Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims The Claimant approached this Court on his General Form of Complaint dated 24/4/14 for judicial reliefs. By his Amended General Form of Complaint dated 18/1/16, the Claimant sought the following reliefs from the Court against the Defendant - 1. A declaration that the Summary Dismissal of the Claimant from employment by the Defendant is unfair, wrongful and improper. 2. Special Damages in the sum of N612,943.80 (Six hundred and Twelve Thousand, Nine Hundred and Forty Three Naira, Eighty Kobo) being the totality of the Claimant’s half salary for the three months while under suspension and one month salary in lieu of notice - PARTICULARS OF SPECIAL DAMAGES (i) Half salary for the 3 months of Suspension i.e. N122,588.76 x 3 = N367,766.28 (ii) Full Salary for one month in lieu of Notice. = N245,177.52 Sub Total = N612,943.80 3. Aggravated and/or Exemplary Damages = N10,000.000.00 Total = N10,612,943.80 The Defendant entered an appearance on 6/8/14, filed its statement of defence, List of documents to be relied on as required by the Rules of this Court. 2. Claimant's Case The hearing of this case commenced on 17/7/14 when the Claimant testified as CW1. CW1 adopted his witness statement on oath dated 24/4/14 as his evidence in chief and tendered 13 documents as exhibits. the documents were admitted and marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C13. The brief facts of this case as put forward by the Claimant are that the Claimant by an order of Court dated 13/10/15 was granted leave to substitute the name of the Defendant from Mainstreet Bank Ltd to Skye Bank Plc; Claimant averred that the Defendant was his employer and that the employment relationship subsisted till about July 2013, when his appointment was terminated by a letter of Dismissal dated 24/12/12; that the said summary dismissal was due to the Defendant’s Consultant Niyi Ogundare who shut down the Defendants system as a result of the =N=48,000,000.00 (Forty Eight Million Naira) which the Defendant were owing to the firm of the said Mr. Niyi Ogundare for the lease on the two servers for two quarters; that the said Mr. Niyi Ogundare came to the Defendant’s office on the 3/10/12 following complaints by the IT Department with respect to some power pack problems and as a result, the Claimant logged in on the system for the said Mr. Niyi Ogundare as it was the practice in the I.T. Department to log in for the said consultant to do his job. Under cross examination the witness testified that Exhibits 6, 7, and 8 were not addressed to Head of Human Capital Management; that there is nothing on Exhibit 5 showing that he received it in July 2013; that he did not received Exhibit C5 until July; that the copy given to him was perforated being a copy from his file; that he kept on following on his appeal to the Head of Disciplinary Committee and the Managing Director of Defendant; that he could not remember precisely when he received Exhibit C5; that his Lawyers wrote for out of court settlement but Defendant was not interested; that he was paid gratuity for the former Afribank Plc; that he was employed and confirmed as a staff of Mainstreet Bank; that he worked in the IT Department of Defendant; that it is a sensitive Department; that not only staff of Defendant are allowed in; that others could also come but must sign register; that it was the duty of the Security to ensure that they signed Register; that there is another Register meant for Consultant in the main office and that he could identify the Consultant Register to the Server Room. CW1 added that Mr. Ogundare showed him a couple of letters regarding the money owed him by the Defendant; that he was not aware of the debts; that he is not a shareholder or Director in CBC – the firm where Mr. Ogundare worked; that Mr. Ogundare came around noon on 3/10/12 and left at about after the incident happened; that his colleagues were around then; that the IBM listed server is managed by 2 Users one in the morning, one in the night; that he was the only one who had access to the server until the next person comes to take over from him; that that is what he meant in Exhibit C3; that he is the only one who had access to his password; that he is not supposed to divulge that password to anyone; that he could not access the system he worked with without the password; that the system will automatically record once a person is logged on; that he not did seek authorization when he logged on Mr. Ogundare and that that this is because they don’t seek authorization regarding Consultant. On 17/6/15, one Muritala Rahman testified as CW2. He simply adopted his written witness statement on oath dated 27/10/14 without tendering any document as exhibit. Witness stated under cross examination that if he logs on a Consultant it will show that he is the one working; that the password can only be accessed by him; that the password is unique to him; that he can change his password; that however there is a unit in the IT Control Room that monitors activities of IT staff and how and when changing the password; that the Defendant gives directive on the operation of the IT Unit; that the events that led to the sack of the Claimant occurred in October 2012 after he had left Defendant’s employment in June 2012 and that he would not know if the operational system of the Defendant had changed after he left in June 2012. 3. Case of the Defendant The Defendant opened its case on 13/10/15 when DW1 testified and adopted her written witness statement on oath dated 6/8/14 and tendered a document admitted and marked as Exh. D1. The case of the Defendant is that following the manipulation of banking data and breach of confidentiality by the Claimant which lead to the disruption of its live servers and banking applications, it summarily dismissed the Claimant’s employment; that in doing so, it not only complied with all the requirements and processes outlined in Exhibits 12 and 13 but even went beyond it to pay the Claimant gratuity which he was not entitled to; that the appeal window required Claimant to appeal his dismissal within 10 days of being advised of the said sanction and that the appeal be made directly to the Head, Humane Capital Management and if there is no resolution within 90 days of filing his appeal to commence Court connected mediation proceedings and if the grievance remains unresolved only then can the Claimant proceed the court and that the Claimant did not comply with this simple process. Under cross examination, this witness stated that she joined the Defendant in 1999; that he has never worked in the Information Technology and System Department of the Defendant; that she is not conversant with the daily activities of I.T & System Department as well as the human traffic there; that she is aware that Defendant contracted the services of City Business Computer Ltd as Consultants; that she is not aware that a certain Mr. Ogundare and Mr. Lawal come to the I.T System Unit; that she was not part of the Disciplinary Committee set up by the Defendant to conduct investigation; that during investigation the name of Ogundare came up as staff of City Business Computer Ltd.; that she is not sure if a letter was written on Ogundare to CBC Ltd; that she is not sure if Niyi Ogundare was muted to explain himself; that he did not furnish the Court any petition written to the Police; that she did not furnish the Court with any letter written to Ogundare or CBC Ltd; that she is privy to the Disciplinary Committee proceedings; that the Claimant was not issued a query; that the gratuity paid in paragraph 8 of her Oath was representing the years of service to Afribank Plc and that what constitutes gross misconduct is contained in the Defendant’s Staff Manual. 4. Submissions on Behalf of the Defendant At the close of trial, learned Counsel on either side filed their final written addresses in accordance with the Rule of this Court. The final written address of the Defendant was dated 28/10/15 and filed on 2/11/15. 1. Whether exhibits C3 and C4 should not be expunged from the evidence to be considered in determining the case on account of their not having been properly admitted?. 2. Whether the Claimant’s action is not incompetent and a nullity on account of failure to comply with the provisions of exhibits C12 and C13. 3. Whether the Claimant has proved his case and if thus, entitled to judgment in terms of the reliefs claimed in this action?. 4. Whether based on the facts of this case and the evidence adduced, Defendant has successfully defended thus action. Learned Counsel submitted that Exh. C3 was a computer generated evidence which was admitted without a certificate as required by Section 84(4), Evidence Act, 2011. Respecting Exh. C4, learned argued that the document tendered and admitted as exhibit was a photocopy and no foundation laid as regards the where about of the original. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to expunge these 2 exhibits from the record of Court. On issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that the present suit failed to comply with the grievance resolution procedure as outlined under Exh. C12 & Exh. C13. Counsel cited Babatunde v. B.O.N Limited (2011)18 NWLR (Pt. 1279) 738 & S.E. Co. Limited v. NBCI (2006)7 NWLR (Pt. 978) 198. Learned Counsel submitted that the grievance resolution procedure under Exh. C12 & Exh. C13 were not followed and urged the Court to dismiss the action of the Claimant as being incompetent. On whether the Claimant is entitled to Judgment in terms of the reliefs claimed, Counsel submitted that the summary dismissal of the Claimant is not unfair, wrongful or improper; that for a dismissal to be unfair, Claimant must show that he was not given an opportunity to be heard citing Imonike v. Unity Bank Plc (2011)12 NWLR (Pt. 1262) 624 at 648; that the dismissal of the Claimant was in accordance with the procedure in Exh. C12 & Exh. C13 citing Mogul v. McMregor 23 QBD 598 at 612-613. Counsel argued that the dismissal was not arbitrary, but for an offence clearly defined in documents evidencing the contract of employment and that the appropriate procedure was followed. Counsel referred to Art. 18(2) of Exh. C12 and prayed the Court to dismiss the prayer 1 of the Claimant. On the issue of special damages, learned Counsel submitted that it is the law that special damages must be specially pleaded and strictly proved otherwise they would fail, citing Agbu v. CSCNS(2011)1 NWLR (Pt. 1229) 544. Learned Counsel therefore submitted that the Claimant only specially pleaded the special damages sought but failed to strictly prove same and that the evidence of the Claimant as contained in his witness statement on oath is curiously silent on issue of special damages claimed, citing UBA Plc v. Ajabule (2011)18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 152 at184. Learned Counsel urged the Court to dismiss this claim as well. On the issue of aggravated and exemplary damages sought learned Counsel submitted that before aggravated damages can be awarded, the Claimant must establish by credible evidence the outrageous conduct of the Defendant i. e show of malice, fraud, cruelty, insolence or flagrant disregard of the law, citing University of Calabar v. Oji (2012)3 NWLR (Pt. 1288) 418 at 431. Counsel submitted that the Claimant's contract of employment was never breached by the Defendant but that the terms of same were complied with; that even if the contract was breached the Claimant would not have been justifiably entitled to =N=10,000,000.00 sought as aggravated and exemplary damages as that would be a windfall as same is monstrously higher than the Claimant's monthly salary which in his own pleadings he placed at =N=245,177.52. Finally on this point, Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss the reliefs sought by the Claimant. Finally, learned Counsel submitted that the Defendant has successfully defended this suit; that it complied with the laid down procedure for disciplining its employee and that the Claimant was given fair hearing. Counsel cited NEPA v. El-Fanti (1986)3 NWLR (Pt. 32) 884 at 898 and prayed the Court to dismiss this case in its entirety. 5. Submissions on Behalf of the Claimant The final written address of the Claimant was filed on 2/6/16. In it, Counsel adopted the same issues set down for determination by the Defendant as follows - 1. Whether Exh. C3 and C4 should not be expunged from the evidence to be considered in determining the case on account of their not having been properly admitted?. 2. Whether the Claimant’s action is not incompetent and a nullity on account of failure to comply with the provisions of Exh. C12 and C13. 3. Whether the Claimant has proved his case and is thus entitled to judgment in terms of the reliefs claimed in this action?. 4. Whether based on the facts of this case and the evidence adduced, Defendant has successfully defended thus action. On issue 1, Counsel submitted that the exhibits should not be expunged and that the procedure adopted by the Court is in accordance with the Rules of Court and the Act establishing the Court. Counsel pointed out also that these documents were pleaded referring to paragraphs 15 & 16 of the statement of facts and that in any event, paragraph 6 of the Defendant's statement of defence evidenced the fact that Exh. C3 & Exh. C4 were issued by the Defendant. Counsel urged the Court to hold the averment as admission on the part of the Defendant referring to Section 123, Evidence Act, 2011 & Aromolaran v. Oladele (1990)7 NWLR (Pt. 162) 262 at 368. Learned Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favor of the Claimant. On issue 2, answered the issue in the negative and affirmed that Claimant's action is not incompetent. Counsel also referred to Art. 12(b)(x) of Exh. C12 and Art. 6.6 of Exh. C13. Counsel stated that the procedure under these exhibits were not complied with; that the Claimant was ''not advised of the sanction''; that the sanction was not ''mailed'' to the Claimant; that there is no evidence on record as to how the Claimant got to know of the sanction and that the evidence of the Defendant was contradicted. Counsel submitted that Exh. C5 was not dispatched or communicated at any time to the Claimant and that it was a member of the Committee who confidentially informed him that he has been dismissed referring to paragraphs 18, 19 & 20 of the Claimant's statement on oath. According to learned Counsel, the Defendant did not follow the laid down procedure; that the Defendant dismissed the Claimant in December, 2012 and waited till seven months after in July 2013 before communicating the decision to him only to turn around that the Claimant had not complied with the stated procedure. On whether or not the Claimant did not comply with the internal dispute resolution procedure, learned counsel submitted that the Claimant did; that the Claimant requested Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution procedure as contained in Art. 6.6 of Exh. C13 but that the Defendant jettisoned the said procedure who refused to start the process of mediation; that the averment of the Claimant in paragraph 22 of the Claimant's statement on oath was not contradicted and the Defendant simply reacted by justifying its action and repudiated any form of liability and that the Defendant must not be allowed to profit from its own wrong, citing Anekwe v. IMB (Nig.) (2006)19 NWLR (Pt. 1013) 146 at 181. Counsel further added that in any event, the proviso to Exh. C13 gives resort to litigation where agreement cannot be reached by mediation. Counsel urged the Court to discountenance the submissions of the Defendant respecting this issue. On whether the Claimant is entitled to Judgment in terms of the reliefs claimed, Counsel submitted that the summary dismissal of the Claimant was unfair, wrongful and improper for not being in line with the provisions of Clause 3 of Exh. C12. Counsel argued firstly, that letter of summary dismissal is a nullity not being in line with the provisions of Clause 3 of Exh. C3 dated 24/12/12; secondly that the alleged offence committed by the Claimant did not fall into the category of such offences for which the Claimant ought to be summarily dismissed without recourse to Disciplinary Committee and thirdly that the Defendant did not have recourse to Clause 13 of the Human Capital Disciplinary Manual which provides for fore-warning letters. Counsel added that the Defendant has admitted that the Claimant is not guilty of violating any of the provisions of Defendant's Human Capital Manual when it admitted in Exh. C3 that access given by the Claimant was to their Consultant. According to learned Counsel this evidence remained unchallenged and the Court is entitled to rely on and act on same citing Kopek Construction Limited v. Ekisola (2010)3 NWLR (Pt. 1182) 663. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the trial procedure was against the principle of fair hearing. On whether the Claimant has satisfied the legal requirement for the award of special damages, learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant has pleaded and particularized same and put forward evidence in proof. Counsel referred to the statement of facts, the witness statement on oath of the Claimant and the testimony on oath of the Claimant. Learned Counsel submitted that that law is trite that in civil matters proof of issues is on a balance of probabilities where there is nothing to put on the one side of the imaginary scale of justice, minimum evidence on the other side satisfies the requirement of proof even where strict proof such as proof of special damages is the matter, citing STB Limited v. Inter Drill Nigeria Limited & Anor. (2006) LPELR-9848(CA). Learned Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Claimant is entitled to special damages. On claim for aggravated and exemplary damages, learned senior Counsel submitted that the law remains that where there is a wrong there is a remedy citing Harka Air Service Nigeria Limited v. Keazor Emeka Esq. (2011)52 WRN & Omoniyi v. Ogunsoji A.O (2008)3 WRN 115. The learned silk also cited University of Calabar v. Oji (2012)2 NWLR (Pt. 1288) 418 where the Court stated that - ''There was no claim for exemplary, vindictive, aggravated damages. Such damages when claimed are usually awarded whenever the Defendant conduct is sufficiently outrageous to merit punishment as where for instance, it discloses malice, fraud, cruelty, insolence of flagrant disregard of the law''. Learned senior Counsel submitted that the conduct of the Defendant in this case is such that merits the award of aggravated damages. Counsel urged the Court to so do. Finally, learned Counsel submitted that the Defendant has failed to successfully defended this action. Counsel referred to paragraphs 6 and 7 of DW1 statement on oath and the testimony under cross examination where the same witness admitted that Niyi Ogundare is a staff of its Consultant and that the Defendant had not furnished the Court with a report of its investigation or of any letter written to the said Niyi Ogundare. Counsel submitted that the evidence led by the Defendant did not tally. he urged the Court to hold that the Defendant has not successfully defended this suit. 6. Decision This Judgment was initially slated for delivery on 8/12/16. Unfortunate it was not read on that day. It is however still within the 90 days constitutionally allowed for delivery of Judgment. Hence it was adjourned till today for delivery. I have read all the processes filed by the learned senior Counsel for the Claimant as well as those filed by the learned Counsel to the Defendant. I read and understand same. I listened with attention and understanding to the oral testimonies of the witnesses called at trial and watched their demeanor. In addition I evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted in this case. Having done all this, I narrow the issues for the just determination of this case down to the following - 1. Whether the summary dismissal of the Claimant was unfair, wrongful and improper. 2. Whether the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to some or all the reliefs sought. The law is trite that where an employee complains of improper determination of his employment, he has the burden of placing before the Court his contract of employment laying out the terms and conditions of same as well as stating the wrongfulness in the termination of his employment. By Exh. C1, the Claimant is bound by the Human capital Staff Policy and all such other circulars and policy statements that may be issued from time to time. One of such policy statements is Exh. C12 - Human Capital Disciplinary Manual. The Claimant was summarily dismissed by the Defendant via Exh. C5. Now was the summary dismissal in accordance with the provisions of Exh. C12? What are the grounds or circumstances under which a staff of the Defendant may be summarily dismissed? Exh. C13 is the Human Capital Manual of the Defendant. Art. 9.5 deals with Dismissal. It provides as follows - ''9.5.1. MBL group may, without notice, dismiss from its employ any employee found to have committed an act of gross misconduct. 9.5.2. Any dismissed employee shall not be entitled to receive benefits determined in line with compensation policy. There is nothing in that exhibit respecting offences or conduct which may merit dismissal of an employee. However those are dealt with by yet another document emanating from the Defendant.'' This exhibit does not deal with offences or conduct of an employee that may warrant sanction of summary dismissal. Art. 18.2 of Exh. C12 deals with Summary Dismissal. It provides as follows - ''18.2 Summary Dismissal Without recourse to a DC, a staff shall be summarily dismissed for the following infractions: i. Unauthorized absence from duty as provided for in the staff handbook. ii. Manipulation of Core Banking application or other applications. iii. Confessional statements in cases of gross misconduct''. Now was the Claimant found guilty of any of these 3 grounds for summary dismissal? The Claimant was neither accused of absence from duty within the meaning of Art. 18.2. i nor of making confessional statements in cases of gross misconduct within the provision of Art. 18.2.iii of Exh.C12. The allegation against the Claimant as contained in Exh. C3 by an e-mail from Head, Internal Control Group (Segun Famoriyo) was - ''Peter: On whose approval/clearance is consultant using your profile to issue commands on the bank's live server''? The only ground left for summary dismissal in Exh. C12 is ''Manipulation of Core Banking application or other applications''. Can the reason given for the dismissal of the Claimant in Exh. C5 be said to be the same as that contained in Art. 18.2.iii of Exh. C12 on page 18? I answer that question in the negative. While the law remains that an employer is at liberty to determine a contract of employment without giving reason, see West African Examination Council & Ors. v. Mr. Monday T. Nkanta (2006) LPELR-11752 (CA), where however a reason is given for so doing, an employer is under an obligation to prove same by adducing cogent and credible evidence, see Mr. S. Anaja v. United Bank for Africa Plc (2010) LPELR-3769 (CA). In any event, contract of service is akin to any other form of contract. It is for parties who voluntarily enter into a contract to act within the ambit of the contractual terms and conditions, see Wema Bank Plc & Anor. v. Alakan Frozen Foods Agency Nigeria Limited & Anor. (2015) LPELR-25980 (CA). It is interesting to note that the allegation against the Claimant was that he neither sought clearance or approval before allowing a Consultant of the Defendant to use Claimant's profile in issuing commands on the Defendant's server. In other words, the Consultant concerned is a Consultant to the Defendant and not a stranger. Even the witness for the Defendant confirmed that the Consultant in question is a Consultant to the Defendant. The Claimant had asserted that no approval or clearance was required for him to do what he did. That assertion was not challenged throughout the trial. In the absence of such therefore the Court is bound to accept the unchallenged position and act on same. See NNPC Pension Limited v. Vita Construction Limited (2016 LPELR. It is for the Defendant to adduce credible evidence of an established procedure for the Claimant to seek approval/clearance before taking the steps he took. I have no evidence before me that the Claimant manipulated any core banking application or other applications to bring him within the sanction of summary dismissal as provided in Art. 18.2 of Exh. C12. I further examined Art. 24.2 of Exh. C12 where the term Gross Misconduct was defined. I find and hold that the alleged conduct of the Claimant in the instant case upon which he was queried does fall within the categories of the conduct or offences stated in that paragraph. I therefore hold that the summary dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant by Exh. C5 is unfair, wrongful and improper. I thus resolve issue 1 in favor of the Claimant and against the Defendant. Employers of labour in general and employers of labour in the banking sector of the economy must bear in mind at all times the far reaching consequences of their disciplinary actions against their employees. The Claimant in the instant case was summarily dismissed by the Defendant. Summary dismissal as a punishment in labor and employment matters is akin to death penalty in criminal cases. It is the peak of punishments in that sector. Dismissal generally speaking carries with it stigma and public odium on the victim. See University of Calabr Teaching Hospital & Anor. v. Juliet Koko Bassey (2008) LPELR-8553 (CA). Indeed, as Claimant had argued, the stigma of summary dismissal impedes or puts a bar to his ability to secure any other employment in the banking industry. The right of an employer to discipline its employees remains unhindered and unfettered as long as the right to do so is exercised within the confines of the law and the binding contractual terms and conditions. The Claimant was employed on 5/8/11 (See Exh. C1) and barely 2 years after he was on 24/12/12 (See Exh. C5) summarily dismissed from the employment of the Defendant in a circumstance that leaves much to be desired. Having held that his summary dismissal was unfair, wrongful and improper, I further direct that the summary dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant be converted to termination of employment. If the Defendant has informed any regulatory authority in the banking industry or financial institution of the Claimant's dismissal, I further direct the Defendant inform the same regulatory authority of the necessary intents of this Judgment. On issue 2, the Claimant claimed special damages in the sum of =N=612,943.80 (Six hundred and Twelve Thousand, Nine Hundred and Forty Three Naira, Eighty Kobo) being the totality of the Claimant’s half salary for the three months while under suspension and one month salary in lieu of notice. The Claimant gave particulars representing none payment of half of his salary for 3 months during the period of suspension and one month salary in lieu of notice. Art. 17.6.iii of Exh. C12 states that suspension as a result of investigation shall attract 50% of full monthly salary subject to a maximum suspension period of 3 months. There is evidence to the effect that the Claimant was suspended for 3 months. I hold that the Claimant is entitled to the sum. I here direct and order the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=367,766.28 being the balance of his half salary for the 3 months of period of suspension. This Court has held that the summary dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant is unfair, wrongful and improper. It has also held that the summary dismissal be converted to termination. Under Art. 9.4.1 of Exh. C13 read in conjunction with Art. 9.2.2 of the same Exh.C13, the Defendant must give a month notice or pay one month basic salary in lieu of notice. By Exh. C1, the monthly basic salary of the Claimant is stated to be =N=417,000.00. I therefore direct and order the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=417,000.00 being his monthly basic salary in lieu of notice of termination. The Claimant also sought payment of the sum of =N=10,000,000.00 by the Defendant as aggravated and/or exemplary damages. The Court, per Nwodo J.C.A, in Nma v. Marine Management Associates Inc. & Anor. (2008) LPELR-4583(CA) explained Exemplary damages as - ''damages whose purpose extends beyond compensation to punitive or admonitory functions. Aggravated damages are considered to be compensatory awards where the circumstances of the infliction of the wrong including the motive of the Defendant are taken into account when assessing the appropriate level of compensation. See Rookes v. Barnard 1964 (1964) AC 1129 at 1221''. It must be specifically claimed as a head of claim and the facts leading to it as head of claim pleaded and proved. See A.G. Federation v. Ajayi (2000)12 NWLR (Pt. 682) 509 at 536. Usually, a grant of aggravated or exemplary damages is to show a revulsion to the unacceptable conduct of the Defendant. In the instant case, it not an unusual conduct by an employer to summarily dismiss an employee unfairly, wrongfully and without following proper procedure. It is doubtful if the Court can do more than to declare such dismissal as wrongful as done in the instant case. The state of the law remains that in an action for wrongful dismissal, the measure of damages is what the employee would have earned if the requisite notice had been given. In a recent Judgment, the Court of Appeal per Ndukwe-Anyanwu J.C.A, in Mrakpor & Anor. v. PSC (2016) LPELR the Court expressed the point aptly thus - ''in most employment, the contract of service provides expressly that it is terminable by the giving of a stipulated period of notice. The damages recoverable for a wrongful termination or dismissal will be the amount of wages or salary the employee would have earned during the stipulated period. If for example, a contract provides for one month's notice then damages will ordinarily be one month's salary or wages''. See also Western Nig. Development Company v. Abimbola (1996) 1 All NLR 159, Obot v. CBN (1993) 9 SCNJ 368. Already this Court has directed the Defendant to pay to the Claimant one month basic salary in lieu of one month notice of termination. I find no proof of any conduct of the Defendant that merits the award of aggravated/exemplary damages against the Defendant. Thus I refuse and dismiss the claim for =N=10,000,000.00 as aggravated/exemplary damages as sought by the Claimant. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reason as contained in this Judgment, 1. I hold that the summary dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant by Exh. C5 is unfair, wrongful and improper. 2. Having held that his summary dismissal was unfair, wrongful and improper, I direct that the summary dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant be converted to termination of employment. 3. If the Defendant has informed any regulatory authority in the banking industry or financial institution of the Claimant's summary dismissal, I further direct the Defendant to inform the same regulatory authorities and financial institutions of the necessary intents of this Judgment. 4. I direct and order the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=367,766.28 being the balance of his half salary for the 3 months of period of suspension. 5. I direct and order the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=417,000.00 being his monthly basic salary in lieu of notice of termination. 6. I refuse and dismiss the claim for =N=10,000,000.00 as aggravated/exemplary damages as sought by the Claimant. 7. The Defendant is directed to pay the sum of =N=200,000.00 as cost of this action. 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