Download PDF
JUDGMENT Introduction The claimant filed this complaint against the defendant on 11th May 2012 seeking the following reliefs: 1. The sum of N50 Million Naira being the estimated exit package of the claimant for serving the defendant meritoriously from 2002 – 2011 August when he voluntarily resigned. 2. A declaration that the purported investigation of a phantom complicity in a fire claim is unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. A declaration that the letter of dismissal flowing from the purported ‘ambush’ investigation is null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. The sum of N200 Million Naira damages for the Ordeal of wrong accusation loss of face suffered among colleagues for being labeled an ‘infidel’. 5. Sum of N10 Million being cost of this action. Accompanying the complaint is the statement of facts, claimant’s statement on oath and copies of documents. The defendant filed its statement of defence and a counter claim together with the accompanying documents on 27th July 2012. The defendant counter claimed as follows: 1. N335,630.28 (Three Hundred and Thirty-Three Thousand, Six Hundred and Thirty Naira, Twenty Eight Kobo), being the extant and unearned amount out of the cumulative housing and leave allowances paid upfront to the defendant by the counterclaimant and which sum the defendant has since failed, refused or neglected to refund. 2. Interest on the above sum at the rate of 22% from November 3, 2011 until judgment and thereafter at 10% per annum until full liquidation of the judgment sum. 3. Cost of this action assessed at N1,000,000.00 (One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira only). The claimant filed a reply and a defence to the counter claim on 18th January 2013. Case of the claimant The claimant’s case on the pleadings is that he is a Chartered Insurance expert and was at all times material to this action an Assistant General Manager, Regional Manager (West) with the defendant company. He stated that by a letter of appointment dated April 9, 2002 the defendant offered him appointment as a Manager (Marketing) under the terms and conditions therein stipulated, which he accepted; and his appointment was confirmed by a letter dated 13th January, 2003 upon the successful completion of the probation period. The claimant averred that the defendant promoted him in June 2004 to the position of controller clients services and followed up with a l salary review by its letter of September 1st, 2005. The claimant stated that the employment with the defendant was cordial until sometime in 2010 when a fire claim was made on the defendant by IHS NIGERIA PLC, an insured of the defendant whose business was brokered by Sceptre Insurance Brokers Limited, a company which had been brokering series of insurance businesses for the defendant. The claimant stated that the said loss suffered by IHS NIGERIA PLC rattled the defendant to the point that it started seeking a scape goat to heap the blame of the loss on. The claimant stated that as a result of the good relationship between him and Sceptre Nigeria Limited by which various insurance business were secured for the defendant, the defendant laid the blame of the IHS NIGERIA PLC loss on Sceptre Insurance Brokers Limited and himself. That prior to this, Sceptre Insurance Brokers and the defendant had enjoyed mutually beneficial relationship. The claimant stated that following the claim by IHS NIGERIA PLC, the defendant issued him a query dated 10th August 2011, which was followed by a memo summoning him to face a disciplinary panel constituted by the defendant; and sensing that the defendant had perfected a grand design to put the blame of a natural loss of an insured on him, he wrote a letter dated 26th August, 2011 resigning his appointment. The claimant stated that the defendant rejected his resignation; and that he appeared before the panel once and thereafter received a letter of November 1st, 2011 dismissing him from the company on allegations of complicity and other sundry allegation. The claimant stated that he was not complicit in the circumstances leading to or after the fire claim and was also not involved in any alleged investigation. The claimant averred that he was a dormant director of Sceptre and had been so to the knowledge of the defendants who had no objection to it but actively consented to it as Sceptre was one of its viable vehicles to securing and executing its insurance business. The claimant further averred that there was no conflict of interest in the businesses of the defendant and Sceptre as the defendant is an underwriter which business was not in any way in conflict with Sceptre’s as a Broker or Agent. The claimant averred that he only carried out a duty as the marketer of the insured who requested for a correction in his premium payment on the policy. The claimant stated that the defendant is not entitled to the sum of N335,630,28 (Three hundred and Thirty Three Thousand Naira or any other sum. The claimant adopted his statements on oath. They were in the exact terms of the pleadings and he relied on his admitted documents. Under cross examination, the claimant told the court that he deposed to a statement on oath and he signed it in his lawyers office, the partner Mrs Kuforiji was there when he signed it. He told the court that he worked with the defendant for 11 Years and some months and he rose top the position of Assistant General Manager/ Regional Manager. The claimant told the court that he came in contact with the staff handbook which he read but not in detail. He stated that the provisions of the handbook are binding on the defendant and all the staff and that it is a contract between him and the defendant. The claimant told the court that an Insurance Broker serves as an intermediary between the Insurance Company/Underwriter and the insuring public called clients; and that a Broker must always act in the best interest of the client. The claimant told the court that he is expected to abide by the rules and ethics of the profession. He denied knowledge of the rule against conflict of interest in the insurance industry, and stated that he was not aware the defendant had such a rule. The claimant admitted that he is a Director, shareholder and founding member in Sceptre Insurance Brokers and he informed the court that the company is an Insurance brokerage firm that transacts insurance business. The claimant confirmed that Sceptre Insurance Brokers was founded at the same time he was an employee of the defendant. He admitted that at the same time he was Director of Sceptre Insurance Brokers, he was also an employee of the defendant. Upon being shown the incorporation documents dated 24th August 2007, he confirmed that he is described as an Executive Director with 1 million shares. The claimant also confirmed that out of the 5 million share capital, his wife, his sons and himself hold 4.5 million shares. He admitted that he did not state in his depositions that he is a Director and shareholder of Sceptre. The claimant told the court that Sceptre is a broker to IHS, and that he wrote a letter as the Managing Director of Sceptre reporting the defendant for failure to pay IHS claims. The claimant admitted that he wrote a memo directing transfer the premium paid for workmen’s compensation on to fire when there was no record of premium paid on fire insurance. The claimant confirmed that the defendant’s position was that there was no payment of premium when the fire occurred, while his position when he wrote the claim is that it is payable. He admitted that his position and the defendant’s position on the claim of IHS fire incident of 31st December 2010 are in conflict; and he agreed that if no premium is paid, there is no entitlement to indemnity. The claimant admitted that he was issued a query on his involvement with Sceptre and he responded. He told the court that he appeared before the disciplinary committee and he was heard; and he thereafter gave notice of his resignation which was rejected by the defendant. The claimant told the court that the defendant told him the reason his resignation notice was rejected was that he had a disciplinary issue pending before the disciplinary committee, and he did not contest the decision. He confirmed that his allowances were paid upfront. He said he was not told to refund the unearned salaries and allowances. The claimant then closed his case. Case of the defendant The defendant’s case on the pleadings is that it employed the claimant as a Marketer by letter dated April 9, 2002. The claimant rose through the ranks and eventually attained the position of Assistant General Manager, in which position he functioned as the Regional Manager (West); and he remained in this position until his dismissal. The defendant averred that the claimant’s letter of appointment and its company policy as set out in the staff handbook constitute the employment contract and that the claimant was at all times fully aware of the terms and conditions of his employment, and fully conscious of the company policies. The defendant stated that the claimant elected to breach the provisions against conflict of interest, fraud and dishonesty. The defendant averred that the claimant, promoted, incorporated and ran Sceptre Insurance Brokers Limited, an insurance brokerage firm, while still in its employment and introduced Sceptre to it pursuant to his duties as a marketer. The defendant stated that until his dismissal and unknown to it, the claimant remained the contact person and the manager of its relationship with Sceptre; that at the same time, the claimant was a director of Sceptre and a signatory to its account. The defendant stated that it discovered in the course of reviewing Sceptre’s file that some of the cheques issued by Sceptre to it in the course of the two companies’ relationship were actually signed by the claimant. The defendant stated that the claimant knew or ought to know that he was putting himself in a position of conflict of interest when he promoted and ran Sceptre Insurance Brokers Limited while he was still its employee. The defendant stated sometime in April 2010, IHS Nigeria Plc, through Sceptre’s brokerage incepted a combined Fire/Special Perils and Burglary Insurance Policy with it in April 2010 for a total premium of N7,169,034.73 (Seven Million, One Hundred and Sixty-Nine Thousand, Thirty-Four Naira and Seventy-Three Kobo). The defendant further stated that IHS also incepted in June 2010 a combined Workmen’s Compensation & Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy (WC) with a premium of N7,405,804.22 (Seven Million, Four Hundred and Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Four Naira and Twenty-Two Kobo). Between November and December 2010, IHS paid a total premium of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) only on the WC policy, out of the N7, 405,804.22 payable, leaving a balance of N5, 405,804.22 (Five Million, Four Hundred and Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Four Naira and Twenty-Two Kobo). The defendant averred that nothing was paid on the combined Fire/Special Perils and Burglary Insurance Policy. The defendant further averred that contrary to all known insurance principles and ethics, the claimant leveraging his position as regional manager, and the relationship manager between it and Sceptre, instructed the Head of Underwriting, Mudashiru Bello by an internal memorandum to swap the deposit on premium paid by IHS on the WC policy to that of Fire and Burglary on the grounds that the IHS was no longer interested in continuing with the WC policy. The defendant stated that on 6th January, 2011 the claimant presented a letter from IHS dated December 21, 2010, purporting that in the course of analysis of their payments on the insurance premium, they discovered Sceptre had erroneously made payments meant for the Fire and Special Perils policy, No. 156431/FO23036 on the WC/GPA policy, No. 156472/WCO3167 and directed Sceptre to make the necessary correction. The defendant stated that the letter was contrived and sent 26 days after it was written and 2 days after the claimant had instructed the Head of Underwriting to swap the payments, in an attempt to lend credence to the instruction. The defendant averred that although IHS claimed in their letter of December 21, 2010 to Sceptre that the payments on the WC policy were erroneously made, each of these payments was duly acknowledged by its official receipt showing clearly on which policy each payment was made. IHS was therefore not deceived as to the policy on which the payments were being made. The defendant stated that all of this were deliberately contrived and orchestrated by the claimant in cahoots with IHS, his client as a broker, to deceive and defraud it into paying indemnity to IHS for a fire that occurred at HIS’s warehouse before the company had made any premium payments on the Fire and Special Perils policy and therefore, before the policy had come into effect. The defendant averred that by a letter mistakenly dated 4th January, 2010 and delivered to its office on 11th January, 2011 by Sceptre, IHS informed its brokers, Sceptre, of a fire incident at its warehouse at Mile 2, Lagos and demanded that the broker commence necessary actions immediately which meant that it was expected to indemnify IHS for the loss. The defendant stated that it was put on its enquiry given that on 4th January, 2011 the claimant had directed the defendant’s Head of Underwriting to swap the deposits after the fire had occurred at IHS’s warehouse; and it also became clear that IHS’s letter to Sceptre delivered by the claimant on 6th January, 2011, 6 days after the fire, was deliberately contrived by IHS and the claimant to foist indemnity liability on it in spite of the fact that as at the time of the fire, IHS had offered no consideration whatsoever on the fire policy, but had only made deposits on the WC policy. The defendant stated that in light of the emergent picture of an attempt to fraudulently obtain indemnity for IHS by the claimant and IHS, it commissioned a firm of Loss Adjusters, Apex Loss Adjusters Nigeria Limited to thoroughly investigate the claim, determine and advise it on its liability if any. The defendant stated that the loss adjusters upon concluding the investigation made copious findings against IHS and the claimant and concluded that the loss was not recoverable; they stated that the “mischievous way and diabolical means of purported premium payment on the fire policy after knowledge of the loss occurrence; suggestive of fraudulent concealment and non-disclosure of material fact”. The defendant averred that the claimant as page (iv) of the loss adjuster’s report showed, was and remained the broker’s contact person throughout the investigation despite being in its employment. The defendant stated that following the Loss Adjuster’s report, and the claimant’s breaches of its policies, the Managing Director issued a query dated August 10, 2010 to the claimant asking him to explain his role in swapping premium for workmen compensation with fire & burglary; and his role as an underwriter as well as a broker to IHS. The defendant stated that the claimant responded to the query on August 12, 2011. Dissatisfied with the answer, the claimant through an internal memo dated 24 August, 2011 was invited to appear before the disciplinary committee and two other employees who had a role to play in the transaction. The defendant stated that the disciplinary hearing was on 25th August, 2011 and the claimant appeared and was afforded fair hearing on all the issues, just like the other employees. The defendant further stated that at the hearing, the claimant admitted his involvement with Sceptre, confessing that he had a 30% stake in the insurance broking firm and that his wife owned a part of the company. The defendant stated that the claimant acknowledged that he did not disclose his stake in Sceptre to the Management until the investigation into his involvement in Sceptre started and explained at the hearing that he joined Sceptre in June 2010 because he saw it as an opportunity to meet his marketing targets for the Company. That the claimant denied knowledge of the fire incident as at the time he swapped the premiums although he suspected foul play at the way his client was conducting the transaction; and admitted that he did not report his suspicions and was negligent in his handling of the IHS insurance. The defendant stated that twenty-four hours after his appearance before the disciplinary committee the claimant gave a notice of resignation on 26th August, 2011 which it rejected pursuant to Clause 2.15b of the Handbook and promptly informed the claimant. The defendant averred that upon conclusion of proceedings, the disciplinary committee found the claimant guilty of negligence and recommended his dismissal; that based on the recommendation, the claimant was dismissed on November 1, 2011. The defendant/counter claimant averred that the claimant/defendant to counter claim had been paid upfront allowances totalling N927,750 (Nine Hundred and Twenty Seven Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira only) that comprised his annual housing allowance N900,000 (Nine Hundred Thousand Naira) and annual leave allowance, N27,750 (Twenty-Seven Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty Naira) also paid upfront annually. The defendant stated that the claimant has refused to refund the unearned allowances in the sum of N335,630.28 (Three Hundred and Thirty-Three Thousand, Six Hundred and Thirty Naira, Twenty Eight Kobo) even though he is aware that he is not entitled to the same and a letter of demand had been written to him on January 4, 2012. The defendant averred that by virtue of clause 13.4 of the contract of employment, the claimant forfeited all severance entitlements, and is not owed any salaries as he was paid his October salary. The defendant called Opara Chidiadi Progress (DW) HR Practitioner. He adopted his statement on oath. It was in terms of the pleadings and he relied on the defendant’s admitted documents. DW informed the court that the claimant was Assistant General Manager/Regional Manager West and was a Marketer. DW stated that a conflict of interest is anything that will stand against the interests of the defendant company, and that conflict of interests precludes a marketer from bringing a business from anywhere unless it is disclosed. DW told the court that he knows Sceptre Insurance Brokers as a brokerage firm doing business with the defendant; and that Sceptre introduces policies to the defendant for insurance cover. He said Sceptre brought IHS policies to the defendant and there was exchange of premium. When shown exhibits C5, C6, C7, DW told the court that they are debit notes that show that Scepter brought in policies but do not show any payments were made. DW informed the court that IHS is a client of Sceptre, and Sceptre introduced two policies of IHS to the defendant, Fire & Burglary and Workmen Compensation. DW told the court that the defendant did not get any benefits from the relationship with Sceptre. The defendant then closed its case. Final Address The defendant’s final address is dated 14th March 2018 and filed the same day. The claimant’s final address is dated 10th October 2018 and filed the same day. The defendants reply on point of law is dated 19th October 2018 and is filed on 23rd October 2018. Counsel adopted their respective final addresses. Learned counsel to the defendant submitted the following issues for determination: 1. Whether, from the state of pleadings and evidence, the claimant has proved his entitlement to the reliefs sought against the defendant. 2. Whether the defendant has proved its counterclaim on the balance of probabilities as required by the law. He submitted that the claimant has the burden to place before the court the terms and conditions of employment and the manner they were breached citing Okoebor V Police Service Commission [2003] 12 NWLR (Pt 834) 444, Dekom V Judicial Service Commission Plateau State [2010] LPELR – 4031 (CA). He submitted that the claimant failed to plead and establish relevant facts and particulars in support of his claims and did not lead any credible evidence to substantiate the suit. Learned counsel further submitted that the claimant’s statement on oath is incompetent and liable to be expunged by this Court having not been signed before the commissioner for oaths referring to Sections 6 and 13 of the Oaths Act CAP )1 LFN 2004, Sections 112 and 117 (4) of the Evidence Act, Buhari V INEC [2008] 12 SC (Pt 1)1 at 243- 246, Erokwu & Anor V Erokwu [2016] LPELR-41515 (CA). It was his contention that the claimant told lies under oath and is not a credible witness citing Yabatech V M.C.& D Ltd [2014] 3 NWLR (Pt 1395) 616 at 664. Counsel finally submitted that the claimant has admitted the counter claim and urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s suit and grant all the reliefs sought in the counterclaim. Learned counsel to the claimant submitted the following issues for determination: 1. Whether by his terms of employment as encapsulated in Exhibit CW1 letter of employment and Exhibit ‘OAF1’ the Staff Handbook the claimant was entitled to voluntarily resign his Appointment without any countermanding dismissal by the defendant relying on non-existent infractions of the Terms of Employment. 2. Whether the claimant having disclosed his interest in Sceptre brokers and used same to the applause and benefit of the defendant, he could by the same token be in conflict with his employer simply because a claim arose and not a benefit. She submitted that the issues that need to be specifically traversed are those that have a bearing on the principal questions for determination, and they were traversed citing Messers Lewis & Peat (NRI) Ltd VA.E.Akhimien [1976] 6 SC 159. Learned counsel further submitted that a statement on oath is not to be in the form of an affidavit as both are distinct and different form one another referring to Samuel Lambert & Anor V Chief ASBC Okujagu [2015] All FWLR (Pt 808) 665-666. Learned counsel submitted that parties are bound by the terms freely entered into in a contract citing NNPC Pension Ltd V Vita Construction [2016] 47 WRN PG 144; and that the employment contract provides for voluntary resignation by the claimant that cannot be countered with a dismissal. It was counsel’s submission that the claimant was not given adequate opportunity to defend the allegations against him having attended the disciplinary hearing only once and therefore he was denied a fair hearing, citing Uzoho V Task Force on Hospital Management [2004] 5 NWLR (Pt 867), Akintola V Oyo State Sports Council [2006] 42 WRN 179. Learned counsel further submitted that the defendant failed to follow its disciplinary procedure of warning, suspension, termination and dismissal; and that the evidence adduced shows that the defendant has gone into beneficial transactions with Sceptre on the issue of conflict of interest and cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. It was her submission that the claimant’s dismissal cannot be justified because he was not given adequate opportunity to defend the alleged misconduct citing Uzoho v. Task Force on Hospital Management supra. She then urged the court to grant the claimant’s claim and dismiss the counter claim in its entirety. Decision I have carefully considered all the processes filed, the documents in support, authorities and arguments canvassed by counsel in this matter. The issues for determination in this judgement are: (i) whether the defendant has established the reason for which it summarily dismissed the claimant; (ii) whether on the pleadings and evidence the claimant ought to be entitled to the reliefs sought; (iii) whether the defendant is entitled to the counterclaim. The law is settled that when an employee complains that his employment has been unlawfully terminated, he has the burden not only to place before the court the terms and conditions of the employment but the manner in which the said terms or conditions were breached by the employer. See Okoebor v Police Council [2003] 12 NWLR (Pt 834) 444, Idoniboye-Obu v NNPC [2003] 2 NWLR (Pt 805) 589. The claimant has put in evidence his letter of offer of appointment (exhibit C1), letter of confirmation (exhibit C2), query (exhibit C11), notice of resignation (exhibit C13), rejection of resignation (exhibit C14), letter of dismissal (exhibit C15) and other service documents. I will begin with the preliminary issue raised by learned counsel to the defendant on the competency of the claimant’s statement on oath. Specifically that the statement on oath was not made at the Registry of this Court, and was not signed before an appropriate person with the requisite authority to receive same. The claimant’s evidence on this issue is reproduced verbatim: Yes, I deposed to a statement on oath. I signed it. I signed it at my lawyer’s office. The partner Mrs Kuforiji and myself were there. However, on record are two statements on oath of the claimant that he swore to on the 25th July 2012, and 18th January 2013 respectively before the Commissioner for Oaths which he adopted. The evidence of the claimant is in respect of “a statement on oath”. The question is which of the statements on oath was signed in the chambers of counsel? This was not elicited in cross-examination, and is therefore unknown. It is not the duty of the court to speculate on which of the depositions failed to meet the competency test. It is my considered view that in the absence of identification, the justice of the situation is that none of the statements on oath should be expunged from the records. Rather, there is a presumption of regularity in both statements on oath by virtue of Section 168 of the Evidence Act 2011; and I so hold. Learned counsel to the defendant has submitted that the claimant’s traverse in its reply and defence to counter claim is not specific but general and has by implication admitted the averments in several paragraphs of its statement of defence. I do not agree with defence counsel as the issues that have been joined have been specifically traversed by the claimant and are therefore not admissions. See Messers Lewis & Peat (NRI) Ltd VA.E.Akhimien [1976] 6 SC 159 While an employer is not bound to give any reason for doing away with the services of its employee, where a reason is given the law imposes on him a duty to establish the reason to the satisfaction of the court. See Olatunbosin v NISER Council [1988] 1 NSCC 1025; [1988] 3 NWLR (Pt 80) 25. The claimant has alleged that his dismissal flowing from the investigation is wrongful. The letter of dismissal is reproduced as follows: November 1, 2011 Mr Oluseyi Abiodun Fajuyitan Guinea Insurance Plc Ikeja Regional Office 6, Yomi Oshokoya Street Ikeja, Lagos Dear Mr Fajuyitan LETTER OF DISMISSAL Following the conclusion of investigation into your complicity in the handling of the Fire/Special Perils Claims of IHS Nigeria Limited and your ownership and involvement with Sceptre Insurance Brokers in such a manner that compromises your interest in Guinea Insurance Plc as a staff; you are hereby dismissed from the services of the company. You are required to hand over all the company’s properties in your possession to the bearer of this letter. Your salary to date would be paid into your account and you will forfeit any entitlement from the company. Yours faithfully, For: Guinea Insurance Plc Ekere Bassey Head Human Resources Having given the reason “complicity in the handling of the Fire/Special Perils claims of IHS Nigeria Limited and your ownership and involvement with Sceptre Insurance Brokers in such a manner that compromises your interest in Guinea Insurance Plc as a staff”; the onus is on the defendant to establish that the claimant’s complicity and his ownership and involvement with Sceptre Insurance Brokers that breached its policy on conflict of interest. In establishing its justification for the dismissal of the claimant, the defendant has put in evidence the staff handbook (exhibit OAF1), Sceptre Insurance Brokers Memorandum and Articles of Association, Form CAC2 & CAC7 (exhibit OAF2), Minutes of the Disciplinary Committee (exhibit D4), letter of demand (exhibit D7), response to query (exhibit D9), Loss Adjusters Report (exhibit D10), claimant’s petition (exhibit OAF3), and other insurance documents. I will begin with the issue of the claimant’s handling of the Fire/Special Perils Claims of IHS Nigeria Limited. The findings of the loss adjusters in their investigation report (exhibit D10) are that: there was “default of premium payment as at the date of loss connoting contractual and statutory breach; a mischievous way and diabolical means of purported premium payment on the fire policy after knowledge of the loss occurrence suggestive of fraudulent concealment and non-disclosure of material fact; fraudulent representation of quantum of loss and subject matter of claim in breach of utmost good faith as cardinal principles of insurance contract”. The claimant was queried (exhibit C11) on his role in swapping premium for workmen compensation with fire & burglary after a claim occurred, and on his role as underwriter as well as broker to IHS. His response was not satisfactory and he was invited to appear before the disciplinary committee. The claimant has admitted in his pleadings and oral evidence that he appeared before the disciplinary committee and he was heard. I find that the disciplinary procedure was adhered to; and the report of the disciplinary committee (exhibit D4) shows that the claimant was given a fair hearing. Fair hearing simply means “hear the other side”, See Imonikhe V Unity Bank Plc [2011] 12 NWLR (Pt 1262) 624 at 640. The disciplinary committee found the claimant “guilty of gross negligence in the handling of IHS fire claim and also his dual role in the relationship between IHS and Guinea Insurance Plc constituted conflict of interest”. The committee therefore recommended that the claimant be dismissed. On the claimant’s ownership and involvement with Sceptre Insurance Brokers, the defendant in its pleadings averred that the claimant breached its policy on conflict of interest. It is necessary to reproduce the provisions of clause 3.5 of the staff handbook as follows: No employee shall directly enter or maintain a relationship with another business or individual for financial benefit when such relationship is in conflict or prejudicial to the interest of the company. The company requires employees to avoid any conflict between their personal interest and the interest of the company in dealing with suppliers, customers, dealers and all other organizations or individuals, doing or seeking to do business with the company. Under cross examination, the claimant admitted that he is a Director, shareholder and founding member of Sceptre Insurance Brokers, a firm that transacts insurance business. He admitted that Sceptre Insurance Brokers was founded at the same time he was an employee of the defendant. There is no burden in law on the defendant to prove any fact admitted by the claimant. See Section 125 of the Evidence Act 2011, Tijani Jolasun V Napoleon Bamgboye [2010] 18 NWLR (Pt 1225) 285. The incorporation documents (exhibit OAF2) reveal that the claimant is Executive Director with 1 million shares, and his wife and sons are Directors and shareholders of the company. The report of the disciplinary committee is that the claimant acknowledged that he did not disclose his stake in Sceptre Insurance Brokers to the defendant until the investigation into his involvement with Sceptre began. A conflict of interest arises in the workplace when an employee has competing interests or loyalties that either are or potentially can be at odds with that of the employer. A conflict of interest is any activity, financial investment, interest, association or relationship that conflicts with an employee’s independent exercise of judgement concerning his/her employment. In this instance, I find that the claimant incorporated, ran and managed Sceptre Insurance Brokers while he was in the defendant’s employment. I also find that he introduced Sceptre Insurance Brokers to the defendant, ostensibly pursuant to his duties as a marketer and did not disclose his relationship with Scepter Insurance Brokers. This was completely against the interest of the defendant, and the claimant ought to have known that a conflict of interest situation would arise. From the totality of the evidence adduced, the claimant’s admissions before the disciplinary committee and this court, I find that the claimant engaged in actions considered conflict of interest when he introduced Scepter Insurance Brokers (his own company) to provide brokerage services to the defendant (his employer). This can be seen from his own admission under cross examination that there was a conflict in his position that the IHS fire claim is indemnifiable, and the defendant’s position that there was no premium paid by the insured to result in indemnity liability. I hold that the claimant breached the defendant’s policy on conflict of interest and the terms of his employment contract. This was a case of gross misconduct. Summary dismissal is one of the sanctions provided in the staff handbook for violation of the defendant’s conflict of interest policy, and gross misconduct. I am satisfied that the defendant has justified the reason it summarily dismissed the claimant to the satisfaction of the court. I so hold. By the provisions of the staff handbook, an employee who is dismissed “shall have no other liability to him than payment of his accrued salary to date”. The claimant has made a claim for N50 Million as exit package when he voluntarily resigned on August 24, 2011. His notice of resignation was not accepted and the reason was conveyed to him in the defendant’s mail exhibit C14 stating that he had a pending disciplinary case. Clause 2.15b of the handbook gives the defendant company the right to refuse a resignation notice where the staff has a case pending before the disciplinary committee. The claimant admitted he had read the handbook. He knew he was being investigated and the outcome had not yet been completed but chose to put in his letter of resignation contrary to the terms of his employment contract. I hold that the defendant was right in refusing to accept the claimant’s resignation. It acted in accordance with the employment contract when it wrote exhibit C14. The claimant is not entitled to the reliefs of N50 Million he is seeking having forfeited his benefits due to his dismissal. The defendant has counter claimed for the sum of N335,630.28 (Three Hundred and Thirty-Three Thousand, Six Hundred and Thirty Naira, Twenty Eight Kobo), being unearned allowances and upfront payments. The claimant/defendant to counter claim admitted that his allowances were paid upfront and that he was not told to refund the unearned salaries and allowances. It is trite law that facts admitted require no proof. The letter of demand for the sum of N335,630.28 is also in evidence as exhibit D7. There is no evidence that the claimant responded to the letter or challenged the figure. The counter claim is therefore unchallenged and is deemed admitted. See Suleiko Communications V Access Bank Plc [2016] LPELR 41321 (CA). I hold that the defendant/counter claimant has proved the counter claim. The claimant/defendant to counter claim is ordered to pay the sum of N335,630.28 (Three Hundred and Thirty-Three Thousand, Six Hundred and Thirty Naira, Twenty Eight Kobo) to the defendant /counter claimant within 30 days. Thereafter, the sum shall attract interest at the rate of 10% per annum. For all the reasons given above, the claimant has failed to prove his case. It is hereby dismissed with costs of N100,000.00. The counterclaim succeeds with costs of N100,000.00 awarded the defendant/counter claimant. Judgement is entered accordingly. _____________________________ Hon Justice O.A.Obaseki-Osaghae