Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims The Claimant approached this Court on 22/7/16 and sought the following reliefs - 1. A declaration that the termination of the Claimant’s employment from the Defendant’s service vide letter titled Abandonment of Employment dated 18th September 2015 when the Claimant was on sick bed within the knowledge of the Defendant is wrongful, unwarranted, unjustifiable and amounts to unfair labour practice. 2. A declaration that the Defendant’s unilateral determination of the Claimant’s employment for 2 days absence from work without query as contained in the Defendant’s letter dated 18th September, 2015 amounts to denial of fair hearing. 3. A declaration that the Claimant is entitled to all the salaries, benefits, entitlements as specified in the Claimant’s letter of salary review until the Claimant’s employment is validly determined in accordance with the condition of service. 4. An order setting aside the Defendant’s letter titled Abandonment of Employment dated 18th September, 2015. 5. An order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant her salary from October 2015 till date and/or alternatively. 6. A declaration that the Claimant is entitled to all the benefits, gratuity, pensions and other entitlements associated with her employment in accordance with the Defendant’s Staff Handbook in the event of being properly disengaged from the employment of the Defendant. 7. An order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant her service gratuity, benefits and entitlements as total emolument for each completed years of service from 2004 till date based on computations in accordance with the Defendant’s Staff handbook. 8. An order for immediate payment of the Claimant’s contributory pensions. 9. The sum of =N=10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) being general damages for breach of contract of employment committed by the Defendant against the Claimant on 18th September 2015. 10. Cost of this action. The Complaint of the Claimant was accompanied by the statement of facts, witness statement on oath, list of witnesses as well as list and copies of documents to be relied on at trial. The Defendant entered an appearance on 14/10/16 and filed its statement of defence on 14/10/16 along with all requisite frontloaded processes. 2. Case of the Claimant The Claimant opened his case on 13/11/17 when she testified as CW1 and adopted her witness deposition made on 22/7/16 as her evidence in chief and tendered 22 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. JO1-Exh. JO22. The case of the Claimant as revealed from her pleadings is that she was offered an employment by the Defendant on the 2nd June 2003 and based on her performance she was promoted at several periods by the Defendant and she was given certificate of 10 years continuous loyal service; that she was Human Resources Business Partner with the Defendant until 21st September, 2015 when she received a letter dated 18th September, 2015 titled Abandonment of Employment; that her employment with the Defendant is governed by letter of appointment and the Defendant’s Staff Handbook detailing conditions of service; that she has never been found wanting in character or engaging in activities inimical to the progress and growth of the Defendant since she joined the Defendant’s company in 2003; that sometimes in July 2015, she started falling ill and she visited Eko Hospital in Lagos and was placed on drug but ailment still persisted and that she was advised to seek medical treatment overseas. It is also the case of the Claimant that her outstanding annual leave was approved by the Defendant for period between 15th July, 2015 and 25th August, 2015; that she then travelled to Europe in late July 2015 but she could not start medical treatment immediately because she had no resources to commence medical treatment; that she eventually commenced treatment in early August 2015 wherein she underwent a surgical operation at Laytown General Practice of Laytown Health Centre and began to get better hoping to resume as scheduled and continue treatment in Nigeria; that on the 20th August 2015, she suffered a severe back pain as a result of surgical operation, she then went back to Laytown Health Centre wherein Dr. Patrick Shortall commenced another treatment hoping to be concluded in two weeks; that she immediately notified the Defendant of her state of health through her immediate superior, Mr. Olugbenga Kolawole and copied the Director Human Resource of the Defendant, Mrs. Joyce Coker among others in her email dated 20/8/15 and her immediate superior, Mr. Kolawole replied on the 25/8/15 via email; that by this latest development, she attached Excuse Duty dated 24/8/15 given to her by Dr. Shortall to the mail sent to Mr. Olugbenga Kolawole on 01/09/2015 for him to endorse and send to the Central Human Resources for record purpose; that her leave was extended to 7/9/15 but to resume on the 8/9/15; that on the 4/9/015, she could no longer use her computer system to send and receive emails; that the system denied her access to mails; that between 4th and 7th September 2015, she attempted to seek for extension of sick leave to complete her treatment but she could no longer use her computer system to send mails and was unable to link up with Mr. Olugbenga Kolawole on phone but spoke with another superior Mr. Olabisi Popoola, the Defendant’s Human Resources Business Partner who told her that Mr. Olugbenga Kolawole was on vacation; that between 10/9/15 and 11/9/15 (exactly 2 days to her supposed resumption date), she informed the Defendant’s Human Resources Partner, Mr. Bisi Popoola via facebook messenger/social media that she could not even access or do anything on her computer system but there was a need to seek for extension of sick leave to complete the treatment; that when the Director of Human Resources of the Defendant, Joyce Coker in her mail dated 15/09/15 at 16:09 asked for any news from Justina (Claimant), Mr. Bisi Popoola in his reply email dated 15/09/2015 at about 16:43 confirmed that he chatted with the Claimant on Facebook and that the Claimant could not access her mails, and that the Claimant was ill with back pain and a sick off letter from the Dr. a copy of which was sent to you (Joyce Coker) was forwarded to me and that she was set to resume soon wherein Mrs. Joyce Coker (HR Director) replied in her mail dated 15/9/2015 at 17:22 that “Someone please visit to show concern on behalf of Human Resources/Business and also collect doctor’s note for business records”. Claimant added that on 18/9/15 she booked an appointment with her General Practice Doctor, Dr. Shortall to obtain a medical report/certificate but she could not obtain the sick off letter because it was on a weekend; that the medical report/sick off letter was only obtained on Monday, 21/9/15; that a copy of the Medical Certificate/Report dated 21/9/15 was sent to the Defendant through HR Director via neighbour’s laptop and on the same day, letter dated 18/9/15 titled Abandonment of Employment and that she protested the issuance of letter of Abandonment of Employment in her name which Defendant’s HR Director Mrs. Joyce Coker informed the Claimant that only option for the Defendant to rescind her termination of employment based on Abandonment is for the Claimant to send her resignation letter. Under cross examination, the Claimant stated that her employment was governed by the Defendant’s Condition of service; that her service could be determined with a month notice or a month salary in lieu of notice; that she is not entitled to gratuity; that the Defendant upholds the principle of no work no pay; that Certificate of long service is to appreciate staff commitment; that Bisi Popoola was her colleague; that she reported directly to Kolawole Olugbenga until 1/9/15; that she applied for extension of her annual leave and it was granted between 25/8/15 and 7/9/15; that she did not resume work at the expiration of the extension of her annual leave; that she did not send any medical report between 8/9/15 and 15/9/15 but she later sent the medical report; that because her reporting line has changed to Adedayo Temitope and she sent e-mail to Bisi Popoola respecting her sickness she could not reach out to Joy Coker who was the Head of HR Department because she did not have her e-mail contact; that she sent Exhibit J019 to the person who sent her an abandonment of work letter. 3. Case of the Defendant The Defendant called one Bisi Popoola as its lone witness. The witness simply adopted his witness statement on oath of 18/10/16 as his evidence in chief. He did not tender any document as exhibit. The gist of the defence is that the claimant was its employee and that her contract of service was guided by both her letter of Appointment and the Defendant’s Staff Handbook; that in the course of her employment in accordance with the Company’s Handbook she was given certificate of good performance; that rather than the claimant reciprocating the good gesture of the Defendant above, she applied for her annual leave and which was to end on 24/8/15 and same was granted; that when the leave was about to finish, she applied for extension of leave and again same was approved and granted and made to expire on 7/9/15 for her to resume on 8/9/15; that surprisingly from the time she was to resume on 8/9/15 till the 18/9/15 when she was declared to have breached her contract of employment Qua Abandonment by virtue of section 5.12 of Company’s Handbook having stayed away from work without any reason nor communicated to the Management of Defendant for more than 2 days any reason whatsoever or any Medical Certificate; that she belatedly sent in a sick leave on 21/9/15 which to all intent and purposes is of no use to her or to anybody as the horse has already left the stable; that she thereafter wrote letter of resignation which the Management of the Defendant rejected having already taken a decision on her matter in accordance with the company’s staff Handbook; that she also sent in letter of review through her Lawyer but which the Defendant also replied to maintaining that her case had been closed and hence this action. Under cross examination, the witness stated that he worked in the Human Resources Department with the Claimant; that he confirms that Exh. J08 and Exh. J09 are his Facebook chats with the Claimant; that Exh. J012, Exh. J013 & Exh. J014 are e-mail exchanges between him and the Claimant; that Exh. J015 was not directed to him and that he is not privy to the conversation between the Claimant and Mrs. Joyce Coker. 4. Final Written Addresses & Reply Address At the conclusion of trial and pursuant to the direction of the Court, learned Counsel to the Defendant filed a 13-page final written address on 4/12/17 and set down the following 2 issues for determination - 1. Whether from the Peculiar Circumstances of this case and the admitted fact by Claimant under cross-examination that she did not give the required NOTICE/CERTIICATE as provided for in the company’s handbook for her absence from work for 10 days, whether the defendant’s treatment of claimant’s such absence from work as breach of contract and Abandoned of duty was not justified and 2. If the answer to “A” above is in the affirmative whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs claimed. The learned Counsel to the Claimant also reacted by filing a Final Written Address of 29 pages. In it learned Counsel also set down 2 main issues for determination thus 1. Whether in the circumstance of this case, the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendant vide letter titled Abandonment of Employment dated 18/9/15 when the Claimant was on sick bed within the knowledge of the Defendant is wrongful, unwarranted, unjustified and amounts to unfair labour practice. 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to reliefs sought including her terminal benefits, gratuity, pension and other entitlements in accordance with the Defendant’s Staff Handbook. I read the final written addresses of both sides and I have a clear understanding of all the issues as canvassed in them. I shall therefore make reference to any of them where necessary in the course of this Judgment. 5. Decision I have read and clearly understood all the processes filed by learned on either side. I listened attentively to the witnesses called at trial, watched their demeanor and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted. I also heard the oral submissions of the 2 learned Counsel in this case. Having done all this, I adopt the 2 issues set down for determination by the Claimant for the purpose of the just determination of this case. They are as follows - 1. Whether in the circumstance of this case, the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendant vide letter titled Abandonment of Employment dated 18/09/2015 when the Claimant was on sick bed within the knowledge of the Defendant is wrongful, unwarranted, unjustified and amounts to unfair labour practice. 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to reliefs sought including her terminal benefits, gratuity, pension and other entitlements in accordance with the Defendant’s Staff Handbook. The first issue for determination is whether in the circumstance of this case, the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendant vide letter titled Abandonment of Employment dated 18/09/2015 when the Claimant was on sick bed within the knowledge of the Defendant is wrongful, unwarranted, unjustified and amounts to unfair labour practice. The parties in this case have a consensus on the fact that the Claimant was granted annual leave; that she went to seek medical attention during the period; that she was further granted extension of the leave before completion and that she did not resume on 8/9/15 as she ought to. It was this failure to resume without sending any medical report of her health situation, according to the Defendant that prompted the Defendant to serve the Claimant Exh. JO17 terminating her appointment qua abandonment of employment. Claimant's employment was terminated pursuant to paragraph 5.12 of Exh.JO2. The paragraph under the heading Absence From Work states thus - ''Employees unable to attend work on grounds of sudden illness must send notice of the fact to the Management immediately not later than two days. Two days absence without notice or medical certificate from a Doctor recognised by the Company will be deemed as breach of contract and treated as abandonment. Where appropriate, an approved Doctor's certificate must be produced within 48 hours of the beginning of absence if the employee wishes to be considered for sick benefits.'' The Abandonment of Employment letter dated 18/9/15 was signed by one Joyce Folake Coker as Human Resources Director. There appears to me to be no doubt the fact that Management of the Defendant was aware of the state of health of the Claimant. The available evidence before me also point to the fact that indeed Joyce Folake Coker who signed Exh. JO17 knew about the health condition of the Claimant. For instance by the e-mail of 15/9/15 Exh. JO14 from Popoola Bisi A to Coker Joyce JF, Bello Justina; Kolawole Olugbenga O had Bisi Popoola had written thus - ''The last time we chatted was on Facebook since she was unable to access her mails. What she said to me was that she was ill with back pain and a sick off letter from the Dr a copy of which was sent to you was forwarded to me and that she was set to resume soon. ''Last week we had a phone chat and she mentioned that she underwent a surgery in the United State where she had travelled to and she has been given another sick off however, she was unable to send across since she could not access her mails''. Again Coker Joyce JF had replied thus ''Someone please visit to show concern on behalf of HR/business and also collect doctors note for business records''. She probably was not aware that the Claimant was out of the country at the time. See also Exh. Jo12, Exh. JO13 & Exh. JO15. Now Exh. JO6 is the Medical Report/excuse from duty respecting the health status of the Claimant while Exh. JO7 is Medical Certificate of the Claimant from as far back as 24/8/15. I have gone this length in reviewing and evaluating the evidence led in this case. I must also note that the Defendant did not contest the fact that the Claimant was ill or out of the country seeking medical attention. The Defendant also did not dispute the fact that its top Management staff including Joyce Folake Coker who signed the letter of Abandonment of Employment was aware of the health situation of the Claimant. In fact it is here on record and the Defendant did not contest the fact that Joyce Folake Coker directed that staff of Defendant should visit the Claimant on behalf of her Department. In an employment relationship, either party may bring same to an end without any reason. It is however the law that an employer need not give reason for terminating the employment of its employee where it gives reason for so doing, it is under an obligation to adduce credible evidence in proof of same. See Chief Funso Ologunde v. Carnaudmetal Box Toyo Class Nigeria Plc (2002) LPELR-12216(CA) & Paul Uhunmwangho Simeon v. College of Education, Ekiadolor Benin (2014) LPELR-23320(CA). The reason offered for terminating the employment of the Claimant in this case is one of abandonment of employment. That reason has not been proved. That reason not having therefore been proved, I hold that the termination of the employment of the Claimant is one of mere termination of employment pursuant to paragraph 8.2 of Exh. JO2. The facts and circumstances of this case vis-a-vis the evidence led is such as for me to hold that the termination of the employment of the Claimant on the ground of abandonment of employment is wrongful, unwarranted, unjustified and amounts to unfair labour practice. Labour practice and industrial relation must necessarily carry with it human face otherwise it will breed industrial disharmony and rancor. I add that the treatment meted to the Claimant by the Defendant is despicable to say the least. There is no record here that the Claimant was issued any query in her entire period of service to the Defendant. There is no evidence of truancy led respecting the conduct of the Claimant while working for the Defendant. Indeed, the fact of Joyce Folake Coker directing staff of Human Resources Department for the Defendant to visit and check the Claimant up was a sufficient pointer to the fact that the Claimant was of good conduct. The Claimant could have been better treated by the Defendant. The Claimant indeed ought to be better treated. The fact of this case and the action taken by the Defendant did not portray the Defendant in a positive corporate image. I say no more. The second issue set down for determination is whether the Claimant is entitled to reliefs sought including her terminal benefits, gratuity, pension and other entitlements in accordance with the Defendant’s Staff Handbook. The first relief sought by the Claimant is a declaration that the termination of the Claimant’s employment from the Defendant’s service vide letter titled Abandonment of Employment dated 18th September 2015 when the Claimant was on sick bed within the knowledge of the Defendant is wrongful, unwarranted, unjustifiable and amounts to unfair labour practice. In view of the resolution of the first issue set down for determination this head of relief is granted. I here declare that the termination of the Claimant’s employment from the Defendant’s service vide letter titled Abandonment of Employment dated 18/9/15 when the Claimant was on sick bed within the knowledge of the Defendant is wrongful, unwarranted, unjustifiable and amounts to unfair labour practice. The second relief is for a declaration that the Defendant’s unilateral determination of the Claimant’s employment for 2 days absence from work without query as contained in the Defendant’s letter dated 18/9/15 amounts to denial of fair hearing. Paragraph 5.12 of Exh.JO2 was invoked to bring the employment of the Claimant to an end. Quite apart from the fact that the Claimant was in contact with senior staff of the Defendant it could not be said from the available evidence that there was no notice from the Claimant. I hold that the Claimant ought to have been afforded some opportunity to offer some explanation respecting her absence from work. Learned Counsel to the Defendant had submitted that failure to comply with the provision carried strict liability. That is not the meaning of paragraph 5.12 of Exh. JO2. Yes notice of absence from work due to illness MUST be given not later than 2 days. However ''Two days absence without notice or medical certificate from a Doctor recognized by the Company WILL (emphasis mine) be deemed as breach of contract and treated as abandonment''. The right to fair hearing or to be heard is a fundamental one. I hold that the Claimant is entitled to be heard and that she was not heard. I declare that the Defendant’s unilateral determination of the Claimant’s employment for 2 days absence from work without query as contained in the Defendant’s letter dated 18/9/15 amounts to denial of fair hearing. The 3rd relief sought is for a declaration that the Claimant is entitled to all the salaries, benefits, entitlements as specified in the Claimant’s letter of salary review until the Claimant’s employment is validly determined in accordance with the condition of service. By Exh. JO17, the Defendant had confirmed the cessation of the employment of the Claimant. This Court has also found that letter to be wrongful. It is however not null and void. For, to declare the termination to be null and void has far reaching implication which will include foisting a willing employee on an unwilling employer. That is beyond the power of the Court to do. See Isievwore v. NEPA (2002)13 NWLR (Pt. 784)319. The law is trite that an employee whose employment has been terminated cannot continue to treat same as existing. See Jombo P.E.F.M.B (2005)14 NWLR (Pt. 945)443. The only remedy available to the Claimant will be in damages rather than an order of Court for the continue payment of the salaries of the Claimant. In much the same vein the prayer for an order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant her salary from October 2015 till date is also refused and dismissed for the same reason. The Claimant also sought an order setting aside the Defendant’s letter titled Abandonment of Employment dated 18/9/15. This Court has held in this Judgment that the Defendant has effectively brought the employment of the Claimant to an end by Exh. JO17. Wrongful as it is, it has however effectively severed the relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant. To set same aside will amount to questioning the right of an employer to severe employment relationship with any of its workforce. I refuse and dismiss this head of relief accordingly. Claimant sought a declaration that she is entitled to all the benefits, gratuity, pensions and other entitlements associated with her employment in accordance with the Defendant’s Staff Handbook in the event of being properly disengaged from the employment of the Defendant. This Court has made a finding of the fact that the Defendant did not prove the reason offered for the termination of the employment of the Claimant which is abandonment of duty. The Court has thus held that the employment of the Claimant was terminated pursuant to paragraph 8.2 of Exh. JO17 with entitlement to all benefits as available under the Staff Handbook of the Defendant. I thus declare that the Claimant is entitled to all the benefits, gratuity, pensions and other entitlements associated with her employment in accordance with the Defendant’s Staff Handbook. The Defendant is here ordered to pay to the Claimant her service gratuity, benefits and entitlements as total emolument for each completed years of service from 2004 till 18/9/15 based on computations in accordance with the Defendant’s Staff handbook. The Claimant has also sought an order for immediate payment of the Claimant’s contributory pensions. The Claimant averred that she made contributory pensions to the National Pension Commission through the Defendant with IBTC Pension Manager as her Pension Fund Administrator. Aside from this, no other evidence is tendered. This Court cannot order the Defendant to pay the Claimant's pensions. I have no evidence before me to the effect that the Defendant did not remit the pensions deduction to the Claimant's Pension Fund Administrator. I hold that it is for the Claimant to approach her Pension Fund Administrator for her pension contribution rather than seek an order of Court to compel the Defendant to pay same over. The Claimant also sought payment of the sum of =N=10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) being general damages for breach of contract of employment committed by the Defendant against the Claimant on 18/9/15. The law regarding to general damages presumes damages as flowing from the wrong complained of by the victim. Such damages in law need not be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. In other words, general damages are compensatory damages for harm resulting from the tort for which the party has sued. See the cases of UBN Plc. v. Ajabule (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 152 SC; Husseni v. Mohammed (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1445) 100 & Afolabi v. Ola (2016) LPELR (CA). I find from evidence led that the Claimant was employed in 2003; that the employment was confirmed; that she had no history of query or any form of disciplinary action against her by Defendant; that the Defendant was aware of health situation while she was on leave and that while she was on the sick bed her appointment was abruptly and wrongly brought to an end. It is also my finding that the reason and ground for the termination of the employment of the Claimant by the Defendant is both unwarranted and unjustified. Defendant failed to prove by cogent evidence the alleged abandonment of work against the Claimant. I find that the conduct of the Defendant caused the Claimant to seek remedy in this Court. I hold that the Claimant is entitled to an award of general damages accessed in the sum of =N=1,000,000.00 only payable by the Defendant. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment the claims of the Claimant succeeds in part as follows, 1. I declare that the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendant vide letter titled Abandonment of Employment dated 18/09/2015 when the Claimant was on sick bed within the knowledge of the Defendant is wrongful, unwarranted, unjustified and amounts to unfair labour practice. 2. I thus declare that the Claimant is entitled to all the benefits, gratuity, pensions and other entitlements associated with her employment in accordance with the Defendant’s Staff Handbook. 3. The Defendant is here ordered to pay to the Claimant her service gratuity, benefits and entitlements as total emolument for each completed years of service from 2004 till 18/9/15 based on computations in accordance with the Defendant’s Staff handbook. 4. I declare that the Defendant’s unilateral determination of the Claimant’s employment for 2 days absence from work without query as contained in the Defendant’s letter dated 18/9/15 amounts to denial of fair hearing. 5. I declare that the Claimant is entitled to all the benefits, gratuity, pensions and other entitlements associated with her employment in accordance with the Defendant’s Staff Handbook. 6. Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=1,000,000.00 as general damages. 7. The Defendant is ordered to pay the sum of =N=100,000.00 as cost of this proceedings. 8. All the sums due under and by virtue of this Judgment are to be paid with 20% interest from September 2015 till final liquidation. All the terms of this Judgment are to be complied with within 30 days from today. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge