accommodation allowance goes to no issue. Counsel urged the court to so hold. See AFEMAI MICROFINANCE BANK LTD vs. SEACOS (NIG) LTD (2014) LPELR-22583(CA) (P 22, paras B-C); AGBAREH vs. MIMRAH (2008) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1071) 378 at 441; ATTORNEY GENERAL, BENDEL STATE vs. UBA (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt 37) 547. Counsel also submitted a narrative of the origin of the bias that inspired the termination. According to counsel, mere denial by the Defendant is not enough. Hel urged the court to hold that the substantial, frequent and arbitrary transfer of the Claimant from Abuja to Lagos and vice versa, coupled with the coercion of the Claimant into resignation by threat of sack, ultimately amounts to constructive termination of the employment of the Claimant; and the Claimant is entitled to challenge the termination of his employment and demand compensation by way of damages before a court of competent jurisdiction. On Issue 3, learned counsel for the Claimant submitted that the Company’s handbook is the official/legal document of the Defendant company, and relied on the case of BOLANLE vs. ACCESS BANK PLC (2015) LPELR-40994 (CA). Counsel further submitted that the handbook was utilized by the Defendant and that the Defendant made copious references to the Defendant’s staff handbook as the basis of Claimants' cause of action and this was not responded to or denied by the Defendant who received all the letters and which are before this court. Counsel placed reliance on the case of GIRA vs. STATE (1996) LPELR- 1322(SC) (P. 15, paras. C-E). On Issue 4, learned counsel for the Claimant challenged the veracity of the query letter given to DW1 and submitted that the Defendant is estopped from waking up from laying this claim on the court on the premise of a concocted and doctored document which the Claimant claimed did not exist before the commencement of this suit and was an ill-motivated afterthought. Counsel cited a plethora of authorities to support his claims. Counsel further contended that the Defendant had not proved his counter claim which cannot stand without a deposition or documents in support thereto. Counsel urged the court to find in favour of the Claimant. COURT’S DECISION In view of the facts of this case and the arguments canvassed by the counsels for the parties in their final written addresses, the issue which, in my view, is to be determined in this matter is whether the parties have proved their claims as to be entitled to the reliefs they sought in this case. CLAIMANT’S CLAIMS: I will first consider the Claimant’s claims. The 1st relief sought by the Claimant is for a declaration that the series of transfers from Abuja to Lagos and the refusal by the Defendant to pay his transfer benefits amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment. From the facts and evidence adduced in the case, I find that the following facts are not in dispute: The Claimant was an employee of the Defendant. On 27/10/2015, he was transferred to Lagos with effect from 2/11/2015 but he was yet to resume in Lagos when he was recalled back to Abuja office on 2/11/2015. On 2/2/2016, he was transferred again to Lagos with effect from 8/2/2016 but he was yet to proceed to or resume in Lagos when on 5/2/2016 he tendered his resignation from the employment which was accepted by the Defendant. The Defendant contends however that every employee of the Defendant is subject to transfer to any of the Defendant’s offices. Under cross examination by the Defendant’s counsel, the Claimant said he is aware that as a staff of the Defendant, he can be transferred to any branch of the Defendant. From the evidence, it is clear that it was understood in the employment that the Defendant can transfer the Claimant to any of its branches and at any time. The Defendant was therefore exercising its right in the employment when it transferred the Claimant to Lagos and also recalled him to Abuja. The Claimant cannot be heard to complain of the transfers to any of the branches of the Defendant. In the result, in addition to the fact that the Claimant has not proved that the transfers were ill motivated, I do not find the transfers of the Claimant to be inhuman or degrading as claimed by the Claimant. As for non-payment of the Claimant’s transfer benefits, the letters of transfer of the Claimant to Lagos are Exhibits C3 and C5 while the letter of recall to Abuja is Exhibit C4. Exhibits C3 and C5 contain that the Claimant’s “transfer benefits will be paid to you when you report to our Lagos office”. From his evidence, the Claimant said he was on his way to resume in Lagos in the transfer in Exhibit C3 when he was recalled back to Abuja. That is to say the Claimant did not get to or even resume in the Defendant’s Lagos office. In the transfer in Exhibit C5, the Claimant tendered his resignation 3 days after receiving that letter. The Claimant resigned from the employment without resuming in the Lagos office. In both cases of his transfer to Lagos, the Claimant never reported in the Lagos office of the Defendant or resume there. He is therefore not qualified to be paid transfer benefits. The Claimant’s claim that non-payment of his transfer benefits is inhuman or degrading is, in my view, unfounded. Consequently, I find no merit in the 1st relief sought by the Claimant. The Claimant also sought payment of the sum of N672,000 which he said were his accrued gratuity and unpaid transfer benefits. This is in relief (b). I have already addressed the issue of the Claimant’s transfer benefits. For the reasons I have stated earlier in this judgment, the Claimant is not entitled to transfer benefits. In his evidence, the Claimant stated that under the Defendant’s handbook, he is entitled to be paid gratuity for 8 years of continuous service in the Defendant. According to the Claimant, gratuity is calculated at 70% of his annual basic salary, which is N120,000, for every year of the 8 years of service. When so calculated, the total sum he is entitled to be paid as gratuity is the sum of N672,000. The Claimant also said he demanded payments of his gratuity after his resignation, but the Defendant refused to pay him. The position of the Defendant on this claim, as stated in the evidence of DW1, is that the Claimant is not entitled to gratuity. The handbook relied on by the Claimant was a mere proposal which was never approved by the Board of Directors. DW1 added that no staff of the Defendant has ever been paid gratuity. Before I determine the Claimant’s entitlement to gratuity, let me consider the circumstances of his resignation. The Claimant made so much issue about being forced, coerced and frustrated to resign from the employment, which allegation the Defendant denied. Upon careful examination of the facts, I do not think the circumstance of the Claimant’s resignation is an issue worth labouring about. The Claimant’s resignation letter speaks for itself. The letter which is Exhibit C12 reads as follows: LETTER OF RESIGNATION. I humbly wish to tender my resignation letter as an employee of Peace Capital Market Limited. It is not unconnected with the global economic meltdown which mostly affected the business of capital markets world over, our company Peace Capital Market inclusive. I as a person could no longer make both ends meet I therefore thank the management and staff for the opportunity given to me to work in this company As I forge ahead with my life, I thank and pray to God Almighty to see me through in my future endeavours. Yours faithfully, signed UJAM JOHN N. There is nothing in the content of the letter suggesting that the Claimant was forced or intimidated to resign. The content shows clearly that the Claimant voluntarily resigned from the employment for the reason that he could no longer make ends meet in the employment because of the economic meltdown which affected the capital market. The Claimant’s allegation that he was forced to resign cannot stand in the face of this letter written by him. The only issue to be considered in respect of the Claimant’s relief 2 is whether the Claimant is entitled to the sum he claims as gratuity. The Claimant relied on the handbook to found this claim. The handbook is with Exhibit C6A. The parties joined issues on the usage of the said handbook by the Defendant. The Claimant said the staff handbook was provided to all staff of the Defendant and his copy was sent to him by e-mail by Mr. Hyacinth Eze on 2/12/2013. The Claimant also said the handbook is binding on staff and it was used to run the Defendant company. In response, the Defendant averred that the handbook was a mere proposal initiated by the then MD, Dr. Victor Osita. The handbook was given to each staff to make input and submit for collation and presentation to the Board of Directors. The proposal was never approved by the Board of Directors and thus, it was not a document of the Defendant. DW1 said he sent a copy of the handbook to the Claimant’s e-mail, just like was done for every staff, for the Claimant to scrutinize and make input on it before it can be adopted, approved and signed by the Board of Directors as staff handbook. The handbook relied on by the Claimant was only a proposal and it was never approved by the Board of Directors. DW1 further said that as the branch manager, he has never used the said handbook to run the company. DW1 agreed he sent the handbook to the Claimant by e-mail and did not dispute the fact that the handbook he sent to the Claimant by email is Exhibit C6A. The e-mail DW1 sent to the Claimant is Exhibit C6A together with the handbook. DW1, in the email he sent to the Claimant, referred to the handbook as “new handbook”. There is nothing in the email indicating that the handbook sent to the Claimant was a proposed handbook or was sent to the Claimant for his input. The understanding conveyed in the email was that the document sent to the Claimant was the new handbook. The Defendant also contended that the handbook was never approved by the board of directors of the Defendant. The handbook however disclosed otherwise. Page 33 of the handbook contains these words: “This handbook was approved by the company’s Board of Directors in year 2009.” The Defendant cannot now adduce oral evidence to deny or vary these very clear words of the handbook. It is apparent from the above content of the handbook that the handbook had been approved by the Board of the Defendant. Therefore, the Claimant has proved that the handbook was the Defendant’s condition of service and it was applicable to his employment. The provision for gratuity in the handbook is contained in article 10.3 thereof. It provides that employees leaving the employment other than summary dismissal will be entitled to gratuity. It also provides that if an employee spends 5 years and above in the employment and then resigns voluntarily, he shall be entitled to gratuity computed for every completed year of service as follows: 5 years but less than 6 years – 30% 6 years but less than 7 years – 50% 7 years but less than 8 years – 60% 8 years but less than 9 years – 70% 9 years but less than 10 years – 80% 10 years and above – 100% In his evidence, the Claimant said he served in the Defendant for 8 years of continuous service and was accordingly entitled to gratuity computed at 70% of his annual basic salary. The Claimant was employed effective 1st September 2008 and he resigned on 5th February 2016. The Claimant served the Defendant for 7 years, 4 months and 1 week. The Claimant had 7 years of completed service. This is less than 8 years of service. The Claimant is entitled to gratuity computed at 60% of his annual basic salary and not at 70% as claimed by him. The Claimant’s annual basic salary is the sum of N120,000. See the attachment to Exhibit C1. 60% of this sum is N72,000. This sum multiplied by 7 years gives the sum of N504,000. The sum the claimant is entitled to be paid as gratuity for his 7 years completed service in the Defendant is the sum of N504,000.00. With respect to the claimant’s reliefs (c), (d) and (e), the Claimant has not adduced evidence to support them. These reliefs have not been proved. The Claimant is accordingly not entitled to the grant of these reliefs. THE COUNTER CLAIM: The Defendant counter claims for the sum of N2 Million. In his evidence DW1 said the sum arose from the Claimant’s resignation with immediate effect without paying the required one month’s salary. DW1 also stated in his evidence that the Claimant resigned from the employment without giving the Defendant one month notice or payment of salary in lieu as provided in the Claimant’s appointment letter. From these pieces of evidence by DW1, it is clear to me that the sum the Defendant sought in its counter claim is meant as damages. The Claimant denies the Defendant’s counter claim and the allegation that he did not give the agreed notice or salary in lieu. The Claimant’s response is that he was forced to resign. From my earlier finding, the Claimant’s position that he was forced to resign holds no water. The clear fact is that it was his resignation letter that determined the employment. Exhibit C1 is the Claimant’s employment letter. It provides that after confirmation of the employment, either party thereto can terminate it by giving the other one month notice or one month salary in lieu of notice. The Claimant was a confirmed staff of the Defendant as at the time he terminated the employment by his resignation. See Exhibit C2. By the terms of his employment, the Claimant ought to give the Defendant one month’s notice or pay one month’s salary in lieu of notice to the Defendant. The Claimant’s resignation letter is dated 5/2/2016. The Defendant’s acceptance of the resignation is Exhibit C8. This letter shows that the resignation took effect from 8/2/2016. From these correspondences, the Claimant’s resignation was with immediate effect. The Claimant didn’t give one month’s notice to the Defendant. The evidence also shows that the Claimant did not pay one month’s salary in lieu to the Defendant. By his failure to perform any of the alternative conditions for valid determination of the employment, the Claimant wrongfully determined the employment. He is therefore liable to pay damages. In this case, the Defendant is asking for the sum of N2m. It is trite that in wrongful termination of employment, damages payable is the sum for the length of notice to lawfully terminate the employment. In this instance, it is the salary for one month in lieu of one month’s notice. The Claimant’s one month salary is N50,000. See Exhibit C1. This is the amount to be paid to the Defendant for the claimant’s wrongful determination of the employment. In the result of this judgment, I find that the parties have succeeded partly in their claims. The Claimant’s reliefs (a), (c), (d) and (e) fail and are hereby dismissed. With respect to relief (b), I find that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of N504,000.00 being his gratuity for his 7 years of completed service in the Defendant. The sum sought by the Defendant in his counter claim cannot be granted. I find that the Defendant is entitled to the sum of N50,000.00 only from the Claimant, being the sum the Claimant ought to pay as one-month salary in lieu of notice of resignation. Although these sums I find for the parties are not what they claimed against each other in this suit, I am empowered in Section 14 of the NIC Act 2006 to grant any relief or remedy to any party in a proceeding before this court which the party appears to be entitled to in respect of any legal or equitable claim brought before the Court so that all matters in dispute between the parties may be completely and finally determined. In accordance with this provision, the Defendant is ordered to pay the sum of N504,000.00 to the Claimant while the Claimant is to pay the sum of N50,000.00 to the Defendant. The Defendant is to deduct this sum from the sum the Claimant is entitled to be paid by virtue of this judgment and pay the balance, which is N454,000.00 (Four Hundred and Fifty-Four Thousand Naira) to the Claimant within 30 days from today, failing which the sum will begin to accrue interest at 10% per annum until it is fully paid up. Parties shall bear their respective costs. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge