Download PDF
JUDGMENT Introduction and claims The claimant filed this complaint against the defendant on the 11th May 2016 seeking the following reliefs: 1. Declaration that the dismissal of the claimant by the defendant vide its letter dated 11th November, 2015 is in breach of contract, ineffectual unlawful null and void and of no effect whatsoever. 2. Declaration that the dismissal of the claimant by the defendant from its employment vide its letter dated 11th November, 2015 is in breach of Natural Justice and the claimant’s Constitutional right to fair hearing guaranteed by Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and is therefore unlawful, unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. N100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million, Naira Only) being damages for wrongful dismissal. 4. Interest at the rate of 25% from 11th November 2015 until judgment; and at the rate of 10% on the judgment debt from the date of judgment until the whole amount be fully liquidated. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE 5(a) An Order directing the reinstatement of the claimant to her employment; 5(b) An Order directing the defendant to pay to the claimant her arrears of salary and allowances from 12th November 2015 until judgment is delivered. Accompanying the complaint is the statement of facts, claimant’s statement on oath and copies of documents to be relied upon. The defendant entered appearance and filed its statement of defence and accompanying processes on 11th July 2016. The claimant filed a reply to the statement of defence on 23rd August 2016. The parties having joined issues, the matter went to trial. Case of the claimant The claimant’s case on the pleadings is that she was an employee of the defendant until the 11th of November 2015. The claimant stated that the defendant is an Institution engaged in the conduct of the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) Examination. She averred that the defendant by its letter dated 29th June 2014 offered her indefinite term employment to the post of “IELTS and General Exams Officer” in its Lagos Office with the proviso that she may be required to travel on British Council business from time to time. The claimant stated that she accepted the offer; and that the employment which took effect from 30th June 2014 has a retirement age of 60 years and is governed by the Federal Laws of Nigeria. The claimant stated that following the successful review of her performance at the end of her probationary period, the defendant by its letter dated 25th November 2014, confirmed her appointment on the existing terms and conditions. The claimant further stated that in the course of her work, she travelled at different times to several venues to conduct IELTS examinations in Ibadan, Port-Harcourt and also conducted examinations in Lagos. The claimant stated that she had successfully conducted about 40 IELTS Exams prior to 29th August 2015. The claimant stated that she was sent to Ibadan to conduct the 28th August 2015 IELTS Examination and that it went well and she brought all the scripts back to Lagos Office, only to find out that every staff in her Department IELTS including the Line Manager had been placed on suspension while another Line Manager had temporarily taken over. The claimant stated that the Line Manager gave her a hint about what was happening and was warned not to engage in any telephone conversation with any of her affected colleagues and her boss. She stated that she complied and worked alone in the Department together with the new Line Manager, Mrs. Barikis and other ad-hoc staff from 31st August to 11th September 2015 on which date she was also instructed to proceed on suspension by letter. The reason for the suspension as stated in the letter was to enable the defendant carry out further investigations into “a report of a possible case of malpractice associated with the IELTS test of 29th August 2015, held in Ibadan” for which she was the Test Day Officer. The claimant stated that she was invited by e-mail to appear, and did appear before the investigating panel of 3 persons on the 23rd September 2015. In accordance with the procedure she was accompanied by a senior staff, Mrs. Tomi to the panel. The claimant averred that she first sought to know from members of the panel the wrongdoing or allegation to which she was to respond to and they replied that she was not accused of anything; that the panel was a fact-finding one and wanted to hear from her to aid their investigation into a report of a possible case of malpractice associated with the IELTS test of 29th August 2015, held in Ibadan where she officiated. The claimant stated that no report was shown to her or given to her and the panel members put a few questions to her which she answered. The claimant averred that her suspension was extended two more times by e-mail, the last of which she received on 9th November 2015 directing her to report for the final decision on the 11th November 2015. She reported and was handed a letter titled “Notice of Dismissal” by which she was dismissed with effect from the 11th November 2015. The claimant stated that the defendant’s decision to dismiss her as stated in the letter was based solely on the disciplinary meeting held on 23rd September, 2015. The letter notified her of her right of appeal and also stated the 3 possible grounds of appeal. The claimant averred that she wrote an appeal dated 23rd November 2015 and the defendant in its letter dated 22nd December 2015, gave its final decision upholding her dismissal and informed her that she had “no further right of appeal”. The claimant stated that basing her dismissal on the meeting of 23rd September 2015 to which she was invited and attended as a witness and as part of the investigation into a possible case of malpractice is a violation of the procedure outlined by the defendant itself in its letter of 11th September, 2015 and explained orally by the panel and it is in breach of contract. She further stated that the defendant’s action in dismissing her based on the meeting of 23rd September 2015 is in gross violation of the procedure set out in the defendant’s letter of 11th September, 2015 to the effect that “... no decisions will be made until after the investigation is complete and you have been given a chance to present your case in a disciplinary meeting,” and that it amounts to breach of contract. The claimant stated that her dismissal on the facts and circumstances of this case, without being afforded a hearing or fair hearing is in breach of Natural Justice and in violation of her right to fair hearing guaranteed by Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution. The claimant stated that before joining the services of the defendant, she obtained a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc) Degree in Biochemistry with a Second Class (Upper) Division, from the Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, Ogun State of Nigeria. As a Federal Government Scholar, she also obtained a Masters Degree in Environmental Engineering and Project Management from the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom (U.K). She stated that she went through series of rigorous written examination, tests and oral interviews before the defendant employed her. That having regard to the “indefinite term employment” given to her, she had prepared herself for a career service with the defendant and had hoped to retire at the contractual age of 60 years. The claimant averred that she was born on 5th December 1986 and was only approximately 29 years of age at the time of her unjust dismissal. She stated that while in service her total remuneration per annum was N2,830,000.00 and that as a result of the actions of the defendant, she has suffered loss and damages including advancement and promotion prospects for 31 Years as particularized amounting to N87,730,000.00 and general damages of N12,270,000.00 amounting to a total of N100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira). The claimant in reply averred that it is not true that she appeared before the disciplinary panel and gave evidence in her defence as no allegations or accusations were made against her requiring a defence before the investigation panel that she attended on 23rd September, 2015. The claimant stated that she is unaware of any disciplinary panel, neither was its decision made available to her on 11th November 2015 or at any other time. She stated that she did not have the sole responsibility for the conduct of the examination. That invigilators, venue staff and security personnel employed by the defendant were always on ground to do their jobs in conjunction with any particular Test Day Officer sent from Lagos to Ibadan for the assignment. The claimant further stated that it is not true that two written papers were completed and collected for a single candidate with the name and the same candidate number. She averred that it is not her duty (or any test day officer’s) duty to book the venue hall, and that the practice is that test papers are always scanned in Lagos upon return. The claimant stated that the office is not open on Sundays. The claimant testified in support of her case. She adopted her statements on oath. They were in the exact terms of the pleadings and she relied on her admitted documents. Under cross-examination, the claimant told the court that the defendant employed her as General Examinations Officer. She confirmed that she was the Test Day Officer on the 29th August 2015 at Ibadan, and that her responsibility was to ensure that the test was conducted in accordance with her employers guidelines. The claimant told the court that she submitted the exam scripts on the Monday following as is the norm. She said she was not expected to take a scanner to Ibadan. The claimant told the court that she was not suspended immediately she returned to Lagos but that along the line she was. She confirmed that she was not the only one suspended and that she was told the reason for her suspension. The claimant confirmed that her employer has a right to disengage her after a fair hearing, and she admitted that she could not work for the defendant indefinitely. The claimant informed the court that she was issued a notice of suspension and confirmed that she was invited to face a panel after her suspension and she attended the panel with a colleague Mrs Tomi. The claimant informed the court that the reason for her panel visitation was in connection with the issue in the suspension notice. She said she was asked questions and thereafter left. The claimant told the court that she subsequently received a notice of dismissal and she was given a right to appeal which she exercised. She told the court that she was notified of the outcome of her appeal. The claimant told the court that she is not aware that the defendant has the discretion to short circuit the disciplinary procedure depending on the gravity of the offence. She informed the court that the disciplinary process was not followed in her case. The claimant said she was not sure if she would work until she attains the age of 60. The claimant then closed her case. Case of the defendant The case of the defendant on the pleadings is that it offered the claimant indefinite term employment on 29th June 2014 to the post of IELTS and General Exams Officer. The employment was subject to the terms and conditions stated in the code of conduct, staff handbook, disciplinary policy and procedure as well as policies affecting staff in operation at the time of her employment. The defendant stated that the claimant accepted the offer of employment on 29th June 2014 and her employment was confirmed on 25th November 2014 with the understanding that the terms and conditions set out in the contract of employment dated 29th June 2014 continued to apply. The defendant stated that one of the job requirements of an IELTS Exams Officer is travelling to some States in Nigeria for the purpose of conducting the IELTS test and that the claimant at all material times performed the role of the Test Day Officer for the duration of her employment. The defendant averred that the claimant was the Test Day Officer in charge of the 29th August 2015 IELTS test that took place at Ibadan and she had the sole responsibility to ensure the test was conducted in total compliance with the highest IELTS test standard and transparency. The defendant stated that stated that after the test, it discovered lapses and malpractice in the conduct of the test. The integrity and standard was compromised in the course of the test and in other to protect its reputation conducted an investigation into the immediate and remote cause of the malpractice that occurred during the test. The defendant stated that in accordance with the contract of employment and its disciplinary procedure, the claimant was suspended from work with pay for ten (10) working days with subsequent extensions to enable it conduct the investigation into the malpractice that occurred and to know the level of involvement of the claimant in the malpractice. The defendant averred that the investigation revealed that there were numerous oversights and lapses in the conduct and supervision of the IELTS test on 29th August 2015 as follows: two written exam papers were completed and collected for a single candidate with the same name and same candidate number; the claimant was derelict in the planning for the test day as she did not book the correct venue hall; contrary to standard procedure of scanning the test papers immediately after the conduct of the IELTS test, the claimant failed to take a scanner along with her to Ibadan; the papers were not scanned the same day and were only scanned when she returned to Lagos on Monday 31st August 2015; the claimant was in custody of the papers from Saturday until Monday when she brought them to the Lagos office; the numbers of candidates who sat for the exams were more than the number of candidates who registered for the exam; the claimant gave out 134 questions papers as against 133 candidates who registered for the exam. The defendant stated that the claimant was taken through the disciplinary steps stated in the Notice of Suspension dated 11th September 2015 and she was invited to a disciplinary meeting on 23rd September 2015 to explain her actions or inactions and present any mitigating evidence. The defendant stated that her suspension was purely for investigative purpose as no decision was taken until after the disciplinary panel had given her the opportunity to defend herself by giving evidence in denial of any involvement in the examination malpractice which occurred on 29th August 2015 in the course of conducting the IELTS test at Ibadan. The defendant averred that the disciplinary process complied with its disciplinary policy and procedure. That the claimant was invited to attend the proceedings of the Disciplinary Panel which comprised the Director Business Services, the Compliance Manager and the Human Resources Manager and make explanation in her defence. The claimant was given the liberty to be accompanied to the disciplinary meeting by the Head of Education, Mrs Adetomi Soyinka a senior staff of her choice. The defendant stated that the claimant exercised her right to fair hearing when she appeared before the Disciplinary Panel and gave evidence in her defence, and she was informed of every step taken which culminated in her dismissal. The defendant stated that the Disciplinary Panel found the claimant negligent and guilty of gross misconduct and communicated its decision to her through a Notice of Dismissal dated 11th November 2015 in line with the disciplinary policy and procedure. The defendant further stated that the Notice reminded the claimant of her right to appeal the decision of the Panel which she did by presenting her appeal to the Country Director on 23rd November 2015. Upon reviewing the appeal, it communicated its decision refusing the appeal to the claimant on 22nd December, 2015. The defendant stated that in dismissing the claimant it complied with the terms of the contract of employment and its Disciplinary Policy and Procedure. In safeguarding the claimant’s right to fair hearing, the defendant stated that it ensured she was always informed of the next line of action in the disciplinary process and she was given the opportunity to state her case. The defendant stated that it did not violate its disciplinary procedure neither did it breach the contract of employment between it and the claimant. That it arrived at its decision to dismiss the claimant after a thorough investigation and after giving the claimant the opportunity to present her case in a disciplinary meeting on 23rd September 2015. The defendant called two witnesses, Ughelu Chinenye Linda (DW1) Head H.R. and Barikis Usman-Oderinu (DW2) Head IELTS Operations for Nigeria. They both adopted their statements on oath. They were in the exact terms of the pleadings. DW1 confirmed that the documents they rely on are the same documents the claimant relies on. DW1 under cross-examination informed the court that she was one of the three members of the panel that interviewed the claimant. She said Mr Sule was not on the panel because he was not required to and that the panel kept a record of the proceedings but she did not have it with her. DW1 told the court that at the time the panel was set up, the defendant was sure of a malpractice. She said there were more answer scripts than number of candidates and that the documents showed that there was malpractice. DW1 stated that the panel was set up to establish the claimant’s role in the malpractice and that as part of the investigation, the claimant was invited to the disciplinary panel and was accompanied by the Director of Education. She said the claimant was asked questions about what happened on the test day in Ibadan and she was given an opportunity to respond. DW1 told the court that the situation was handled internally in accordance with the defendant’s policies. She said she was not in Ibadan on the test day neither were the other two members of the panel. DW2 under cross-examination told the court that a malpractice occurred in Ibadan. She stated that she was not there and did not witness it. She said a team member reported it to her and that Mr Sule who was the immediate boss of the claimant was on suspension at the time. She said she was deployed to the Section to oversee it and that she is still there. DW2 informed the court that the claimant arrived with the examination materials on Monday. She confirmed that the office is closed on Saturdays and Sundays and that the expectation was for the test to be conducted on Saturday and the papers brought to the office on Monday. DW2 disagreed that there is a difference between the standard and the conduct of an examination. DW2 told the court that there were two papers for one candidate with the same number, and that there were more question papers given out than required. She said she discovered this herself. DW2 told the court that the test day officer will have booked the venue a long time before in advance but does not fix the date of the exam. She said two small halls were used instead of one large hall for the exam. She admitted that she did not see the halls but she said she saw the documents. DW2 denied that there was a conspiracy to drive out the claimant. DW2 told the court that the claimant failed to adequately supervise the venue staff and that the test was compromised. DW2 informed the court that she was not a member of the panel that investigated. The defendant then closed its case. Final address The defendant’s final address is dated 22nd January 2018 and is filed the same day. The claimant’s final address is dated 20th June 2018 and is filed the same day. The defendant’s reply on point of law is dated 3rd July 2018 and is filed on 4th July 2018. Counsel adopted their respective addresses and also orally addressed the court. Learned counsel to the defendant submitted the following issues for determination: 1. Whether in the circumstances of this case, the termination of the claimant’s employment by the defendant was in compliance with the claimant’s employment contract? 2. Whether in the circumstance of the case and considering the evidence led before this Honourable Court, the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought? It was his submission that on the evidence adduced, the claimant has failed to prove her case. He argued that the claimant’s employment was terminated in accordance with the employment contract, and that the defendant followed the procedure contained in the disciplinary policy manual in terminating the employment of the claimant. He submitted that the claimant was given an opportunity to be heard in the course of the disciplinary proceedings and therefore, there was no infraction or breach of her right to fair hearing guaranteed in section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). Learned counsel submitted that the claimant is not entitled to the damages claimed but only entitled to the sum that is equivalent to one month’s notice being the amount she ought to have been paid in lieu of notice and any other legitimate entitlements due to her at the time the employment was brought to an end. He submitted that the claimant cannot be reinstated to her position in the defendant as her employment is not one with statutory flavour. Learned counsel to the claimant in response submitted the following issues for determination: 1. Whether the dismissal of the claimant by the defendant vide its letter dated 11th November 2015 is in breach of contract. OR 2. Whether the dismissal of the claimant by the defendant from its employment vide its letter dated 11th November 2015 is not null and void by having been carried out in breach of Natural Justice and or the claimant’s fundamental right to fair hearing as guaranteed by Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. 3. Whether the defendant has not failed to adduce legal, relevant and credible evidence in defence of the claimant’s case which therefore stands uncontradicted and uncontroverted. 4. Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. He submitted that the dismissal of the claimant by the defendant is in breach of the employment contract, and is a nullity having been carried out in breach of natural justice and the claimant’s fundamental right to fair hearing as guaranteed by Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. Learned counsel argued that the defendant has failed to adduce legal, relevant and credible evidence in its defence and therefore the claimant’s case is uncontroverted. It was his further submission that the defendant’s letter of suspension is ultra vires the issuer Lucy Pearson, and ought to have been issued by the claimant’s Manager, Yemi Sule, and that the investigation is ultra vires the 3 member panel having regard to the specific provisions in exhibit C7 conferring the necessary vires on the Manager, Mr. Sule. He prayed the court to grant all the claimant’s reliefs and enter judgement in her favour. Decision I have carefully considered all the processes filed, the evidence led, the written submissions, arguments and authorities canvassed by Counsel in the final addresses in this matter. The issues for determination in this judgement are: (i) whether the defendant complied with the Disciplinary Procedure Policy; (ii) whether the claimant was given a fair hearing; (iii) whether the defendant has established the reason for which it summarily dismissed the claimant. The law is settled that when an employee complains that his/her employment has been unlawfully terminated, he/she 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. As required, the claimant has placed before the Court her Offer of Indefinite Term Employment (exhibit C1), Notice of Suspension (exhibit C2), Notice of Dismissal (exhibit C3), Employee Handbook (exhibit C6), Disciplinary Policy and Procedure (exhibit C7). There is no dispute that the claimant was the test day officer sent to Ibadan to conduct the 29th August 2015 IELTS Examination. The evidence adduced is that the defendant discovered after the test that integrity and standard was compromised in the conduct of the test and in order to protect its reputation, conducted an investigation into the immediate and remote cause of the malpractice that occurred during the test. The claimant was then placed on suspension. The claimant has complained that the procedure adopted by the defendant in dismissing her was in breach of the Disciplinary Policy and Procedure (exhibit C7) and a denial of her constitutional right to a fair hearing. The law is that he who asserts must prove. See Sections 131 (1) & (2) and 132 of the Evidence Act 2011, Calabar Co-operative Ltd V Ekpo [2008] 1-2 SC 229 at 255, Elegushi v Oseni [2005] 14 NWLR (Pt 945) 348. At this juncture, it becomes necessary to reproduce some of the general principles in the defendant’s Disciplinary Policy and Procedure that are relevant to this judgement in order to have an overview of the disciplinary process, and to enable a determination of whether the defendant complied with its procedure. General Principles • The employee must be given a reasonable amount of time to prepare for the meeting and should be provided in advance of the meeting with copies of all the documents and/or evidence that will be presented at the meeting. • No disciplinary action will be taken until the case has been fully investigated to the reasonable satisfaction of the British council. • At all stages, the employee will be advised of the nature of the complaint against him/her and will be given an opportunity to state his/her case in the disciplinary meeting before any decision is made. • Each step and action will be taken without unreasonable delay. • The timing and duration of the meetings will be reasonable. The member of staff must take all reasonable steps to attend the disciplinary hearing. If the member of staff fails to attend any disciplinary hearing and does not provide a reasonable explanation for that failure, the hearing may continue in the member of staff's absence. The failure to attend in those circumstances may itself constitute misconduct, warranting disciplinary action under this procedure. • Suspension: The British Council reserves the right to suspend the employee on full pay at any time during the disciplinary proceedings if reasonably required. Such suspension will be for a period long enough to allow the relevant manager to carry out a proper investigation and/or resolve any disciplinary proceedings, but will not normally last for more than ten days (subject to availability of managers, witnesses and/or investigating officers and the particular circumstances). In the case of suspension, a letter should be sent to the employee setting out the reasons for the suspension and confirming that they continue on full pay. It is important to state in this letter that the suspension is purely for investigative purposes and no decision has been made in relation to the disciplinary proceedings. In cases involving UK – appointed staff, suspension must first have the authority of Head HR PER. For all other staff, the most senior manager in the office can take this decision. • The British Council retains the right in its absolute discretion to miss any stage of the disciplinary procedure should the matter be serious enough in the relevant manager’s opinion to warrant a written warning, a final written warning, demotion or dismissal, having regard amongst other things to the seriousness of the conduct or poor performance, any past disciplinary history which is still active, length of service, the likelihood of effective corrective action by the employee and the extent to which the concerns have been notified to the member of staff other than through this procedure. The claimant was placed on suspension by a letter dated 11th September 2015 (exhibit C2). The letter is reproduced below to enable a determination of whether there was compliance with the disciplinary policy. Dear Busayo, Notice of Suspension Following a report of a possible case of malpractice associated with the IELTS test of 29th August 2015, held in Ibadan, a decision been reached to carry out further investigations. As the test day officer in charge for that test, you are hereby suspended for the period of investigation effective today Friday, 11th September 2015. The suspension period is ten (10) working days (in the first instance) with pay. During this period of suspension, we do not require you to work. As part of the investigation, we will invite you to a disciplinary meeting to explain your actions or inactions (if any) and how it might have contributed to the situation and also to present any mitigating evidence. The details (date, time and scope) of the meeting will be communicated in due course. The suspension is purely for investigative purposes and no decisions will be made until after the investigation is complete and you have been given a chance to present your case in a disciplinary meeting. The hearing will be in line with the British Council’s disciplinary procedure found in the attached document. In line with procedure, you have a right to be accompanied to the meeting by a colleague or representative of the staff association. Following the interview, the final decision will be communicated to you appropriately. At any point within this process, you may seek counselling through the Employee Assistance Programme, details are attached. Yours sincerely Lucy Pearson Director Business Services British Council, Nigeria, I find the letter of suspension to be in compliance with the defendant’s disciplinary policy and procedure. Learned counsel to the claimant has argued in final address that her Line Manager Mr Yemi Sule should be the ‘initiator and active participant’ in the disciplinary process, and that the disciplinary process was not in accordance with the Policy that stipulates that: In all cases of poor performance and less serious cases of misconduct, managers will handle the issue by informal means first. If informal action does not bring about the necessary improvement, or the misconduct is sufficiently serious, staff may be formally disciplined and even dismissed. Informal Discussions Before taking formal disciplinary action, you should always try to resolve the matter informally first. Only where informal discussions and monitoring have not brought about the desired improvement, or where the matter is sufficiently serious, should you move to the first stage of formal disciplinary action. STAGE 1: First Written Warning STAGE 2: Final Written Warning STAGE 3: Dismissal or action short of dismissal The Policy as stipulated is for managers to handle ‘poor performance and less serious cases of misconduct’. In my view, a possible case of exam malpractice is a serious case of misconduct that the manager cannot handle by informal means. The claimant’s evidence is that her line manager Mr Yemi Sule was on suspension and that she had a new line manager Mrs Barikis who she worked with from 31st August to 11th September 2015. How could Mr Yemi Sule who was on suspension be the initiator of the disciplinary proceedings as submitted by the claimant’s counsel when she had a new line manager who testified as the 2nd defence witness (DW2)? In any event, one of the general principles of the Disciplinary Policy and Procedure is again reproduced below for ease of reference: British Council retains the right in its absolute discretion to miss any stage of the disciplinary procedure should the matter be serious enough in the relevant manager’s opinion to warrant a written warning, a final written warning, demotion or dismissal, having regard amongst other things to the seriousness of the conduct or poor performance, any past disciplinary history which is still active, length of service, the likelihood of effective corrective action by the employee and the extent to which the concerns have been notified to the member of staff other than through this procedure. By this provision, it is not mandatory that in a disciplinary hearing the defendant must follow through all the stages. The defendant has the discretion to skip any of the stages taking into account the seriousness of the infraction or allegation against the employee; and I so hold. In this instance, I find that the defendant’s fear of a possible case of exam malpractice capable of having an adverse effect on its reputation was serious enough to skip or miss any stage of the disciplinary procedure. The claimant has alleged that she was not given the opportunity to present her case in a disciplinary meeting; and that she was invited by email to appear before the investigation panel on the 23rd September 2015 as a witness and as part of the investigation. The claimant did not place before the court the email inviting her to enable a determination of the purport of the invitation, specifically whether she was invited to appear before an investigative panel as a witness, or a disciplinary panel/meeting. The letter suspending the claimant clearly stated that “as part of the investigation, we will invite you to a disciplinary meeting (underlining mine) to explain your actions or inactions (if any) and how it might have contributed to the situation and also to present any mitigating evidence”. The letter also informed the claimant of her “right to be accompanied to the meeting by a colleague or representative of the staff association”. There can be no doubt that upon receiving the email, the claimant knew she was being invited to a ‘disciplinary meeting’ as she had been so informed by the defendant in the letter suspending her. By the claimant’s own evidence she was accompanied by a senior staff Mrs Tomi to the meeting thereby exercising her right to be accompanied to the meeting by a colleague in line with procedure. Under cross-examination, the claimant told the court: Yes, I was invited to face a panel after my suspension. I attended the panel with a colleague Mrs Tomi. The reason for the panel visitation was in connection with issue in the suspension notice. I was asked questions after which I left. I find from the evidence that the claimant was invited to the disciplinary meeting as conveyed to her in the letter suspending her. She attended the meeting knowing that it was in respect of the possible case of exam malpractice, and she answered the questions put to her by the panel. How then can she allege that she was not given a fair hearing? The Supreme Court in the case of Imonikhe v Unity Bank Plc [2011] 12 NWLR (Pt 1262) 624 has held that fair hearing simply means ‘hear the other side’; and that once the appellant answered the queries but the respondent did not find the answers satisfactory, the respondent can dismiss the employee. I find that the claimant was given a fair hearing at the disciplinary meeting. I hold that in the process of dismissing the claimant, the defendant complied with its Disciplinary Policy and Procedure. It is the law that an employer is not bound to give any reason for terminating the appointment of its employee but where the employer gives a reason 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 Disciplinary Policy and Procedure under the heading Gross Misconduct states that: “If, after the investigation, it is confirmed that an employee has committed an offence of the following nature (the list is not exhaustive), the normal consequences will be dismissal without notice or payment in lieu of notice.” The list of offences includes serious breach of the Code of Conduct, committing a serious breach of British Council Policy, showing gross negligence in the performance of the job. The disciplinary panel after hearing the claimant found that she demonstrated poor performance and negligence in the discharge of her duties in breach of the IELTS Exam Standards. The decision of the panel was a dismissal of the claimant. In line with the procedure, the claimant was informed of the defendant’s decision by letter dated 11th November 2015 reproduced as follows: Dear Busayo, NOTICE OF DISMISSAL I am writing to inform you that following the disciplinary meeting held on 23rd September, 2015 of British Council between yourself and the panel comprising of the Director Business Services, Compliance Manager and the Head of Human Resources, a decision has been reached. In consideration of the evidence, you demonstrated poor performance and negligence in the discharge of your duties. Your actions were in breach of the IELTS Exam Standards, and your behaviour contravenes acceptable standards of conduct. Your actions contravene the organizations Code of Conduct and constitute gross misconduct. Therefore, you are hereby dismissed. The dismissal is effective today Wednesday, 11th November, 2015. You have the right to appeal against this decision. Should you decide to appeal, please write to Connie Price: connie.price@ng.britishcouncil.org within 10 working days of receiving this notice. An appeal may be made on the following grounds: New evidence has come to light which would have materially affected the decision/your treatment. You do not dispute the facts but wish to challenge the disciplinary penalty. You may cite new surrounding or mitigating circumstances. You cite a procedural fault which materially affected the decision/treatments you have received. Yours sincerely Connie Price Country Director British Council, Nigeria. The claimant appealed the decision to dismiss her but it was refused on the grounds that the appeal did not present any facts or evidence that met the grounds for an appeal. I hold that the claimant was lawfully dismissed in accordance with the Disciplinary Procedure Policy. See Lawrence Azenobor v Bayero University Kano [2009] 17 NWLR (Pt 1169) 96 at 108, Borishade v NBN [2007] 1NWLR (Pt 1015) 217, Ajayi v Texaco Nigeria Ltd [1987] 3 NWLR 62. I am satisfied that the defendant has established the reason it summarily dismissed the claimant. The claimant has alleged that by reason of her dismissal she has suffered and is still suffering loss and damages including advancement and promotion prospects as she had hoped to retire at the contractual age of 60 years. She has made a claim for general damages under this head in the sum of N12, 270,000.00 and N87,730,000.00 as emoluments for 31 years. The claimant under cross-examination confirmed that the defendant has a right to disengage her after a fair hearing, and she admitted that she could not work for the defendant indefinitely. The claimant is not entitled to an award of general damages having failed to establish the injury or wrong done to her by the defendant. The claimant’s counsel in his final address to the Court withdrew the alternative reliefs 5(a) and 5(b). It is hereby struck out accordingly. For all the reasons given above, the claimant has failed to prove her case. It is hereby dismissed with costs of N25,000.00 awarded the defendant. Judgement is entered accordingly. _______________________________ Hon Justice O.A.Obaseki-Osaghae