Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Facts The facts of this case as recited by Mr. Victor Ajuziogu, the Claimant are that he was employed by the Defendant by virtue of a letter of employment dated 15/11/2013 as a Sales Representative on a salary of =N=40,000.00 per month; that as at the time he was suspended his monthly salary was =N=83,286,93; that he was placed on suspension indefinitely by the Defendant by a letter dated 6/3/15 and effective 7/3/15 “pending a thorough investigation into the result of the stock take carried out …. “; that he was not involved in the stock take nor was he notified of the result of the stock take; that he was charged to court at the instance of the Defendant and the charge was eventually struck out by the court for want of diligent prosecution; that after his discharge by the Court he approached the Defendant to know the status of his employment and possibly resume work but the Defendant instructed him to wait; that he has continued to wait since then and that the Defendant did not pay his salaries during the period of suspension. 2. Claims On the basis of the above facts, the Claimant approached this Court on 15/6/16 by his General Form of Complaint and Statement of Facts and sought the following reliefs - 1. A declaration that the suspension of the Claimant is unlawful. 2. A declaration that the Claimant’s appointment is subsisting. 3. An order that the Defendant pay the sum of =N=83,286.93 (Eighty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty Six Naira Ninety Three Kobo). 4. General damages in the sum of =N=1,000,000. 00 (One Million Naira) only. 4. Costs of the suit. The originating processes of the Claimant were accompanied by witness deposition on oath, list of witness as well as list and copies of documents to be relied on at trial. Despite evidence of proof of service of all these documents on the Defendant, the Defendant neither entered an appearance nor file a defence to this suit against it. 3. Case of the Claimant The Claimant opened his case on 1/3/17; testified as CW1; adopted his witness deposition made on 15/6/16 as his evidence in chief and tendered 6 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. VA1-Exh. VA6 respectively. Claimant prayed the Court to grant all his prayers. Notwithstanding the fact that requisite notices were served on the Defendant, the Defendant elected not to and did not attend Court to cross examine the Claimant. The Defendant also did not attend Court to open its defence against this suit. Hence, the case of the Defendant was closed in accordance with the Rules of Court and parties directed to file their final written addresses. 4. Final Submissions of Counsel Learned Counsel to the Claimant filed his final written address on 26/10/17. In it, Counsel set down the following lone issue for the just determination of this case - Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. In arguing this lone issue, learned Counsel submitted that suspension is an aspect of discipline citing Yaroe v. Nigerian Stock Exchange (2014)46 NLLR (Pt. 147) 45 and that the word suspension conveys a temporary or transient disciplinary procedure which keeps away the victim or person disciplined from his regular occupation or calling either for a fixed or terminal period or indefinitely citing University of Calabar v. Esiaga (1997)4 NWLR (Pt. 502) 719 at 723. Learned Counsel submitted further that the Claimant remained an employee of the Defendant even during the pendency of the suspension up till the moment; that the Claimant was yet to be recalled from the suspension even after he was discharged from the criminal action instituted against him. Counsel prayed the Court to hold that the Claimant is still an employee of the Defendant and grant all the reliefs sought against the Defendant. Again, the Defendant did not file any final written address even though served all requisite notices to that effect. 5. Decision I have read all the processes filed by the Claimant in this case including the pleadings and the final written address. I listened to the oral testimony of the Claimant at trial and also watched his demeanor. In addition, I evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted in the course of trial. I also listened attentively to the oral argument of the learned Counsel to the Claimant. Having done all this, I adopt the lone issue set down for determination by the Claimant as follows - Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought, for the just determination of this case. I have earlier noted that the Defendant did not appear to defend this suit. Thus for all intents and purposes, this case is an undefended one. Indeed, the Defendant did not appear at all though out trial either in person or by Counsel. Notwithstanding the fact that this is an undefended suit, it does not translate to an automatic Judgment for the Claimant. It is a trite law that the burden of proof remains on he who asserts in order to be entitled to positive disposition by the Court. This age-long principle has both statutory and case-law support. See Section 131, Evidence Act, 2014. See also Okonkwo v. Okolo (2016) LPELR (CA). In any event, it is also trite that a party suing cannot and is not allowed to rely on the weakness of the case of his adversary. Rather he must rely only on the strength of his case. See Alhaji Bamidele Lawal v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc & Ors. (1995) LPELR-1762(SC) & Opoto & Ors. ANAUN & Ors. (2015) LPELR-24734 (CA). Thus, notwithstanding the absence of defence, the Claimant must adduce cogent, credible and admissible evidence in proof of his case to be entitled to a grant of the remedies sought. Now, in proof of his case, apart from his evidence in chief, the Claimant tendered 6 exhibits in all. They are as follows - 1. Letter of Appointment; 2. Letter of suspension; 3. Copy of Charge Sheet ; 4. Letter of Appeal to the Office of the Public Defender; 5. Letter of Invitation dated 20/11/15 from the Office of the Public Defender; 6. Statement of Account, Diamond Bank. My simple understanding of this case is that the Claimant was placed on suspension since 7/3/15; that he has not been paid any salary since then; that he was discharged from the criminal action instituted against him at the instance of the Defendant and that notwithstanding the discharge he has still not been recalled to his duty post by the Defendant. The very nature of employment relationship and inherent in the power of an employer to hire and fire especially under the Common Law is the power of an employer to discipline his employee. This is necessarily imperative if the employer's business is to continue to be profitable. One of the modes of discipline available to an employer is to place an employee on suspension which is a temporary cessation or deprivation of rights and privileges of the employee concerned. Suspension does not translate to termination of the employment relationship. See Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited & Anor. v. Udo (2008) LPELR-8440 (CA) & Longe v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc (2010)2-3 SC (Pt. 111) 61. Suspension can however not be indefinite or forever. It must be borne in mind however that a suspended employee remains an employee for all intents and purposes during the period of suspension. Thus after the suspension is lifted all accrued entitlements and remunerations must be paid. See Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited & Anor. v. Udo (supra). The Claimant in this case was suspended effective from 7/3/15. He remains on suspension till date. That is a period of about 40 months. It is also on record that the Claimant was not paid any salary effective from the commencement of the suspension. Thus since 7/3/15, the Claimant has been denied opportunity to care and cater for his family and pay his bills. Claimant though approached the Court for his recall he was not so recalled to work by the Defendant. There is no doubt the fact that the suspension of the Claimant without pay is unlawful in the circumstances and I have no hesitation in so holding. Claimant was suspended via Exh. VA2 dated 6/3/15. I have on page 16 of the record of this Court the certified true copy of the record of proceedings in Charge No: SLG/15/2015 COP v. Olumide Anawoye & 3 Ors. In it the Claimant was listed as the 2nd Defendant in the criminal charge. That charge was struck out on 23/9/15 for want of prosecution. Though not tendered, the law allows the Court to have recourse to any document in its record for the purpose of reaching the justice of a matter before it. See Alabi v. Adeleye & Ors. LPELR-25590 (CA). Having been exonerated by the Court the Claimant was entitled to be recalled back to his duty post as a staff of the Defendant. I have found and held that the employment of the Claimant was yet to be determined not even by the suspension of 7/3/15. I therefore declare that the appointment of the Claimant is still subsisting till date. Before I exit this issue, it is important that I resolve an equally important issue which is the effect of the suspension of the Claimant for more than three years without pay. There is no doubt the fact this is too long a period of time. The period is long enough for the Defendant to have completed its ''... investigation into the result of stock take ...''. In Akinyemi Adegoke Oyewole v. Globe Motors Holdding Nigeria Limited Suit No: NICN/LA/627/2012 Judgment of this Court delivered on 26/3/14, my learned brother Oyewumi J relying on Olafimihan & Ilobodia v. Nigerian Cement Co (1997)53 LRCn 207 and the book Nigerian Employment and Labour Relations Law and Practice (Concept Publications ltd; lagos) 2011 at pages 163-166 held that an indefinite suspension, as in the instant case, may evince an intention of the employer to repudiate the existing contract. Having considered the facts of this case, the evidence led, the length of period the Claimant has been on suspension without pay and the whole surrounding circumstances, I hold that the suspension of the Claimant amounts to a repudiation of the contract of employment between the parties effective from today 16/10/18. As a consequential order, I order the Defendant to pay to the Claimant all his salaries and emoluments from February 2015 till today. Exh. VA6 is the statement of account of the Claimant with Diamond Bank Plc. Claimant's salary was paid into that account by the Defendant while he worked for the Defendant. Claimant's January salary as paid into that account on 3/2/15 was the sum of =N=83,296.93. The Defendant is here ordered to pay to the Claimant his outstanding salary from February 2015 to October 2018 at the rate of =N=83,296.93 per month amounting to =N=3,581,767.99 immediately. This Court having ordered payment to the Claimant his outstanding salary from the time of his suspension till date will not make award of general damages. To do so will amount to double award in favor of the Claimant. Therefore the claim for general damages is refused and dismissed. The Defendant is to pay cost of this action assessed at =N=100,000.00 only to the Claimant. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, 1. I declare that the suspension of the Claimant by the Defendant without pay is unlawful. 2. I hold that the suspension of the Claimant amounts to a repudiation of the contract of employment between the parties effective from today 16/10/18. 3. The Defendant is here ordered to pay to the Claimant his outstanding salary from February 2015 to October 2018 at the rate of =N=83,296.93 per month amounting to =N=3,581,767.99. 4. Claim for general damages is refused and dismissed. 5. The Defendant is ordered to pay cost of this action assessed at =N=100,000.00 only to the Claimant. All the terms of this Judgment are to be complied with within 30 days from the date of same. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge