Download PDF
JUDGMENT Introduction and claims The claimants filed this complaint against the defendant on 29th December 2012. By a further amended statement of facts filed on 28th March 2017, they are seeking the following reliefs jointly and severally against the defendant: i. A declaration that the relationship between the claimants and the defendant is subject to the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Nigeria Employers Association of Banks, Insurance and Allied Institutions (NEABIAI) and The Association of Senior Staff of Banks, Insurance and Financial Institutions (ASSBIFI). ii. A declaration that the terms of the said Agreement were not complied with in the process of disengaging the claimants; hence the disengagement is null and void. iii. A declaration that the forceful/involuntary resignation of the claimants as imposed or compelled by the defendant is unlawful and illegal. iv. A declaration that the 5th defendant having refused be intimidated to resign his appointment with the defendant till date and has not been terminated by the defendant is deemed to be in the employment of the defendant and is thus entitled to all his benefits, promotions, etc, due and accruing from March 2009 until the date of judgment of this Court. IN THE ALTERNATIVE: v. A declaration that the claimants are entitled under the Collective Bargaining Agreement and calculated in accordance with the terms and provisions of the approved compensation package of Unity Bank Plc which came into effect on 1st October 2008, to their full benefits as at the date of termination as follows: S/N NAME POSITION ITEMS TOTAL 1 Nwankwo Franklin A/M Salary Housing Transport L/S 1,034,735- 2,149.068- 879,525- 413,971- N4,477,299- 2 Oghre Matthew D/Mgr. Salary Housing Transport L/S 1,220.934- 2,535,786- 1,119,190- 508,634- N5,384,544- 3 Bamgbose S. Joseph ABO Salary Housing Transport L/S 618,072- 1,499,265- 339,057- 211,449- N2,668,343- 4 Jumoke Fehintola Ogun B/O Salary Housing Transport L/S 832,936- 2,011,540- 474,772- 312,515- N3,631,765- 5 Alegieunu Martins B/O Salary Housing Transport L/S 832,936- 2,011,540- 474,774- 312,515- N3,631,765- 6 Mohammed Abdullahi, S. B/O Salary Housing Transport L/S 832,936- 2,011,540- 474,772- 312,515- N3,631,765 7 Olapade Olawale E/A Salary Housing Transport L/S 536,195- 1,304,190- 287,071- 181,617- N2,309,073- 8 Onyeakazi Chidi E/A Salary Housing Transport L/S 536,195- 1,304,190- 287,071- 181,617- N2,309,073- 9 Hassan Bola SBO Salary Housing Transport L/S 940,505- 2,263,482- 551,763- 376,178- N4,131,928- iv. An order of Court compelling the defendant to settle all the entitlements of the claimants forthwith. Including the salaries and allowances up to and including the date of forced resignation. v. General damages of ten Million Naira (N10,000,000.00) in favour of each of the claimants for the pains and suffering and untold hardship the defendant’s action has inflicted on them and the cost of this action. Accompanying the further amended statement of claim are the witness statements on oath and documents to be relied upon. The defendant filed an amended statement of defence, a counter claim, witness statement on oath and copies of documents on 2nd May 2017. The defendant counter claimed as follows: a. The sum of N5,531,803.00 (Five Million, Five Hundred and Thirty one Thousand, Eight Hundred and Three Naira) being the outstanding debt owed by all the claimants to the defendant. b. Interest on the said sum at the rate of 22% with effect from 1st May, 2009 till the date of Judgment and thereafter at the rate of 6% until final liquidation of indebtedness. c. The sum of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) being cost of this action. The claimants filed a reply to the amended statement of defence and a defence to the counter claim on 8th May 2017. The matter then went to trial. Case of the claimants The case of the claimants on the pleadings is that they were employees of the defendant until 12th March 2009 when they were forced to resign their employment by the defendant. The claimants stated that they were employed at different times by the various banks called “the legacy Banks” which combined to form Unity Bank Plc. They stated that the defendant inherited the assets and the liabilities of the legacy banks including the staff pensions and gratuities of the absorbed staff from the legacy banks. The claimants stated that they were marketers with the defendant and their targets were as follows: COLUMN A COLUMN B COLUMN C S/N NAME ASSET DEPOSIT 1 NWANKWO FRANKLIN (Assistant Manager) 648,105,100 3,477,988,125 2 OGHRE MATTHEW (Deputy Manager 5,891,788,055 2,590,669,777 3 BAMGBOSE S. JOSEPH (Assistant Banking Officer) 3,482,855,650 1,628,207,880 4 OGU FEHINTOLA (Banking Officer) 921,071,412 381,811,834 5 ALEGIEUNU MARTINS (Banking Officer) 3,288,000,000 2,280,000,000 6 MOHAMMED ABDULLAHI (Banking Officer) 2,332,158,654 1,154,624,702 7 OLAPADE OLAWALE H. (Executive Assistant) 230,383,900 1,396,045,000 8 ONYEAKAZI CHIDI (Executive Assistant) 5,440,000,000 4,400,000,000 9 HASSAN BOLA (Senior Banking Officer) 1,965,470,749 1,123,177,264 24,207,833,520 18,472,524,582 The claimants averred that by the above table, they were required to bring customers to borrow the amount stated in column B from the Bank in their respective Branches and were also required within 12 calendar months to raise the amount listed against their names in column C as deposits from customers/depositors. The claimants stated that a memo titled “Review sanctions for non-performance” dated 7/10/2008 containing the process through which staff not meeting their targets will be dealt with was circulated by the defendant and copies were also posted on staff notice boards. The claimants stated further that pursuant to the directive of the Bank that accounts brought in by various marketers should be tagged, the management commenced the process of tagging, and while the process of account tagging was on going, they each received a notice requesting them to report at the defendant's head office at Abuja on 12/3/2009 for a meeting and they all travelled to Abuja to attend the meeting. The claimants stated that at the meeting they were told by Mr. I.T. Mohammed, the defendant’s Human Resources Manager to resign their appointments there and then and they will be paid all their entitlement with bonuses. He also threatened that if they do not resign, they would be dismissed in which case they would not be entitled to any benefit. They stated that one Mrs. S.D. Folaranmi distributed plain sheets of paper to them to write their resignation letters. The 3rd claimant stated that he refused to write a resignation letter but when he was not allowed to resume at work, he wrote the resignation letter and submitted it to the defendant in the hope that he would get his entitlements paid. The 5th claimant stated that he refused to be forced to resign his appointment at the meeting and has not yet resigned his appointment with the defendant, though the defendant has refused to allow him to resume at his duty post. He stated that he has been treated as if he resigned. The claimants averred that the allegation of not meeting their targets was false because they were in different teams and were instrumental to the success of their different teams in meeting the set targets. The claimants stated that they did not fall short of their target as at the time of their forced resignation and that the allegation of non-performance is without merit and is actuated by malice. They stated that the 1st claimant brought in the sum of N325,872,915.24 from the Lagos State Government and the 3rd claimant facilitated the deposit of N200 Million from Cadbury Nigeria Plc. The claimants stated that on the basis of the assurance from Mr. I.T. Mohammed, Head of Human Capital Management of the defendant, some of them handed in their resignation letters. That after submitting their involuntary resignation letters, the defendant caused letters to be written to each of them to which was attached a statement of outstanding liability signed and dated 04/03/2009 which predates the forced resignation that took place on 12/3/09. The 1st claimant was given two letters on different dates to which two (2) different statements of outstanding liability were attached. The claimants averred that their forced resignation was pre-arranged before the date of the Abuja meeting as the documents attached to the letters accepting resignation titled “outstanding liability as at 4th March 2009 was computed and signed on the 4th March 2009 eight days before the date of the meeting where they were forced to resign and as such they are entitled to be compensated for the wrongful act of the defendant. They stated that their forced resignation is not in tandem with defendant’s policy in its circular dated 7/10/2008 titled “Review of sanctions for non-performance”. The claimants aver that the statement of outstanding liability as at 4th March, 2009 was given to them which stated their liability to the defendant as at 4/3/2009, was issued and signed on the same date whereas the forced resignation was on 12th March 2009. The claimants stated that the calculations were wrong because it includes housing allowance which the defendant had waived; two different versions of the said documents were issued at different times to the 1st claimant by the defendant containing different figures; the documents were at variance with the collective bargaining agreement and is full of deliberate mis-statement of facts and errors. The claimants stated that they were not paid any salary for the month of March 2009 and that they never applied for car loans. They stated that housing allowance was given to them in January 2008 to cover a period of two years (January 2008 to December 2009) and that a waiver was made after the defendant got their counsel’s letter revealing the illegality of their constructive dismissal. That the defendant by its letter dated 18/6/2010 unequivocally stated that it is no longer claiming the outstanding housing allowances disbursed in 2008. The claimants stated that they were not paid furniture allowance, or medical allowance and did not collect an advanced sum as dressing allowance. They stated that they and their families were subjected to hardship caused by the forced resignation. The claimants stated that they were never accused of any misconduct as at the time of the forced resignation but the defendant in its letter dated June 18th 2010 alleged that their performance within the period between October to December 2008 fell short of the required standard and they were never informed of this as at the time they were forced to resign at Abuja in 2009. The claimants stated that this is an afterthought by the defendant more than one year after they were forced to resign and after one Samuel Adebayo was restored to his former position. The claimants averred that the defendant did not comply with its own procedure stipulated for dealing with non-performance as contained in its guidelines dated 7th October 2008 from the Human Capital Management Department titled “Review of Sanctions for non-performance”. They initiated a dialogue with the defendant through their representatives led by Nwankwo Franklin, consequent upon which meetings were held and promises made by the defendant to revisit the issue but no action was taken, even after the documents demanded for were sent to the Head of Human Capital Management by the 1st claimant on behalf of all of them. The claimants stated that they got no response from the defendant and wrote a letter dated 19/8/2009 to the defendant and another dated 23/11/2009 and were both ignored. The attitude of the defendant to their predicament compelled them to retain the services of a law firm that wrote a letter dated 12/5/2010 to the defendant and the defendant responded by acknowledging same by its a letter dated 2/6/2010. Upon exchange of letters the defendant denied that they are are entitled to any emoluments threatened sanctions against them if they fail to repay up their loans within 30 days. The claimants stated that they were disengaged in a manner that does not accord with the terms of the collective agreement between the Association of Senior Staff of Banks and Financial Institutions ASSBIFI and the Employers in the Banking and Finance Industries as ASSBIFI was not informed and the terminal benefits was not in accordance with the collective agreement. The claimants stated that they are not indebted to the defendant as they did not apply or obtain any loan from the defendant while in its service or in year 2006. That having not applied for or obtained any loan, the defendant is not entitled to any interest as claimed in the counter claim. The 1st claimant Franklin Nwankwo (CW1), and the 5th claimant Martins Alegieunu (CW2) testified on behalf of all the claimants. They both adopted their statements on oath which was in the exact terms of the pleadings; and they relied on their admitted documents. Under cross examination, CW1 told the court that himself and all the other claimants have separate letters of appointment but that the terms and conditions are the same. He explained that it is only the remuneration that differs. CW1 informed the court that there was an official meeting with I.T. Mohammed who gave verbal promises in respect of benefits upon resignation; but he did not have the minutes of the meeting. CW1 told the court that he was given two letters stating his indebtedness and he wrote the defendant back but he never received a reply. CW1 denied being indebted to the defendant. He informed the court that 16 of them were forced to resign the same day. He confirmed that he knew the implication of a resignation and admitted that he did not know the qualifications of the other claimants. CW1 said he worked for the defendant for three years and stated that if he resigned of his own accord, he would have a duty to pay off his indebtedness. CW2 told the court that the defendant is a party to the collective agreement and that it is binding on all the Banks. He told the court that he did not resign his appointment and that he is unemployed. CW2 said he was one of the signatories to exhibit C8 and that if the defendant has disengaged him then it should pay him his severance benefits. He said he was aware that the defendant is entitled to deduct any indebtedness before paying severance. He said all the claimants were given exhibit C14 which is the reviewed package and that apart from him, the other claimants tendered their resignation letters. CW2 explained that their resignation was under duress as they were locked up in the Board room and forced to resign or they would not be paid their entitlements. CW2 said he refused to write a letter of resignation and denied being a party to the loan agreement between the other claimants and the defendant. On being shown exhibit C18, C19, C20 and C21 he confirmed that they were the letters stating the indebtedness of other claimants The claimants then closed their case. Case of the defendant The defendant’s case on the pleadings is that the claimants were its former employees discharged from their duties following the letter of resignation received from each one of them. The defendant stated that the claimants were employed to perform the duties which include but not limited to coordinating all marketing and networking activities, ensuring marketing activities are in compliance with state and federal regulations, developing various marketing concepts, advertisements, press releases, and other and certain business development activities that promote the spirit, philosophy, dedication, and general direction of the Bank. The defendant averred that its ability to give loans is only hinged on the receipt of the application for loan, the availability of funds to provide facility to staff and its approval by the Loan Approving Officers and the Board of Directors. The defendant stated that there was never a meeting with the claimants where Mr. I.T Mohammed came in to address them or threaten that if they did not resign they would be dismissed and not be entitle to any benefit; and neither did a Mrs S.D Folaranmi distribute plain sheets of paper to the claimants to write their resignation letters. The defendant stated that the claimants including the 5th defendant resigned their positions from its employment and by a letter dated 31st March 2009 it accepted the resignation of the 5th claimant and notified him of his outstanding liabilities; and that the 5th claimant having resigned his position is no longer entitled to salary or entitlements as its staff. The defendant averred that the claimants were not handpicked or forced to resign their employment. The defendant stated that the sum of N325,872,915.24 from the Lagos State Government was not brought by the 1st claimant, rather it was money collected on behalf of the Lagos State Government made into designated collection account provided by the defendant. The 3rd claimant never facilitated the deposit of the sum of N200 Million from Cadbury Nigeria Plc. The defendant stated that any sum brought in by the claimants were in furtherance of their duties and the terms of their employment and their exit was not forced but in accordance with its extant policy. The defendant averred that the claimants were not induced, forced or coerced to write and tender their letters of resignation and it did not enter into any agreement with the claimants. The defendant stated that the claimants were not unlawfully disengaged by the defendant but the claimants’ voluntary resigned their employment. The defendant stated that the correct amount of each claimant’s indebtedness has been clearly stated in the various letters written to all them individually dated 31st March, 2009. The defendant averred that car loans of various sum were given to the claimants but they are yet to liquidate the said sum; and it also insured the cars on behalf of the claimants. Housing allowance was given to each of the claimants for a period of 24 months and it waived the sum out of magnanimity and not because of any errors. The defendant stated that Furniture allowance of various sums was advanced to each of the claimants between 2008 -2009 and they are yet to repay the sums that became due since their resignation. Dressing allowance for a period of one year was given to the claimants between 2008-2009. The defendant stated that annual medical allowance advanced to the claimants became due and payable in June 2009, and the claimants did not refund the medical allowances advanced to them as at the time they voluntary resigned. The defendant stated that it is not responsible for any hardship and/or untold suffering caused to the claimants as the claimants resigned their employment from the defendant. The defendant averred that the performance of the claimants fell short of the required standard at the time of their exit and at no time were they forced to resign from the employment of the defendant. The defendant stated that it carried out an extensive investigation and the concluding report are that the exit of the claimants was not forced but in accordance with the extant policy of the bank. It stated that their performance fell short of the required standard and the sanction applied was in line with the policy in force at that time. The defendant further stated that in applying the sanction, it was magnanimous to waive the housing allowance advanced to each of the claimants, and stated that the payments of benefits are subject to the deduction of liabilities which include loans advanced to the claimants. The defendant stated that all staff that exited the Bank in July 2009 did so as a fall out of restructuring exercises which was not the same yardstick used when the bank received the resignation letter of the claimants. The defendant stated that the claimants exit from the defendant was in accordance with its handbook. The defendant/ counter claimant averred that it granted the 1st claimant a car loan facility and as at 4th March, 2009, his indebtedness stood at N1,495,478.54 (One Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy Eight Naira, Fifty Four Kobo). The defendant averred that it granted the 2nd claimant a term loan facility and as at 4th March, 2009, his indebtedness stood at N109,536.86 (One Hundred and Nine Thousand, Five Hundred and Thirty Six Naira and Eighty Six Kobo). The defendant averred that it granted the 5th claimant a car loan facility and as at 4th March, 2009, his indebtedness stood at N771,504.45 (Seven Hundred and Seventy One Thousand, Five Hundred and Four Hundred Four Naira, Forty Five Kobo). The defendant averred that it granted the 7th claimant a staff vehicle loan facility and as at 4th March, 2009, his indebtedness stood at N626,818.01 (Six Hundred and Twenty Six Thousand, Eight Hundred and Eighteen Naira and One Kobo). The defendant averred that it granted the 8th claimant a staff term loan, staff share loan and staff vehicle loan facility and as at 4th March, 2009, his indebtedness stood at N1,094,972.82 (One Million, Ninety Four Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy Two Naira, Eighty Two Kobo). The defendant averred that it granted the 9th claimant a loan facility and as at 4th March, 2009, his indebtedness stood at N1,433,495.29 (One Million, Four Hundred and Thirty Three Thousand, Four Hundred and Ninety Five Naira, Twenty Nine Kobo). The defendant/counter claimant stated that the claimants/defendants to counter claim have been enjoying loan facilities since 2006 some of which remains unpaid till date. That the interest rate of the loan facility is accessed at the prevailing commercial bank rate which is 22% from 30 days from the effective date ( i.e 31st March, 2013) in which the response to the claimants letters of resignation was forwarded. The defendant/counter claimant stated that the claimants have failed, refused/neglected to liquidate their indebtedness to the defendant/counter-claimant till date despite repeated demands made by the defendant/counter-claimant. The defendant called one witness Alabi Muideen (DW) Team Head Equipment & Records. He adopted his statement on oath which was in terms of the pleadings and he relied on the admitted documents in evidence. DW told the court he joined the defendant on June 27, 2014. He agreed that the claimant’s grievances occurred in 2009 and that he was not in the defendants employment then. He told the court that he had the records of the defendants but he was unaware that the 5th claimant did not write a resignation letter. DW informed the court that a staff must apply for a loan in writing; the approval is also given in writing and the disbursements recorded. Upon being shown his deposition, DW told the court he signed it on the date he indicated. The defendant then closed its case. Final address The defendant’s final address is dated 9th April 2018 and is filed on 10th April 2018. The claimant’s final address is dated 2nd May 2018 and is filed on the 7th May 2018. The defendant’s reply on point of law is dated 14th May 2018. Learned counsel to the defendant submitted the following issues for determination 1. Whether from the facts and documents before the Court the claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought in the form of complaint and statement of facts. 2. Whether from the facts and documents before the Court the defendant is entitled to the reliefs sought in its and statement of defence/counter-claim. Learned counsel to the claimant submitted the following issues for determination: 1. Whether the claimants have proved their case before the Honourable Court? 2. Whether the defendant has controverted in any manner, the case put forward by the claimant? Decision I have carefully considered all the processes filed, the evidence led, the written submissions, arguments and authorities canvassed by counsel in the final addresses in this matter. The issues for determination in this judgement are: (i) whether on the pleadings and evidence the claimants are entitled to the reliefs they are seeking; (ii) whether the defendant has proved the counterclaim. The claimants as required have put in evidence their individual letters of employment, letters of confirmation of appointment, notice of meeting at the defendant’s head office Abuja, individual letters from the defendant acknowledging each resignation together with a statement of outstanding liability as at 4th March 2009, the collective agreement between NEABIAI and ASSBIFI and other service documents. I will begin with the preliminary issues raised by the claimants counsel that the witness deposition of DW sworn to on the 2nd May 2017 which he adopted as his evidence in chief was not signed before the Commissioner for Oaths and as such the provisions of Section 5 (1) of the Oaths Act Cap 01 LFN 2004 has not been complied with. Under cross-examination, DW stated that he signed the deposition on the date he put there, 28/4/2017. There is no evidence before me that DW did not present himself before the Commissioner for Oaths to be sworn. The name and signature of the Commissioner for Oaths is on the deposition and it is stated that the deposition was sworn to before him on the 2nd May 2017. There is therefore a presumption of regularity in the witness deposition by virtue of Section 168 of the Evidence Act 2011. See Auta v Olaniyi [2004] 4 NWLR (Pt 863) 394. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal in Lambert v Chief Okujagu & Ors Appeal No CA/PH/659/2013, judgement delivered on 29 April 2014 held that a sworn deposition or statement under civil procedure rules does not have to accord with the form of an affidavit as the purport of the deposition is not to clone an affidavit. I hold that the deposition of DW is admissible. The case of Buhari V INEC [2008] 12 SC (Pt 1) 1 at 103 – 105 cited by the claimant’s counsel is inapposite as it dealt with the provisions of Section 83 of the repealed Evidence Act (now Section 112 of the Evidence Act 2011) in which the court is enjoined not to admit an affidavit which is proved to have been sworn before a person on whose behalf the same is offered, or before his legal practitioner. This is clearly not the case here. The claimants have complained that they were disengaged in a manner that does not accord with the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement (exhibit C13). The duration of this agreement is 1st April 2005 to 31st March 2007. It was not in operation at the material time of 12th March 2009 when the cause of action arose. I hold that the the collective agreement is not applicable having lapsed by effluxion of time on the 31st March 2007. The claimants have asserted that they were coerced in to writing letters resigning their employment at the meeting in Abuja and threatened with dismissal if they did not. The 5th claimant testified that he did not resign his employment and the defendant did not allow him resume his duties. It is the law that once a party asserts, he must prove the assertion. See section 131 (1) & (2) of the Evidence Act 2011, Elegushi v Oseni [2005] 14 NWLR (Pt 945) 348. In evidence as exhibit C14 is the notice of the meeting at the defendant’s head office in Abuja fixed for the 12th March 2009 at 9am. The names of all the claimants are listed and they are “required to attend a crucial meeting with the Head of Human Capital Management Department in the Head Office”. The notice is signed by S.D.Folaranmi (Human Capital Mgt Dept) and I.T. Mohammed (Group Head, HCMD). I believe the evidence of CW1 and CW2 that they all attended the crucial meeting in Abuja as directed. A copy of the letter of resignation of CW1 is before the court. It is dated 12th March 2009 and is addressed to the Head Capital Management Abuja. His resignation is ‘effective 12th March 2009’. The letter from the defendant acknowledging the resignation of CW1 is dated 31st March 2009. His statement of outstanding liability as at 4th March 2009 is N3,127,177.41 and it is signed on the 4th March 2009. The statement of liability has a column D with a heading: “Less other allowances due yet payable to staff”. It includes ‘in lieu of 3 months notice - N198,987.50’ and ‘prorated 4 days of March 2009 N12,182.67’. Now, the evidence reveals that the defendant wrote similar letters of acknowledgement of resignation dated 31st March 2009 to the other claimants. It refers to their resignation letters dated 12th March 2009 to which a statement of liability also similar to that sent to CW1 is attached. The statement of outstanding liability sent to the other claimants is similar. It is signed on 4th March 2009 and includes payment of salary in lieu of notice and 4 days prorated salary for March 2009. The fact is that the statement of outstanding liability predates the claimants’ letters of resignation. There can be no doubt that the defendant had decided to terminate the employment of all the claimants as far back as the 4th of March 2009 when it prepared the statements. I believe the testimony of CW1 and CW2 that they were all forced to write the letters of resignation that have been acknowledged by the defendant in its letters to the claimants dated 31st March 2009. I also believe the testimony of CW2 that he refused to write a resignation letter. However, the defendant had shown by its conduct in also writing the acknowledgement of resignation letter dated 31st March 2009 to CW2 that it no longer required his services. I hold that the defendant had by its conduct terminated the employment of CW2. The claimants have alleged that they were not accused of misconduct; were never informed that their performance fell short of the required standard, and if it did the defendant did not comply with its own procedure for dealing with non performance as stipulated in its ‘ review of sanctions for non performance (exhibit C14). Now, civil suits are decided on the balance of probabilities, on the preponderance of evidence. The burden of proof is not static but shifts and the onus of adducing further evidence is on the person who will fail if such evidence is not adduced. See Osuji v Eke [2009] 16 NWLR (Pt 1166) 81. The burden has shifted to the defendant. The defendant has relied on the claimants’ letters of resignation, its own letters acknowledging their resignation and the statement of outstanding liabilities. There is no evidence adduced to prove that their resignations were not forced but in accordance with the extant policy of the Bank and the staff handbook as claimed by the defendant. There is also no evidence that the claimants’ performance fell short of the required standard and that the sanction applied was in line with the policy in force at that time. There is also no evidence that the claimants infracted any of the terms of their employment contract. The defendant has therefore failed to discharge the shifted burden. On the balance of probabilities and preponderance of evidence, the only proper conclusion to arrive at is that the claimants were intimidated and coerced by the defendant’s agents into writing the resignation letters with the threat of a letter of termination and its attendant consequences should they refuse. I find that the defendant’s agents coerced the claimants into writing letters of resignation of employment against their will by threats of dismissal at the ‘crucial meeting’ it held at Abuja with the claimants. The claimants having been intimidated wrote the letters on the spot and the defendant thereafter sent them letters of acceptance. A letter of resignation is a voluntary offer by one party to the employment contract to determine the contract of service. The claimants did not write their resignation letters voluntarily. The defendant’s conduct amounts to a repudiation of the employment contract. I hold that this is a constructive dismissal of the claimants by the defendant. See Steyer (Nig) Ltd V Gadzama [1995] 7 NWLR (Pt 407) 305, Mr Patrick Amaechi Mbanefo V Ecobank (Unreported) Suit No NICN/LA/585/2012 judgement delivered on March 28, 2017. There can be no doubt that their forced resignation by the defendant is wrongful and an unwarranted humiliation of the claimants without any reasonable cause. This in my view entitles each of the claimant to an award of general damages under Section 19 (d) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006. Consequently, I award each claimant the equivalent of sum of 6 (six) months gross salary as general damages broken down as follows: Nwankwo Franklin N2,992,138.00 (Two Million, Nine Hundred and Ninety Two Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty Eight Naira); Oghre Mathew N3,525,804.50 (Three Million, Five Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Four Naira Fifty Kobo); Bamgbose S. Joseph N1,497,509.50 (One Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Seven Thousand, Five Hundred and Nine Naira Fifty Kobo); Jumoke Fehintola Ogun N2,056,040.00 (Two Million, Fifty Six Thousand, Forty Naira) ; Alegieunu Martins N2,056,040.00 (Two Million, Fifty Six Thousand, Forty Naira); Mohammed Abdullahi N2,056,040.00 (Two Million, Fifty Six Thousand, Forty Naira); Olapade Olawale N1,300,000.00 (One Million, Three Hundred Thousand); Onyeakazi Chidi N1,300,000.00 (One Million, Three Hundred Thousand); Hassan Bola N2,427,115.50 (Two Million, Four Hundred and Twenty Seven Thousand, One Hundred and Fifteen Naira, Fifty Kobo). The defendant has raised a counter claim against the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 7th 8th and 9th claimants in respect of loans it alleges it granted them. The defendant has not adduced any evidence in proof of any of the said loans. It is the law that mere averment without evidence in proof of the facts pleaded is no proof. If a party to an action fails to lead evidence in support of the averments in the pleadings, the averments will be taken as having been abandoned. See Help Ltd V Silver Anchor Ltd [2006] Vol 5 MJSC 171. The averments are deemed abandoned. The counter claim fails as it has not been proved by the defendant. For all the reasons given above, the claimants’ case succeeds. Costs of N100,000 awarded the claimants. The counter claim is dismissed. Costs of N100,000 awarded the claimants on the counter claim. I hereby make the following orders: 1. The defendant is to pay the following sums as general damages to the claimants: a) Nwankwo Franklin N2,992,138.00 (Two Million, Nine Hundred and Ninety Two Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty Eight Naira); b) Oghre Mathew N3,525,804.50 (Three Million, Five Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Four Naira Fifty Kobo); c) Bamgbose S. Joseph N1,497,509.50 (One Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Seven Thousand, Five Hundred and Nine Naira Fifty Kobo); d) Jumoke Fehintola Ogun N2,056,040.00 (Two Million, Fifty Six Thousand, Forty Naira) ; e) Alegieunu Martins N2,056,040.00 (Two Million, Fifty Six Thousand, Forty Naira); f) Mohammed Abdullahi N2,056,040.00 (Two Million, Fifty Six Thousand, Forty Naira); g) Olapade Olawale N1,300,000.00 (One Million, Three Hundred Thousand); h) Onyeakazi Chidi N1,300,000.00 (One Million, Three Hundred Thousand); i) Hassan Bola N2,427,115.50 (Two Million, Four Hundred and Twenty Seven Thousand, One Hundred and Fifteen Naira, Fifty Kobo). 2. The defendant is to pay the claimants the total costs of N200,000.00. 3. The sums are to be paid within 30 days from the date of this judgement. Thereafter, each sum will attract interest at the rate of 10% per annum until it is liquidated. Judgement is entered accordingly. ____________________________ Hon Justice O.A.Obaseki-Osaghae