Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction, Claims & Counter claims On the 11th of February, 2014, the Claimant via his General Form of Complaint & Statement of Facts approached this Court and sought the following reliefs - 1. A declaration that the termination of the claimant’s appointment is contrary to his contract of employment, therefore it is wrongful, null and void as it constitutes an unfair labour practice. 2. An order of the Honourable Court compelling the defendant to pay the claimant his May 2008 salaries. 3. General Damages against the defendant for the breach of contract of Employment and living wages. 4. Cost of this Action is put at =N=400,000.00 only. 5. And for such orders or other orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in this circumstances. Claimant's Form 1 and Statement of Facts were accompanied by a witness statement on oath, list of witnesses, Verifying Affidavit, list and copies of documents to be relied on at trial. The Defendant filed its statement of defence on 15/4/14 together with all requisite frontloaded processes and counterclaims against the Claimant for payment of the sum of =N=526,923.63 owed to the Defendant by the Claimant occasioned by his unapproved trading transactions resulting in loss/debt to the Defendant Company. 2. Case of the Claimant The Claimant opened his case on 8/12/14 and testified in chief as CW1. CW1 adopted his witness deposition dated 11/2/14 as his evidence in chief and tendered 13 documents. The documents were admitted without objection and marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C13. The case of the Claimant as revealed from the pleadings filed is that he was by a Letter dated 16th May, 2007 employed by the Defendant as Head, Internal Control & Compliance; that although the probation period of the Claimant was for 6 (six) months, due to the satisfactory performance of the Claimant and the confirmation of his employment by implication by the Defendant, he served the Defendant meritoriously for a period of 1 (One) year; that consequently, his salary was increased from =N=1,200,000 per annum, that is, =N=100,000 per month to =N=2,400,000 per annum, that is =N=200,000 per month; that he was never queried by the Defendant throughout the probation period; that by a letter dated 2nd June, 2008, he was however compulsorily disengaged from the service of the Defendant without payment of his and that in order to avoid payment of his entitlements, the Defendant introduced a distraction claiming by way of counter-claim dated 14/4/14, the sum of =N=526,923,63 from him allegedly representing his unapproved trading transaction while in the Defendant’s employment resulting in alleged loss/debt to the Defendant. Hence this action. Under cross examination, CW1 testified that he started work with the Defendant on 1/6/07 and was offer the position of Head of Internal Audit; that he does not have letter of confirmation; that he worked with Defendant for one year; that he did not receive any query from the Defendant; that he issued queries to others under him; that he is a very good and competent staff; that he knew that his salary was reversed; that he does not know of others; that he is an Economist and a Chartered Accountant; that his job responsibility was essentially to review transaction and ensure compliance with rules and regulations; that he was not told reasons for the termination of his appointment; that his appointment was not terminated due to any negligence or fraud on his side; that Exh. C7 was printed by the Defendant; that it is not his; that his position as an Auditor could not have done Exh. C7; that he did not give any personal mandate for any trading on his account; that he has not been negligent in the discharge of my duty; that the Defendant reported to the Police and Police charged him to Court; that the Court eventually struck the matter out; that he is not indebted to the Defendant at all and that the professional body of Accountants did not direct or advise him to pay any money to the Defendant. 3. Case of the Defendant On 13/4/16, the Defendant opened its case by calling one Edmund Onuoha as its DW1. The witness adopted his witness deposition dated 14/4/14 as his evidence in chief and tendered 19 documents as exhibits. One of the documents was rejected and so marked. The remaining 18 documents were admitted and marked as Exh. D1-Exh. D18. The case of the Defendant, from the pleadings filed, is that it employed the Claimant via a letter of offer of employment dated 16/5/ 07 for the position of Head, Internal Control and Compliance on a gross annual salary of =N=1,200,000.00 commencements was for the 1st of June, 2008; that he was to be on probation for Six (6) months and confirmation to be upon his satisfactory performance during the probation; that his duties included inter alia, the internal audit of all officers of the Company to ensure compliance with relevant governing laws and norms of the stock broking industry; that within the period of his probation, he undertook his duties without exercising proper due care of his office and professional calling as a Chartered Accountant, resulting in the Managing Director of the Defendant to issue him a query on 14/1/08; that the Claimant was thereafter issued several queries for dereliction of duty and incompetence by the Management of the Defendant without satisfactory explanations thereto by the Claimant; that this unsatisfactory situation led the Management of the Defendant Company to formally terminate the appointment of the Claimant via letter of termination dated 2/6/08; that the Management duly authorized the payment of the entitlements and emoluments to the Claimant upon his disengagement and the same was properly calculated by the head of Accountant in the sum of =N=138,975 (One Hundred and Thirty eight thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy Five Naira) less the outstanding loan of the Claimant to the company; that before this payment could be made as authorized, a cursory examination of the Stock Account of the Claimant to ensure his records were all clear revealed that the Claimant had been engaging in high stakes stock trading the Company’s Stock trading Account, buying and selling shares and stocks and had drawn up a huge debt on the Company account to the tune of =N=665,898.65 (Six Hundred and Sixty Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Ninety Eight Naira, Sixty-Five Kobo); that all efforts to get the Claimant to repay the said debt proved abortive; that his entitlements were accordingly withheld to offset the said debt; that he was thereafter arrested by the Police upon a complaint lodged by the Management of the Defendant, detained and arraigned by a Magistrate Court for theft; that upon the appeal of other staff and members of the Company, the Defendant did not pursue the Criminal charges against the Claimant and he was subsequently discharged and that the Defendant briefed his Solicitors to recover the said debt form the Claimant but all demands met with a brick wall and no repayment. Under cross examination, DW1 stated that he is 43 years old; that he has worked with the Defendant for about 9 years; that he knows the Claimant as former employee of Defendant; that he is not aware of any improvement performance by the Claimant; that Management only made general increase in salary for all staff; that Claimant was a Compliance Officer; that it is possible for a non-stockbroker to buy shares on the stock exchange through a Stock Broker; that Claimant bought the shares in Exh.C7 through a Stock Broker; that he could not remember the name of the Stock Broker; that it was an internal affair. Claimant supervised the Stockbroker; that not anybody can have access to Defendant’s Software linked to the Stock Exchange; that the entries which formed the basis of Defendant's counterclaim were notice at the point of exit of the Claimant; that Management of Defendant noticed the entries through the then Accountant Mr. Chukwu Onyeakweru; that he is not aware that Claimant urged Defendant to reverse the entries when he noticed; that the Claimant’s entitlement has not been paid because he used Defendant’s money to buy shares for his benefit and that the shares in Exh. C7 are still in the name of the Claimant. 4. Submissions of learned Counsel At the conclusion of trial and pursuant to the direction of the Court, learned Counsel to the Defendant filed a final written address on 2/2/14. In it learned Counsel set down 2 main issues as follows for determination - 1. Whether the Claimant has proved his case of wrongful termination of contract of employment to enable him is entitled to his claims for a declaration, general damages and costs. and 2. Whether the Claimant remained entitled to his May 2008 Monthly Salary under the prevailing circumstances of this case, as postulated in his Statement of Claim and the law. Learned Counsel argued that a Master can terminate a contract of employment with his servant at any time and for any reason or no reason at all provided the terms of the contract are complied with; that an employer will be compelled to retain the services of an employee and that the Claimant failed to prove that his employment was wrongfully terminated. Counsel urged the Court to resolve all the issues raised in favor of the Defendant and enter Judgment in terms of the counter claims. The final written address of the Claimant was filed on 21/2/17. Claimant also set down 2 issues for determination as follows - 1.Whether the disengagement of the Claimant from the service of the Defendant is wrongful and unlawful?. If the answer to this question is in the positive, whether the Claimant is entitled to his claims, and 2. Whether the Claimant has proved its Counter-Claim, bordering on crime of misappropriation of the Defendant’s funds by the Claimant, beyond reasonable doubt. Arguing these issues, learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant's appointment was confirmed by the conduct of the Defendant and that the Claimant was entitled to 3 months' notice or salary in lieu of termination. Counsel cited Multichoice (Nigeria) Limited v. Azeez (2010)15 NWLR (Pt. 1215) 40 at 51. Counsel submitted further that Exh. C7 & Exh. D10 formed the basis of the counter claims sought by the Defendant; that the evidence in chief of the DW1 that the Defendant was forced to settle outstanding debt in order to be allowed to continue to trade at the stock exchange was not supported by any evidence and that indeed there was no such settlement as no receipt of payment was tendered at trial; that doubt having been created, it must be resolved in favor of the Claimant citing Nwochia v. The State (2012)9 NWLR (Pt. 1306) 571. Learned Counsel urged the Court to enter Judgment in favor of the Claimant and dismiss the counter claims sought. The Defendant subsequently filed a 3-page reply address on 9/5/17. 5. Decision I have read and understood all the processes filed the learned Counsel on either side of this case. I heard the oral testimonies of the witnesses called at trial and watched their demeanor. In addition, I carefully and patiently evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted in the course of hearing this case as well as heard the oral argument of learned Counsel for the parties. Having done all this, I narrow the issues for the just determination of this case down to the following - 1. Whether the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to Judgment. 2. Whether the Defendant has sufficiently proved its counter claims to be entitled to same. The law is trite that it is he who asserts who has the burden of proving the assertions. The proof required is by cogent, credible and admissible evidence. The admissible evidence may be either oral or documentary or both. The reliefs sought by the Claimant are essentially 5 in number. The first is for a declaration that the termination of the claimant’s appointment is contrary to his contract of employment, therefore it is wrongful, null and void as it constitutes an unfair labour practice. It is a trite law that when an employee alleges wrongful termination of his employment, the burden is on him to place before the Court his contract of employment stating the terms and conditions of engagement. See Morohunfola v. Kwara State College of Technology (1990)4 NWLR (Pt. 145)506 & Ajuzi v. FBN Plc (2016) LPELR(CA). Claimant tendered Exh. C1 and pointed out that by that exhibit his employment commenced on 1/6/07; that his confirmation was to be after a 6 months' period of probation and that he was entitled to 3 months' notice or 3 months' salary in lieu of notice on confirmation of his appointment. Counsel further submitted that his appointment was terminated by Exh. C3 on 2/6/08; that he was not paid the requisite 3 months' salary in lieu of notice. I find, as a fact, that the Claimant was not given notice of termination; that Claimant was not paid salary in lieu of notice; that the Claimant is entitled to be paid 3 months' salary in lieu of notice of termination. Now, the Claimant had testified in his evidence in chief that few months after confirmation of his employment, his salary was increased to =N=200,000.00. This fact was not controverted by the Defendant. Indeed, the Defendant in paragraph 6 of its statement of defence and paragraph 8 of its witness statement on oath, admitted the position as canvassed by the Claimant. The law is trite that facts admitted need no further proof. I find merit in this relief. I also find same as proved. I declare that the termination of the appointment of the Claimant was wrongful for failure to serve the require length of notice or pay the necessary salary in lieu of notice. The termination is however not null and void. Having so found, I further hold as a consequential relief that the Claimant is entitled to be paid the sum of =N=600,000.00 being his 3 months' salary in lieu of notice. The Defendant is here ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=600,000.00 being the 3 months' salary due to the Claimant in lieu of notice of termination. The second relief sought is for an order of the Honourable Court compelling the defendant to pay the claimant his May 2008 salaries. The Claimant stated that his salary for the month of May 2008 was not paid. This fact was not contested by the Defendant. Defendant admitted same in paragraph 14 of its witness statement on oath. Defendant however stated that the said salary was used to offset '' ... part accumulated debts in the Claimant's account, leaving still a huge balance as debit in the defendant company's account''. The alleged debt in the Claimant's account was not detected until after the employment of the Claimant had been terminated. Indeed at the time of the alleged detection of debt, the Claimant had ceased to be a staff or employee of the Defendant. I have no evidence before me to the effect that the Claimant was queried on the alleged debt by the Defendant. The alleged debt was not brought to the attention of the Claimant while he was in the services of the Defendant. It is strange, I must say, that the first time the Defendant drew the attention of the Claimant to any unauthorised debit in his account was on 18/8/08 by Exh. D14. That was a period of about 2 months after the Claimant had ceased to be an employee of the Defendant and at which time the Claimant had no responsibility or allegiance in whatever guise or manner to the Defendant. I find the reason for not paying the Claimant his salary for the month of May 2008 untenable. I order and direct the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=200,000.00 being the Claimant's salary for the month of May 2008 not paid. The third relief sought is for General Damages against the Defendant for the breach of contract of employment and living wages. I have found in this Judgment that the Claimant was entitled to 3 months salary in lieu of notice. I have also ordered that the Claimant be so paid as appropriate. The Claimant did not canvass any ground upon which this Court is to award him general damages. To award general damages in the light of an order for payment of salary in lieu of notice will amount to double compensation. I refuse to grant this relief and accordingly dismiss same. The second issue for determination is whether the Defendant has proved its counter claim sufficiently to be entitled to a grant. The counterclaim of the defendant is for an order of Court against the Claimant for payment of the sum of =N=526,923.63 owed to the Defendant by the Claimant occasioned by his unapproved trading transactions resulting in loss/debt to the Defendant Company. It is the law that a counter claim is a separate and independent suit of its own. A Counter claimant is therefore under an obligation to also adduce cogent, credible and admissible evidence in support of its counter claims. I note that the Defendant did not issue any query to the Claimant while the latter was in its employ respecting the alleged debt being counter claimed. I also note that it was about 2 months after the Claimant had been sent packing that the Defendant first contacted the Claimant on the alleged debt. I find no sufficient or credible evidence led by the Defendant in support of its counter claim. It is my finding that the counter claim is not proved. I refuse and dismiss same accordingly. I order the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the cost of this proceedings assessed at =N=100,000.00 only. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment - 1. I declare that the termination of the appointment of the Claimant was wrongful for failure to serve the require length of notice or pay the necessary salary in lieu of notice. 2. The Defendant is here ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=600,000.00 being the 3 months' salary due to the Claimant in lieu of notice of termination. 3. I order and direct the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=200,000.00 being the Claimant's salary for the month of May 2008 not paid. 4. I refuse and dismiss a claim for general damages as sought. 5. I refuse and dismiss the counter claims as sought. 6. I order the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the cost of this proceedings assessed at =N=100,000.00 only. 7. The sums due under and by virtue of this Judgment shall be paid with 15% interest per annum from June 2008 until final liquidation. All the terms of this Judgment shall be complied with within 30 days from today. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge