Download PDF
JUDGMENT The Claimant on 29th day of March, 2012 filed a Complaint dated same day. The Complaint was accompanied with a Statement of facts establishing cause of action which was amended with leave of court on 12th day of February, 2013. The Claimant prays for the following reliefs against the Defendant: (i) A Declaration that the summary dismissal of the Claimant vide letter dated January 13, 2011 issued to the Claimant by the Defendant is unlawful, illegal, ultra vires, null and void and of no effect. (ii) An order of this Honourable Court reinstating the Claimant to the position of Senior Manager in the Defendant’s Organization. (iii) An order of this Honourable Court for the Defendant to be paying the Claimant the sum of N14,000,000.00 (Fourteen Million Naira) annually which represents her basic annual salary as at 30th day of March, 2010 until the Claimant is reinstated. (iv) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, whether by itself, agents, servants, workers, successors-in-title, privies from taking any action, step or measure whatsoever concerning the recovery of the purported outstanding indebtedness of the sum of N16,024,203.00 (Sixteen Million, Twenty-Four Thousand, Two Hundred and Three Naira) against the Claimant except in accordance with the terms and conditions of service applicable in the Defendant’s employment and in line with the agreement for loan and/or grant to employee of the Defendant. (v) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, whether by itself, agents, servants, workers, successors-in-title, privies, from taking any action, step or measure towards the retrieval and impoundment of properties or belongings of the Claimant and or depriving the Claimant of her use, custody and benefit of any property in her possession by virtue of her employment with the Defendant and particularly the Honda Civic Car with Registration No. LAGOS EF 642 LSR. ALTERNATIVELY, the Claimant claims from the Defendant, (vi) N800,000,000.00 (Eight Hundred Million Naira) being damages for unfair dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant vide its letter dated 13th January, 2011. Filed along with the Complaint are list and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial. The Defendant on 9th August, 2012 and with leave of court, entered appearance and filed a statement of defence with a counter-claim and all the necessary accompanying processes. The Defendant also amended its Statement of Defence with leave of court on25thApril, 2013. On 5/5/2014 the court granted leave to the defendant to amend for the second time its Statement of defence. In the 2nd Amended Statement of Defence the Defendant counter-claimed against the Claimant as follows: 1. The Defendant/Counterclaimant hereby relies upon paragraphs 1-40 of the 2nd Amended Statement of Defence for the purpose of this counter-claim and seeks the following reliefs against the Claimant: a. The sum of N16, 024,203.09 (Sixteen Million, Twenty Four Thousand, Two Hundred and Three Naira, Nine Kobo) being the unpaid balance of the loan (inclusive of car loan) granted to the Claimant (before her dismissal) by the Defendant Bank in her capacity as a staff of the bank; and b. The sum of N4, 422,674.50 (Four Million, Four Hundred and Seventy Four Naira, Fifty Kobo) being interest accrued on the outstanding loan of N16, 024,203.09 (Sixteen Million, Twenty Four Thousand, Two Hundred and Tree (sic) Naira, Nine Kobo) as at the 30th day of September, 2013. The case proceeded to trial. The Claimant testified by adopting her Statement on oath dated 23/7/2013 but filed on 24/7/2013 as CW1 and tendered documents which were admitted by the court as Exhibits C1 toC23 Seriatim. She was thereafter cross examined by the Defendant’s counsel. The Defendant called a lone witness, DW1 who gave evidence, tendered documents which were admitted by the court as Exhibits D1, D2, D2a, D3, D4, D5, D6 and D6a. DW1 was cross examined by the learned Claimant’s counsel.At the conclusion of trial parties filed their respective final written addresses. The learned Defendant’s counsel filed his final written address dated 4th day of July, 2016 on the 11th day of July, 2016. On his own part, the learned Claimant’s counsel filed his final written address (undated) onthe 14th day of July, 2016. Thereafter the learned defendant’s counsel filed a reply on points of law dated 31st August, 2016 on 7th September, 2016 which was regularized with leave of court on 11th of October, 2016. Parties adopted their respective final written addresses on 11th day of October, 2016. In his final written address the learned defendant’s counsel formulated and argued the following five issues for the court’s determination: 1. Whether Claimant was properly dismissed within the ambit of EXHIBIT C3-the Employee handbook? 2. Whether non-denial by the Claimant of EXHIBIT D2A-Minutes and Findings of the Disciplinary Committee Proceedings does not amount to an admission? 3. Whether the use of the word ‘May’ in paragraph 14.4 of Exhibit C3 (first sentence) does not place at the discretion of the Defendant Employer the Claimant’s alleged entitlement to her monthly income during suspension from duties? 4. Whether the Claimant’s former employment with the Defendant Bank enjoyed statutory flavour as to entitle her to reinstatement to her former position as senior manager? 5. Whether the Claimant’s written deposition under oath is not defective having been deposed to by the Claimant in her home as testified by her under cross examination on 11thMarch 2014? On his own part, the learned Claimant’s counsel formulated and argued the following issues for the court’s determination: 1. Whether the defendant acting by itself or through any panel constituted by it has the constitutional authority to look into or conduct investigations into criminal allegation or complaint made against the claimant of fraudulently diverting the sum of N22,251,750.46? 2. Whether the Claimant fraudulently diverted the sum of N22,251,750.46 (Twenty-Two Million, Two Hundred and Fifty-One Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty Naira, Forty-Six Kobo) belonging to the Defendant to her benefit? 3. Whether the defendant is liable in damages for unfairly dismissing the Claimant from employment? 4. Whether the Claimant in this case has proved her claim as required by law to entitle her to the judgment of the Honourable Court on the reliefs she seeks? 5. Whether the defendant has proved its counter claim? I have carefully considered the processes filed, the evidence led as well as all the arguments and submissions of the parties in this case. The issues for determination are as follows: 1. Whether the Defendant had the power to determine the allegation of fraudulent diversion of the sum of N22,251,750.46 (Twenty-Two Million, Two Hundred and Fifty-One Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty Naira, Forty-six Kobo) against the Claimant? 2. Whether the Claimant in this case has proved her claim as required by law to entitle her to the judgment of the Honourable Court on the reliefs sought? 3. Whether the Defendant has proved its counter-claim to entitle it to judgment? The facts of the case briefly put are that the Claimant, a legal practitioner, was employed by the Defendant as a legal officer on the 14th day of September, 1987. The Claimant rose to become a Branch Manager, which is a senior and highly responsible position in the Defendant’s institution. The Claimant’s performance along the line was commended at various times by the Defendant through letters of commendation. In the year 2010 however, the Defendant alleged that the Claimant had diverted contract proceeds of N22,251,750.46 (Twenty-Two Million, Two Hundred and Fifty-One Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty Naira, Forty-Six kobo) meant for its customer, Besso Integrated Nigeria Limited, to the private account of one Hon. Bestman Elenwo, the Managing Director of Besso Integrated Nigeria Limited. The Claimant averred that she did not divert the said amount of money to her personal account but rather inadvertently paid the said money into the account of Hon. Bestman Elenwo instead of that of Besso Integrated Nigeria Limited. Series of communication between the Claimant and the Defendant ensued on the efforts to recover the outstanding loan on the account of Besso Integrated Nigeria Limited. The Claimant was notified of her dismissal from the employment of the Defendant by a letter dated January 13, 2011 which she is challenged in this suit. According to the Defendant however, the Claimant was dismissed for diversion of the sum of N22,251,750.46 (Twenty-Two Million, Two Hundred and Fifty-One Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty Naira, Forty-six kobo) which was the contract sum meant for a business account into a customer’s private account which was a fraudulent act and contrary to the bank’s credit policy. Thereafter the Claimant was invited to appear before the Disciplinary Committee of the Defendant which she failed to do and was queried for the absence. The claimant was subsequently dismissed in line with the Defendant’s usual procedure and for violation of the bank’s policy on credit and lending. In considering the first issue for determination, the Claimant’s contention basically is that the Defendant’s allegation of fraudulent diversion of the contract proceeds in the sum of N22,251,750.46 (Twenty-Two Million, Two Hundred and Fifty-One Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty Naira, Forty-six kobo) is an allegation of crime which the Defendant had no power to investigate, try or punish the Claimant for. This is because according to the learned Claimant’s counsel, a conduct amounting to crime must first be a matter for the criminal tribunal before disciplinary issues could be raised. He added that when anyone is accused of a criminal offence, he should in his own interest be tried by the ordinary court of the land. He then placed his argument in the context of fair hearing by submitting that the right to fair hearing comprehends the right to be heard in open court in defence of one’s character and good name, when accused of misconduct amounting to a criminal offence. He referred the court to the cases of Federal Civil Service Commission & 2 Ors vs J.O. Laoye 2NWLR (Pt. 106) page 652 at 680, para. A, p. 707 paras. D-E, Denloye vs Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (1968) 1 All NLR 306, and Sofekun vs Akinyemi (1980) 5-7 SC. 1. Learned Claimant’s counsel further submitted that the Defendant had become the investigator, the prosecutor and the Judge in the Claimant’s case of diversion of the said contract proceeds of N22,251,750.46 (Twenty-Two Million, Two Hundred and Fifty-One Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty Naira, Forty-Six kobo). That this is against the principle of fair hearing. The consequence of this action of the Defendant, the Claimant maintains, is that the decision so taken in breach of fair hearing by the Defendant should be declared a nullity, referring to the cases of Olatunbosun vs NISER (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 25 and Newswatch Communications Limited vs Alhaji Ibrahim Atta (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) pp. 170-171 paras A-H. He stated further that when an administrative body holds disciplinary proceedings, it is not expected to act in strict practice and procedure as a court of law. It is enough if such a body acts in good faith and fairly listens to both sides before taking a decision. That they can obtain information in any way they think best, always giving opportunity to those who are parties in the controversy to correct or contradict any relevant statement prejudicial to them. In the instant case, counsel continued, the claimant was pronounced guilty of misconduct in the memo dated 3/2/2010 placing the claimant on an indefinite suspension without referring the criminal allegations made against her to the police, court or other tribunal established by law for thorough and unbiased investigation and prosecution. He referred to the case of Alhaji Abdullahi Baba vs Nigerian Civil Aviation & Anor (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 192) pp 388 at 415 paras. E-F. Learned counsel then submitted that the unlawful action of the defendant has caused irreparable damage, injury and irretrievable mischief to the claimant and breached her fundamental rights without any just cause thereby usurping the constitutional and statutory powers of the Nigeria Police. In view of this submission counsel urged the court to hold that the actions of the defendant in constituting an administrative panel as per its memo dated 3/2/2010 in a criminal matter which the police, court or tribunal has power to act and or adjudicate on and subsequently indefinitely suspending the claimant without pay from her employment and ultimate dismissal of the claimant are unlawful, ultra vires its powers under the law and under the Defendant’s Employee Hand Book and constitute a breach of the claimant’s contract of employment, unconstitutional, null and void. On his part, responding to the issue of fraudulent diversion in his reply on points of law, the learned Defendant’s counsel referred to the case of Mohammed Salihu vs Fourgerolle (Nigeria) PLC (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt. 818) 1 per Muntaka-Coomassie JCA(as he then was) where he held that: Where an employee accused of misconduct bordering on criminality admits that he actually committed the act of misconduct, the employer is entitled to discipline the employee administratively or dismiss the employee from his employment, if the employee’s conditions of service so provide, without first reporting the employee to the police for prosecution in a court of law. He further referred to the case of Attorney-General of Kwara State & Ors vs Alhaji Kike Ojulari (2007) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1016) 551, per Ogunwumiju JCA; FCSC vs Laoye (1989) (Pt. 106) 652 at 679; Arinze vs FBN (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt. 888) p. 663 at 676. Learned counsel then submitted that from the foregoing the general rule requiring an employee accused of a criminal infraction not to be dismissed until conviction by a criminal tribunal does not apply where the accused person has accepted involvement in the acts complained of. He then gave particulars of the admission of the claimant to the act of diversion complained of as contained in paragraphs 15, 17-19 of the Amended Statement of Facts Establishing Cause of Action and paragraphs 17-21 of her sworn testimony under oath (as CW1). In the said paragraphs she admitted that she inadvertently diverted the payment to a wrong account; and her further pleadings in paragraphs 18 and 19 of her Amended Statement of Facts wherein she admitted that she deliberately diverted the payment to the personal account of one Mr Bestman Elenwo. That under cross examination the claimant further admitted that she diverted the said proceeds of the contract “in the interest of the bank.” Having considered the arguments and submissions of counsel on the issue at hand, the argument of the claimant is that following the allegation of diversion of the sum of N22,251,750.46 (Twenty-Two Million, Two Hundred and Fifty-One Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty Naira, Forty six kobo) made against her, the defendant should have handed her over to the police for investigation and prosecution before a court of law, which alone had the constitutional power to try criminal allegations. To the claimant, it is only where the court of law has convicted her that the issue of disciplinary proceedings may follow. This was disputed by the learned defendant’s counsel who argued that since the Claimant had admitted to the commission of the act of diversion of the said money there was no need for any referral of the case to the police as the Defendant had the power to proceed to deal with the matter as a misconduct against the conditions of service of the Defendant. In the Amended Statement of Facts, particularly paragraph 17 thereof the Claimant averred that she did not divert the said money but rather paid it into the account of Bestman Elenwo who is the Managing Director of Besso Integrated Nigeria Limited, the company which had the Cheque issued in its name and was equally indebted to the defendant. This pleaded fact was proved in paragraph 17 of her Statement on Oath. Furthermore, in the claimant’s reply to the 2nd Amended Statement of Defence the Claimant in paragraph 4.iii thereof pleaded that the said contract proceeds of N22,251,750.46 (Twenty-Two Million, Two Hundred and Fifty-One Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty Naira, Forty-Six kobo) was inadvertently paid into the personal account of Hon. Bestman Elenwo, the Managing Director of Besso Integrated Nigeria Limited. The evidence on this is contained in paragraph 7.iii of the Written Statement on oath of the Claimant adopted on 5/6/2014. The key point here is the fact that the Claimant admitted to the payment of the money in question to the personal account of Hon. Bestman Elenwo, the Managing Director of the company which was to be paid the said amount. The question is whether the said inadvertent payment to Hon. Bestman Elenwo’s personal account was what ought to have been made in the circumstances. Under cross examination, the claimant testified as follows: Question: In para 18, you testified that “I never diverted the contract proceeds…into my private account, nor did I do any unauthorized sum. But the said sum was inadvertently paid into the personal account of Mr Elenwo, MD of Besso Integrated Ltd”. Do you concede that the said sum was inadvertently paid into another account? CW1: Yes. But I do not concede that it was diverted because it was paid into the account of the same customer. The money was to be paid into the corporate account of Besso Integrated Limited. But it was paid into the personal account of the M.D. On further cross examination the claimant responded as follows: Question: It means money meant for loan account of Besso Integrated Ltd went to the personal account of Bestman Elenwo? CW1: Yes. Question: In so doing, in allowing money into another account and not a loan account you breached the Credit Policy of Firstbank? CW1: Yes. But it was good for the bank. This evidence shows that the Claimant admitted to the payment of the money in question to the account of a customer it was not meant for. This amounts to a breach of the credit policy of the defendant. The claimant’s defence is that the payment was inadvertent. The meaning of “inadvertence”is given as “unintentional” in the The New International Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language, Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition, (2010) Typhoon Media Corporation, page 638. The Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, Revised Edition, (2007) at page 681 defines the adjective of “inadvertence”, i.e., “ínadvertent” as “1. Said of an act: not done deliberately; unintentional. 2. Not paying proper attention; heedless.” Furthermore, the said term “inadvertence” is defined as “an accidental oversight; a result of carelessness” by Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, by Bryan A. Garner, Editor in Chief, Published by Thompson Reuters, (2009). Page 827. What is clear from all these definitions of “inadvertence” and “inadvertent” is the fact that the act in question was done unintentionally or without proper attention. But going by the definition given by Black’s Law Dictionary, it could also be a result of carelessness. On the whole what the Claimant has done inadvertently in this case cannot be said to have been done unintentionally given the fact that the Claimant new exactly what she was doing. The money was not meant for the personal account of Hon Bestman Elenwo, the Managing Director of Besso Integrated Nigeria Limited; but rather it was meant for the corporate account of Besso Integrated Nigeria Limited. This is because the principle of legal personality clearly makes the two persons distinct in law. The accounts are equally distinct. See the cases of OHANENYE & ORS v. OHANENYE AND SONS LTD & ANOR (2016) LPELR-CA/OW/169/2011,Egbor & Anor vs Ogbebor (2015) LPELR-24902. NEW NIGERIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD. V. AGBOMABINI(2013) LPELR-CA/K/137/2011, TAFIDA & ANOR v. GARBA(2013) LPELR-CA/YL/24/2012, A. O. AFOLABI & ORS. v. WESTERN STEEL WORKS LIMITED & ORS (2012) LPELR-SC.29/2004. In view of this the claimant cannot claim that payment to Hon Bestman Elenwo’s account was the same as payment into the account of Besso Integrated Nigeria Limited.Therefore it is my finding that the Claimant’s act of paying the said money into the wrong account amounted to a violation of the Defendant’s practice as a banker, which act also amounted to diversion from the corporate account of Besso Integrated Nigeria Limited to Hon. Bestman Elenwo’s account. Then to the issue of whether or not the Defendant had the power to determine the employment of the Claimant without recourse to the Police and Court of law based on the allegation of fraudulent diversion.It is the position of the law as argued by the learned Defendant’s counsel that there was no need for the employer to go to the police first before the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Claimant. The cases of Mohammed Salihu vs Fougerolle-Fougerolle (Nigeria) Plc (2003), supra, and A-G Kwara State vs Alhaja Kike Ojulari (2007), supra are apposite here. See also N.E.P.A. v. Adeyemi (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1021) 315 at 332-333 Paras.D - C (CA),Federal University of Technology Akure v. DR R.A. Osemenam(2011) LPELR-4155(CA),and Dr. Adeosun Oluseyi Olalekan v. Management Board, University of Maiduguri Teaching Hospital (2012) LPELR-20099(CA).The defendant was therefore within its right to have proceeded to deal with the alleged act of misconduct of the Claimant in the form of breach of the credit policy through the deliberate payment of funds meant for one person into another person’s account. I so find and hold. The first issue is hereby resolved against the Claimant. On the second issue, the main claim of the Claimant is that her dismissal by the Defendant is wrongful. The onus is on the Claimant to prove her case on the preponderance of evidence. The claimant’s duty is to prove how the dismissal became wrongful. See Borishade vs National Bankof Nigeria Ltd (2005) LPELR-CA/PH/259/2001 where the court re-stated the guiding principle thus: It is an elementary principle of the rules of litigation that the plaintiff in the court below who alleges unlawful dismissal of his employment must prove that the dismissal was unlawful or fail. See Mba Ede v. Okufo (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt.150) 356 SC. At no stage in the proceedings in matters of this nature or on appeal does the defendant owe a duty to the plaintiff to prove any issue of the burden of the plaintiff to establish the plaintiff's claim. If the plaintiff cannot succeed on the strength of his claim he should fail. Inyang v. Eshiet (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt.149) 178 CA. Per OMAGE, J.C.A. (P. 44, paras. D-F) Also in Ajuzi vs FBN Plc (2016)LPELR-CA/OW/265/2011the Court of Appeal held that: Therefore, where an employee alleges wrongful termination or dismissal, the onus will usually be on him to prove wrongful termination or dismissal as the case may be. To do just this, the apex Court in the case of MOROHUNFOLA vs. KWARA STATE COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY (1990) 4 NWLR (PT. 145) 506 at 519 stated that in case of wrongful or unlawful termination of employment, the Plaintiff must begin first by specifically pleading the following: 1. That he is employed by the Defendant 2. The terms and conditions of his appointment including duration and termination. 3. Who can appoint and remove him 4. The circumstances under which his appointment can be terminated and 5. That his appointment can only be terminated by a person or authority other than the Defendant. In addition, it is also important to plead all relevant materials and facts upon which to hinge the Plaintiff's claim to sustain his allegations of wrongful or unlawful termination of employment. Having done this, the Plaintiff is next required to call credible evidence in proof of the pleaded facts. In the case of AMODU vs. AMODE (1990) 5 NWLR (PT. 150) 356 AT 370, the Supreme Court, per AGBAJE, JSC had this to say on the subject: "Since it is the Plaintiff's case, that his dismissal by the Defendants is not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of service, between them it is for the Plaintiff to plead and prove the conditions of service regulating the contract of service in question. It is also for the Plaintiff to plead and prove in what way the conditions of employment gave his employers a restricted right of dismissal over him. Per OHO, J.C.A. (Pp. 33-34, Paras. C-E). In her pleading and evidence the Claimant has maintained that her dismissal was wrongful. This is because the allegation against her was that she fraudulently diverted the sum of money meant for the corporate account of Besso Integrated Nigeria Ltd to the personal account of the Managing Director of the said company. According to the Claimant she did not breach the rules of the defendant bank and that even if the payment to the personal account of Hon. Bestman Elenwo was not right it was done inadvertently. The duty of the Claimant as stated in the case of Ajuzi vs FBN Plc (2016), supra, is to show how Defendant’s dismissal of the Claimantin this instance was wrongful with reference to the terms and conditions of service. In the evidence before the court, Exhibit C3 is the Employee Handbook which serves as the conditions of service regulating the relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant. Paragraphs 14 and 14.5 of the said Exhibit C3 providethe disciplinary procedures as well as the grounds for summary dismissal of an employee found to be guilty of misconduct. The claimant has argued that the defendant did not comply with clause 34 of paragraph 14 on page 59 of Exhibit C3 which provides for the penalty of a warning letter, compulsory resignation depending on degree of the offense. The Claimant’s submission is that this procedure was not complied with because throughout her over 23 years of service the defendant never issued her with any warning letter rather she was awarded with letters of commendation for excellent discharge of her duties. Reference was made by learned claimant’s counsel to the decision in the case of Isievwore vs NEPA (2002) SC (Part II) 125; S.B. Olarenwaju vs Afribank Plc (2001) FWLR (Pt. 72) 2008 ratio 8. The question here is whether the claimant’s dismissal is in compliance with the contents of Exhibit C3? The said Exhibit C3 in clause 35 of paragraph 14 on page 59 the conditions of service has provided for the dismissal of an employee where he is found guilty of a gross misconduct bordering on dishonesty or criminality. This means that the claimant does not necessarily have to be in receipt of previous warning(s) before she could be dismissed. What is required is that where the allegation involves a misconduct bordering on crime the employer must afford the employee an opportunity of fair hearing either internally through an administrative panel or externally by a judicial body before exercising his/its power of summary dismissal. See the Court of Appeal decision in Union Bank of Nigeria Plc vs Chinyere (2012) 2 NILR 41 at 64-65 paragraphs H-E and Yusuf vs Union Bank of Nigeria (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 457) 632. See also the views of the learned author in the book “Determination of Contract of Employment in Nigeria, South Africa and Zimbabwe” by Femi Aborishade (2015), published by Intec Printers Limited, Ibadan, pp. 149-151. Furthermore, in the decision of the Supreme Court in Imonikhe vs Unity Bank Plc (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1262) p. 624 at 641 the Supreme Court re-stated the established principle that where an employee is alleged to have committed a gross misconduct even bordering on allegation of crime all that the employer needs to do is grant the employee fair hearing. Once it is shown that he has been given fair hearing and the employer is not satisfied with the explanation he can be dismissed. Onnoghen JSC held in Imonikhe’s case, supra,that: Appellant was given opportunity of defending himself against the allegations leveled against him and he utilized same. He was therefore given fair hearing. So I hold the considered view that his dismissal in the circumstance cannot be set aside simply because he was not subject to criminal prosecution prior to the dismissal. See Baba v. N.C.A.T.C. (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 192) 388. The defendant’s learned counsel had submitted that the defendant’s dismissal was justified on the basis on the provisions of paragraph 15(5) of Exhibit C3 (last page 51-1st para Page 52) which states that: An employee may be summarily dismissed for certain acts of gross misconduct or negligence. Such acts include: • Proven cases of theft, fraud, dishonesty, defalcations, irregular practices in respect of cash, vouchers, records, returns, customers account or foreign exchange transactions. • Etc. Learned Defendant’s counsel then submitted that the acts of the claimant in payment of the sum of N22,251,750.46 (Twenty two million two hundred and fifty one thousand seven hundred and fifty naira forty six kobo) meant for the account of Besso Integrated Nigeria Limited into the personal account of Bestman Elenwo amounted to irregular practices in respect of customers’ accounts and therefore falls within the parameters of “gross misconduct or negligence” stipulated in paragraph 14.5 of Exhibit C3. He submitted further that the Employee Handbook, Exhibit C3, is part of the terms and conditions of service that governs the relationship between the employer and the employee, the Defendant and the Claimant, in this case. He referred to the cases of Seven Up Bottling Company vs Augustus (2012) LPELR-20873 (CA), Benin Electricity Distribution Company Plc vs Mr Napoleon Esealuka (2013) LPELR-20159 (CA). He added that in the case of New Nigeria Bank Ltd vs Obeduari (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.29), the Court held that any misconduct inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of service will justify dismissal. He continued further that in Emmanuel Nwobosi vs ACB (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 404) 658 the Supreme Court defined gross misconduct as a conduct that is of grave and weighty character as to undermine the confidence which should exist between an employer and employee entitling an employer to summarily dismiss the employee. Having considered the arguments and submissions of counsel as well as the evidence before the court it is established that the claimant admitted the payment of the sum of N22,251,750.46 (Twenty two million two hundred and fifty one thousand seven hundred and fifty naira forty six kobo) meant for the account of Besso Integrated Nigeria Limited into the personal account of Bestman Elenwo. This I have earlier on found in this judgment. The question is whether it amounted to an act of gross misconduct for which the claimant was rightly dismissed? I answer this question in the affirmative. This is because I accept the argument of the defendant that it was an act in the realm of irregular practice on customer’s account stipulated in paragraph 14.5 of Exhibit C3. Money meant for a particular customer ought to be paid in the account of that customer. If it is not paid into that account but to some other person’s account, then there is a clear case of irregularity. It does not need emphasizing that banking institutions are obliged to uphold the highest forms of ethical standards in order to safeguard the funds of depositors as well as to sustain confidence of the public in the banking system. No wonder therefore, any slightest act of irregularity can lead to erosion or undermining of confidence between the bank and its employee(s) which is the essential ingredient of gross misconduct.It is my finding that the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct and there was no need for the Defendant to have waited for the Claimant to be tried by a court of law to reach such as a decision. See Imonikhe’s case, supra. The next point is whether the Claimant was given fair hearing before the dismissal. It is trite that fair hearing is the giving of opportunity to a Claimant to be heard before he/she is dismissed. The essence is for the Defendant to hear the story of the Claimant before he/she is found guilty and punished. See FCSC vs Laoye(1989), supra, NTEWO V. UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR TEACHING HOSPITAL & ANOR (2013) LPELR-CA/C/52/2009, MSHELIA v. NIGERIAN AIR FORCE & ANOR (2014) LPELR-CA/A/117/2012. In the case of SALAMI v. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC(2010) LPELR-CA/A/203/2007the Court of Appeal, per Lokulo-Sodipe, JCA, p. 42 at paras B-D, restated the principle thus: It is settled law that, an employer can summarily dismiss an employee in all cases of gross misconduct provided that the affected employee is given fair hearing; and this is so whether the affected employee is in private employment or statutory employment. See in this regard the cases of ZIIDEEH V. RIVERS STATE CIVII. SERVICE COMMISSION [2007] All FWLR 243 at 265 - 266; and ANNAM V. BENUE STATE JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION [2006] All FWLR (Pt. 296) 843. Furthermore in the case of Imonikhe vs Unity Bank Plc (2011), supra, the Supreme Court per Rhodes-Vivour JSC held that fair hearing can be effected by means of a query and reply to same by the employee. He stated at pages 648-649 paras. F-C, as follows: Accusing an employee of misconduct, etc by way of a query and allowing the employee to answer the query, and the employee answers it before a decision is taken satisfies the requirements of fair hearing or natural justice…As regards irregular practice the respondent sent queries to the appellant for the appellant to explain: (a) His role in irregular practices in respect of a customer’s account. (b) How he made his brother claim Benue State instead of Edo State (where he comes from) so that he can be employed by the bank. The appellant answered the queries on the above, but the respondent did not find the answers satisfactory, and so he was dismissed. Can it be said that the above has to be proved in court of law. I do not think so. By the conditions of service of any organization properly so called an employer ought to be able to discipline erring employees and that was precisely what the respondent did. The evidence before the court, particularly Exhibit C9, dated 5th February 2010 shows that the Claimant was queried for being absent from disciplinary hearing. But before then Exhibit D6a dated 15th June 2009, the Claimant was queried over the diversion of the contract proceeds of N22,251,750.46 meant for Besso Integrated Nigeria Ltd. She was then given time within which to tender written explanation within a specified period. There are also Exhibits C11, C12, C14, C15 and C16 which are explanations of the steps taken by the Claimant to recover the money being owed by Besso Integrated Nigeria Limited. In particular Exhibit C16, dated 9th April, 2010 and duly signed by the Claimant along with two other officers of the Branch she was managing, gives details of the progress made in the recovery drive wherein the sum of N1,000,000.00 (One million naira only) was recovered and that more funds were expected within two weeks from that date. In addition, Exhibits D2 and D2a, dated February 03, 2010 and September 8, 2010 respectively,are Minutes of the Head Office Disciplinary Committee II Meeting all pointing to the fact that the Claimant offered explanations in writing to the allegation of diversion of the funds in question. The claimant further wrote a letter of appeal to the defendant, Exhibits C21 and C22 which all confirm the findings of the Disciplinary Committee. With all these pieces of evidence there is clear evidence that the Claimant was accorded fair hearing. This I so find and hold. With this finding and holding the claimant’s claim for unlawful dismissal fails and the reliefs sought cannot be granted. They are accordingly hereby dismissed. I now turn to the counter-claim of the Defendant. I have earlier on stated the reliefs sought by the Defendant as stated in its 2nd Amended Statement of Defence. The Counter-claim is for the court’s order on the claimant to repay the alleged outstanding loan of N16,024,203.09 (Sixteen Million, Twenty-four Thousand, Two