Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims By his General Form of Complaint dated and filed 15/8/16, the Claimant sought the following reliefs against the Defendant - 1. A declaration that the purported dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant via a letter of dismissal dated 16/6/16 is wrongful for want of fair hearing. 2. An order of Court setting aside the purported dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant via a letter of dismissal dated 16/6/16. 3. =N=445,156 being one month gross salary in lieu of Notice. 4. =N=1,000,000.00 in damages for wrongful dismissal. 5. The cost of this action assessed at =N=1,000,000.00 only. Or in the alternative 1. A declaration that the Claimant's resignation from the employment of the Defendant took effect from 16/6/2016. 2. An order of Court setting aside the purported dismissal of the Claimant from the employment of the Defendant via a letter dated 16/6/16. 3. =N=1,000,000.00 damages for wrongful dismissal. 4. The cost of this action assessed at =N=1,000,000.00 only. 2. Case of the Claimant The Claimant opened his case on 13/2/17 and testified as CW1. He adopted his written deposition dated 15/8/16 as his evidence in chief and tendered three documents which were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh PO1 – Exh PO3. The Claimant further adopted his reply statement on oath dated 3/2/17 as his further evidence in chief. The case of the Claimant as revealed from his evidence in chief is that he was a staff of the Defendant until he resigned his employment on 15/6/16; that he joined the establishment on 1/9/13; that one of his responsibilities as a staff of the Defendant is contribute to the business development of the Defendant by sourcing for potential clients for the company and that it is a long established trade custom and industry practice in the financial solutions & investment industry (which the Defendant belongs) that staff who secures business and clients for the company are usually rewarded and motivated by way of commission from the fees due to the company from such business/clients brought to the company and such commission is without prejudice to staff monthly salaries; that while in the employment of the Defendant, he brought in some major clients/transactions for the company; that upon the introduction of these major clients to the Defendant, he thought it fit to approach the Managing Director of the Defendant (which he did few times) on the need to discuss and have some understanding as to what is payable to him as commission upon final execution of the Company’s mandate but that the Managing Director was becoming evasive, though always assuring him verbally that he would get his commission which made him very uncomfortable as the Defendant was unwilling to discuss the subject of his commission with him. Claimant added that at some points the Managing Director of the Defendant suddenly became very hostile to him and this prompted him to resign his employment with the Defendant via a letter dated 15/6/16 which was delivered to and received by the Defendant on 16/6/16; that shortly after he delivered his letter of resignation, the Defendant in turn and on the same day issued him a letter purportedly dismissing him from the employment of the Defendant even though he had effectively resigned his employment; that he was never issued any query, neither faced any disciplinary panel nor accorded fair hearing to defend himself on the allegation made against him before he was issued a letter of dismissal; that the real motive behind his dismissal was to deny him his legitimate and just commission due to him from the Clients he introduced to the Company. The Claimant in his Reply to the Defendant’s Statement of Defence, denied the averments of the Defendant in its statement of defence and stated that the agreements to pay him commission were reached by the Claimant, Defendant and the Client in question during the preliminary meeting held by all parties in pursuance of the transaction and that it was also decided at those meetings that payment be made to the Claimant directly from source on the successful transaction as he is the one who brokered the deal; that these agreements were reached orally and not in writing; that he had not in any way tarnished the image of the Defendant nor conducted himself in a manner inconsistent with his position. Under cross-examination, the Claimant stated that he had some issues with the Defendant before he resigned; that he was never paid any commission while working with the Defendant; that his letter of appointment did not state his entitlement to commission. Claimant confirmed that he had since cashed the cheque mentioned in Exh. PO4 but contended that the computation of his benefits as shown in one of the cheques was wrong. 3. Case of the Defendant The Defendant opened his case on 16/5/17 and called one Jadesola Shawana as DW1. The witness adopted his witness deposition dated 26/9/16 as his evidence in chief and tendered three documents which were admitted in evidence and marked Exh. D1 – Exh. D3. The case of the Defendant is that the Claimant was employed as a Trainee Associate within the Financial Advisory Service (FAS) Unit of the Defendant; that it is one of the cardinal responsibilities of every employee of the Defendant to contribute to its business development for the purpose of achieving its set objective while the Defendant as a custom usually rewards any employee who shows outstanding performance in his duties in addition to the monthly remunerations; that a cordial employer/employee relationship existed between it and the Claimant until he tendered his letter of resignation dated 15/6/16; that the Claimant admitted in his letter of resignation that he (Claimant) demanded that payment be made to him directly from source on a successful transaction with a client without a prior knowledge and permission of his employer; that based on this admission, the Claimant was dismissed from his employment as the Defendant considered the Claimant’s action as stated in his letter of resignation as an act of economic sabotage and a direct conflict with the core values and operation mode of the Defendant; that the action is in clear contravention of the Claimant’s terms of employment as contained in the Staff Handbook of the company. The Defendant denies ever having an agreement with the Claimant to reward him financially for doing his job other than what was stated in his terms of employment. The Defendants denied that the Claimant ever introduced major clients/transactions to the Company. The Defendant contended that the Claimant was still under its employment at the time of his dismissal as the period of notice of resignation had not lapsed and that the Defendant was right in dismissing the Claimant from its employment as his (Claimant’s) conduct has tarnished the image of the company and would have a negative repercussion from the Defendant’s client which the Claimant contacted contrary to his position as an employee; that upon the issuance of a letter of dismissal to the Claimant, a cheque for the payment of salary arrears due to the Claimant up to the date of his dismissal was immediately issued to him by the Defendant’s financial control unit; that the issue of any bonus payment outside the terms of employment of the Claimant or any staff member is entirely at the pleasure and discretion of the Defendant thus the Claimant does not have any legitimate/just commission due and owed to him by the Defendant. 4. Submissions of Learned Counsel At the close of trial, learned Counsel to the Defendant filed a Final Written Address of 11 pages on 17/4/18 wherein he set down 2 issues for determination thus - 1.Whether the Defendant was seised of power to dismiss the Claimant during the period he had give notice of resignation, which period had not expired and 2. Has the claimant made out a case for wrongful dismissal in the circumstance of this case, such that he is entitled to damages. In arguing issue 1, the learned Counsel submitted that Exh. PO1 required the Claimant to give one month’s notice in writing or pay one month’s salary in lieu of notice in order to determine his employment and that the Claimant chose to give one month’s notice in writing; that the Claimant remained in the in the service/employment of the Defendant till the expiration of this period; that the fact that the Claimant has submitted his letter of resignation was of no effect as the dismissal took place within the period of his one month notice; that the was no need to request for a special hearing in respect of the Claimant’s gross misconduct as it was admitted by the Claimant in Exh. PO2 and that an act of gross misconduct merits summary dismissal without notice and wages as held in the case of UBN v. Ogboh [1995] 2 NWLR (Pt. 380) 647. On the second issue, Counsel argued that despite the Claimant being dismissed by the Defendant, he was paid his basic salary in full up till the date contained in the letter; that there was no scintilla of evidence led by the Claimant to justify his claims as his prayers are speculative, ungrounded and void of evidence since his particulars of claims were not specifically pleaded. Counsel then urged the Court to hold that the Claimant was rightfully dismissed by the Defendant and also to dismiss the claims of the Claimant with substantial cost. Learned Counsel to the Claimant filed a 10-page final written address on 13/11/17 wherein he set down 3 issues for determination thus - 1. Whether a dismissal of an employee can be valid without fair hearing. 2. Whether Disciplinary actions can be taken against an employee who has resigned from employment and 3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the award of damages claimed against the Defendant. In arguing these issues, the Claimant’s counsel submitted that an employee cannot be validly dismissed for alleged gross misconduct without fair hearing and placed reliance on the cases of Olatunbosun vs. Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research 91988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 25 at 52; A.R. Momah vs. Central Bank of Nigeria (2007) 14 NWLR (Pt.1055) 508; Otukadejo vs. Niger Dock Nigeria PLC (2015) 52 N.L.L.R (Pt 173) 63 NIC and Maliki vs Michael Imodu Institute for Labour Studies (2009) ALL FWLR (pt 491) 979. Learned Counsel argued that the Claimant was first confronted with the allegation which led to his dismissal in Exh. PO3 which is the Letter of Dismissal itself and that the Claimant was never accorded fair hearing. Counsel further argued that disciplinary actions cannot be taken against an employee who has resigned from employment that Exh. PO3 (i.e. letter of dismissal) was given to the Claimant after he served the Defendant with his letter of resignation i.e. which takes effect immediately and that he had ceased to be an employee of the Defendant at the time he was purportedly dismissed. He cited the cases of Jombo vs. PEFMB (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt 945) 457; Ajayi Obe vs The Executive Secretary Family Planning Council of Nigeria (1975) 3 SC. Counsel finally submitted that before damages can be awarded, there must be a wrong committed to compensate the aggrieved party for the loss suffered; that it is trite that where there is a right, there is remedy; that the dismissal of the Claimant presupposes a gross misconduct on his part and that the Claimant was not confronted with this allegation thus infringing on his right to fair hearing and the wrongful dismissal entitles him to relief of damages. Counsel they urged the court to grant the reliefs sought and enter Judgment in favour of the Claimant. 5. Decision I have read and understood all the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side in this case. I heard the testimonies of the witnesses called at trial, watched their demeanor and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted in this case. I also heard the oral submissions of both learned Counsel. Having done all this, I narrow the issues for the just determination of this case down as follows - 1. Whether the dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant was wrongful or not. 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought. The simple facts of this case as deducible from the evidence in chief and evidence under cross examination as well as exhibits tendered and admitted are inter alia that the Claimant, then an employee of the Defendant resigned his appointment by a letter to that effect dated 15/6/16 which letter was delivered to and received by the Defendant on 16/6/16. However, rather than accept the said letter of resignation, the Defendant by a letter dated 16/6/16 dismissed the Claimant from its employment. The reason offered by the Defendant for its action was violation of the terms and conditions of employment as contained in Claimant's letter of employment as well as ''contravention of Section 2.9 of the Staff Hand Book on Conflict of Interest''. On issue 1, it is a trite law that an employer retains the right to discipline any of its workforce at all times and during the pendency of the employment relationship. The range of discipline contemplated vary and without doubt include issuance of warning which may be verbal or written, issuance of query, placement on suspension with or without pay, termination of employment or even outright dismissal. A caveat to any or all of this is that in all situation, the terms and conditions of engagement must remain in focus. Once an employee ceases to be in an employment of an employer the power to discipline such an employee also ceases. Now, in the instant case, Exh. PO1 is the document creating employment relationship between the parties. It contains the terms of engagement. I should point out very quickly that there is no other document before the Court respecting the relationship between the parties. In other words, this Court will not go outside of that exhibit in making any finding in this case. By Exh. PO1 and under the clause on Termination of Appointment, Claimant is expected to give '' ... one month's notice in writing of your intention to resign your appointment or pay one month's salary in lieu of notice''. Exh. PO2 is the Letter of Resignation in which the Claimant gave a one month notice. It is dated 15/6/16. The one month notice of intention to resign would have thus expired on 14/7/16. The position of the law is that where an employee gives a notice of resignation of appointment until the expiration of that notice period he/she remains in the employment of the employer. He remains entitled to all remunerations, allowances and benefits during the notice period. In much the same vein he remains subject to the disciplinary power, control and other administrative direction of the employer. In other words, during the pendency of the notice period, an employer may issue warning, query and impose appropriate sanctions on such an employee. Such sanction no doubt includes dismissal. Again, let me reiterate the fact that the rationale for this is that during the period of notice to resign, the employee continues to draw his salaries. I therefore find and hold that although the Claimant tendered his letter of resignation giving a one month notice, he remained a staff of the Defendant until the expiration of the one month notice on 14/7/16. Secondly, I hold that during the notice period, the Claimant remained subject to the disciplinary power of the Defendant. Now, could the dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant by Exh. PO3 be said to be wrongful? It is a trite law that an employer is not at liberty to state reason for dispensing with the services of his employee. See Union Bank v. Salaudeen(2017) LPELR (CA). Where however reasons for doing so are given, it is imperative that the reasons be substantiated. See Fakuode v. O.A.U.T.H (1993)5 NWLR (Pt. 291) 47. Claimant was dismissed by the Defendant by Exh. PO3 dated 16/6/16. The first 4 paragraphs of that letter are instructive and germane to this decision and I thus reproduce them as follows- ''Your letter dated June,15, 2016 refers (see attached). ''You are hereby dismissed from the employment of Ventures & Trusts Limited (V&T) with immediate effect, for demanding a payment from source on successful transaction closure from a client of the Company, as a full time employee of V & T without prior knowledge and permission of your Line Head or the Managing Director. ''Your letter stated, '' ... 33.333% (to be paid to me from source) of the agreed 2.5% fee due to be paid to V & T by BFCL. I have discussed this position with the project promoter''. ''This act of yours is in conflict with the terms of your employment and therefore, is a contravention of Section 2.9 of the Staff Hand Book on Conflict of Interest''. From the above, it is apparent that the dismissal of the Claimant was based primarily on breach of the terms of his employment and contravention of the Staff Hand Book on conflict of interest. I have carefully perused Claimant's letter of appointment - Exh. PO1. I find no provision in it which barred the Claimant from '' ... demanding a payment from source on successful transaction closure from a client of the Company, as a full time employee of V & T without prior knowledge and permission of your Line Head or the Managing Director''. Parties are bound by the terms and conditions of engagement, see Asikpo v. Access Bank (2015) LPELR-25845 (CA) and the Court will always respect sanctity of contract between parties. See Josku (Nig.) Limited v. Ijumu Local Government & Ors. (2018) LPELR (CA). The fact remains that it is not the duty of a Court of law to write for or re-write contractual agreement for parties. Rather, a Court simply and as much as possible give effects to what parties agreed to. The Defendant had made reference to a portion of the Staff Hand Book on conflict of interest which the act of the Claimant allegedly contravened. Unfortunately, the Defendant did not tender any such document at trial. Thus, this Court is not afforded opportunity of verifying whether indeed the conduct of the Claimant contravened any such document which the Claimant was aware. The bottom line of my finding is that, there is no legal basis for the dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant. I find that the reason for the dismissal was not substantiated by the Defendant and that there is no provision in the terms and conditions of engagement of the Claimant which forbade him from the act complained of by the Defendant. Consequence on this finding and holding therefore, I set here set aside the dismissal of the Claimant via a letter of dismissal dated 16/6/16. Since the dismissal was to take immediate effect, I here convert the said dismissal to termination of employment of the Claimant by the Defendant without notice. I further direct the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=445,156.00 being a one month salary in lieu of notice of termination of his employment in accordance with his contract of employment. The Defendant is further ordered to pay the sum of =N=100,000.00 to the Claimant as the cost of this proceedings. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as stated in this Judgment, 1. I declare the dismissal of the Claimant as wrongful and here set aside the dismissal of the Claimant via a letter of dismissal dated 16/6/16. 2. I here convert the said dismissal to termination of employment of the Claimant by the Defendant without notice. 3. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=445,156.00 being a one month salary in lieu of notice of termination of his employment in accordance with his contract of employment. 4. The Defendant is further ordered to pay the sum of =N=100,000.00 to the Claimant as the cost of this proceedings. All the terms of this Judgment shall be complied with within 30 days from today. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge