Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims The Claimant by his General Form of Complaint, statement of facts and other frontloaded processes filed on 5/8/16 sought the following reliefs against the Defendant - 1. A Declaration that the summary dismissal of the claimant for unsubstantiated allegation of Gross Misconduct by the Defendant Company is wrongful, unlawful, unjust, wicked and offends against the rule of fair hearing and international best practice. 2. An Order that the claimant be paid all his accrued salary emoluments and benefits from the time of his dismissal till the date of delivery of Judgment and with 10% interest thereon after judgment until payment is made. 3. An Order that the Defendant write a letter of apology to the Claimant for tagging him a thief and sentencing his career for life. 4. The Claimant also claims General Damages in the sum of =N=5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira Only) for wrongful dismissal which occasioned psychological torture, emotional imbalance trauma, shame , humiliation, mental agony, stress, stigma of a thief and sentences his career. 5. The cost of this action at =N=1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira Only). The Defendant reacted by filing its memorandum of appearance, statement of defence along with all requisite frontloaded processes. 2. Case of the Claimant The Claimant opened his case on 25/9/17 when he testified in chief, adopted his witness depositions dated 5/8/16 and 6/2/17 as his evidence in chief and tendered 11 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted without objection and marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C11. An additional document was tendered during cross examination, admitted without objection and marked as Exh. C12. The case of the Claimant as revealed from his pleadings and evidence in chief is that he was employed by the Defendant on 10/9/99 and rose to become the Assistant Team Leader in the Defendant Ikorodu branch in Lagos State; that he was a very hard working diligent person dedicated to his job who have a very clean record with the Defendant and when his job was found satisfactory, he was rewarded by the Defendant for a job well done; that on the 16/10/15 while was on night shift duty using electric machine to bring goods from the production floor to the finishing goods store, when his partner Mr. Oloruntoba Emmanuel approach him that he is not feeling fine that he want to take his rest and left his Forklift outside that store; that some security men came looking for one of the Defendant casual staff and the Claimant joined them in quest for the search of Friday Ugbogbo who was later found at about 3:00 am same day; that when Friday Ugbogbo was asked by the security men on duty who sent him to move the pallet of Soap and he told them the Claimant sent him and the security that came to search for Friday Ugbogbo told other security men that he Claimant should join hand with him in search of Friday Ugbogbo and out provocation he hit Friday Ugbogbo; that on the 22/10/15 he was dismissed by the Defendant company without following the due process of the law; that the Defendant never set up any disciplinary committee or panel where the Claimant would defend himself; that he was not given a fair trial and/or a fair hearing before he was found guilty of ignoble act of attempted theft and subsequently dismissed from service and that in line with the Defendant’s terms and conditions of service, the Claimant lodged an appeal against his wrongful summary dismissal to the defendant company all of no avail. Under cross examination, CW1 testified that he used to drive Folk lift for Defendant; that no Premier soap was found near his Folk lift; that Friday Igbogbo was his co-worker; that the Premier soap was found in the store of the Defendant; that together with security men he went to report the finding to Mr. Mgbechi and Mr. Ayandoyin; that Mr. Ugbogbo Friday dropped the pallet of Premier soap in the store; that he saw Mr. Friday Ugbogbo when he dropped the pallet of Premier soap in the store; that Ugbogbo informed the Supervisor that he (Claimant) sent him to carry the Premier soap but he denied that he did not send him; that because he was annoyed he slapped Friday Ugbogbo; that it was not his Folk lift that was used to carry the soap; that he met Friday Ugbogbo in that store; that he was not training him on how to use Folk lift; that he wrote a statement subsequently and that he could recognize it if he sees it. Witness added that when he served letter of disengagement he went to the Account Department and was paid his entitlement; that he did not raise any alarm when he saw Ugbogbo dropped the soap; that Friday Ugbogbo was not under his supervision; that he did not collude with Friday to steal the premier soap and that he did not tell Friday to go and hide. 3. Case of the Defendant On 20/3/18, the Defendant entered its defence. It called one Kolajo Olajide as its lone witness. The witness adopted his witness deposition dated 18/10/16 as his evidence in chief and tendered 3 documents as exhibits. The 3 documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. KO1-Exh. KO3. The case of the Defendant is that the Claimant was an employee of the Defendant at its Ikorodu Depot and a Forklift Supervisor; that sometimes on 16/10/15 while Claimant was on duty, pallet of Premier soap meant for promotional purposes were removed from where they were packed and moved with the Claimant’s Forklift by one Friday Ugbogbo to another place with the aim of caring it away at the close of work in collusion with and on the instruction of the Claimant; that however due to the vigilance of the security operative one Monday Onoja the deal could not scale through and was botched by the said Monday Onoja; that the Claimant later instructed Friday Ugbogbo to run and hide himself until around 5.am when he would be able to leave the premises of the Defendant; that Friday Ugbogbo was found around 3.00 am and when asked why he took the pallets of the premier soap he unequivocally said that it was the Claimant that sent him to do it; that when the Claimant was confronted with the allegation by Friday Ugbogbo his answer was to rush to where the said Ugbogbo Friday was being questioned and slapped him violently so that he would not further disclose what had transpired between them; that it came out in evidence that the Claimant had all along been training the said Firday Ugbogbo how to drive Forklift in clear violation of the rules of the company; that the Claimant thereafter was asked to state in writing all that he knew about the attempted stealing of the pallets of Premier soap meant for promotion which he did; that the Defendant also set up an Audit Committee to investigate what happened on that date and a thorough investigation was carried out whereby all the characters involved in the said deal were interviewed and thereafter a report was prepared with their recommendations and that the Claimant was summarily dismissed from his employment pursuant to the recommendations of the Internal Audit Committee. While being cross examined, DW1 testified that he presently works with MTN Nig Plc and no longer working with Defendant; that he worked for more than 2 years with Defendant before he left the Defendant; that he knew Claimant as a staff of Defendant; that on 13/10/15 he was at work from 8am – 5pm; that he had closed at the time of the incident; that Defendant has electric Folk lift as well as Diesel-powered Folk lift; that one person cannot operate both at the same time; that he does not know the specific number of staff on night duty on the day of the incident; that he knew Oloruntoba Emmanuel a staff of defendant is a Folk lift driver; that he does not know how long Oloruntoba Emmanuel worked in the Section; that Friday Ugbogbo confirmed that Claimant had been teaching him how to operate Folk lift; that he could not recall when Friday Ugbogbo was employed; that the Internal Audit Panel was set up before the Claimant was dismissed; that it comprised of 2 people; that they were Internal Auditors; that he could not recall their names; that he was not a member of the Panel and that he was only informed of all that transpired respecting the incident leading to this case. 4. Submissions of learned Counsel The final written address of the Defendant was filed on 16/8/18. In it, learned Counsel set down the following 2 issues for determination thus ''Whether the Claimant having admitted violating the terms and conditions of his employment by his breach of the Junior Staff Handbook, whether his dismissal in the peculiar circumstances of this case is not justified'' and ''If the answer to ‘A’ above is in the affirmative whether the claimant is entitle(sic) to the reliefs claimed''. Arguing these issues, learned Counsel submitted that the contract of employment between the parties was governed by the Junior Staff Handbook; being a written contract, the Court has a duty to determine the rights of the parties under the written contract citing Nigeria Gas Co. Limited v. Dudusola (2005)18 NWLR (Pt. 957) 2992(CA); that the Claimant by fighting fellow employee while on duty breached the provision of the Junior Staff Handbook which the Claimant did not deny and that in any event the Audit Committee set up to investigate the pilfering of the premier soap product found him culpable hence he was dismissed. Counsel cited Paragraph 8.3(d)(i)(ii) of the Junior Staff Handbook & Osisanya v. Afribank (Nig.) Plc (2007)6 NWLR (Pt. 1031) 565. Learned Counsel urged the Court to uphold the dismissal of the Claimant. Respecting whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought, Counsel submitted that the Claimant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought; that Claimant was paid all his entitlements upon dismissal; the letter of apology was not part of the terms and conditions of employment of the Claimant and that the measure of damages in a matter of this nature is what the Claimant would have earned for the period of notice. Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant. The final written address of the Claimant was dated and filed on 26/10/18. In it learned Counsel set down 4 issues for determination as follows - I). Whether the summary dismissal of the claimant by the Defendant is wrongful, unjust and amounts to unfair labour practice. 2). Whether hearsay evidence given by the Defendant Witness (DW1) during examination and cross examination is valid and admissible. 3). Whether the unsigned Exhibit KO3 tendered by the Defendant Witness is admissible in law and whether a computer generated document without a certificate issue to the original is valid and 4). Whether the Claimant having been wrongfully dismissed from the Defendant’s employment, is entitled to damages for the wrongful dismissal, loss of employment and injury to professional credit. In arguing these issues, learned Counsel submitted that the punishment meted to the Claimant was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct committed by him; that he was not served any warning letter and was denied fair hearing citing Wilson v. A.G. Bendel State & Ors. (1985)2 NWLR (Pt. 74) 575; that DW1 not being the maker of Exh. KO3 his testimonies should be taken as hearsay and rejected citing Okhuarobo v. Egharevba (2002)5 S.C (Pt.1) 141; that Exh. KO3 should be rejected and discountenanced being an unsigned document citing Ojo v. Adejobi (1978)11 NSCC 161 and that the Court should enter Judgment in favour of the Claimant. On 16/11/18, the Defendant filed a 2-page reply address. 5. Decision I have read and understood all the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side including the final written addresses and reply address. 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 arguments canvassed by both learned Counsel. Having done all this, I narrow the issue for the just determination of this case down to whether the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to all or any of the reliefs sought. The general rule of law and procedure which is backed both by statute and case law is that he who approaches the Court judicial intervention has the burden of proving his claims by cogent, credible and admissible evidence. The only exception being in the area of admission of material facts in which case facts admitted need no further proof. Even at that, the admission must be clear and unambiguous for the need for proof to be dispensed with. Before I proceed in this Judgment, it is imperative that I make a comment or two on my finding respecting the review of some of the exhibits tendered and admitted. Exh. KO3 was admitted at trial. This was notwithstanding the objection raised to its admissibility. Learned Counsel to the Claimant was however urged to address the Court on the probative weight to be attached to same. Now, I have carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted including Exh. KO3. It has no heading. This exhibit is completely different from copy of the allegedly same document that was frontloaded in all material facts both as relate to contents and number of pages. For instance, the copy frontloaded and served on the Claimant included some e-mail correspondences which were not included in Exh. KO3. Secondly, the copy frontloaded was neither signed nor dated. Exh. KO3 though signed was not dated. The essence of current frontloading system is to ensure that a party is not caught unawares and the prevention of trial by ambush. The rationale of frontloading of witness statements and documents pleaded by a plaintiff, or which the plaintiff relies upon in the proof of his case, as pointed out by Lokulo-Sodipe, J.C.A in Buhari & Ors. v. Haddy Smart Nigeria Limited & Anor. (2009) LPELR-8362(CA), is designed to expedite trial by giving the defendant the overview of the case he has to contend with and to provoke an informed decision as to whether it is prudent to contest the case. Conversely, the same applies to the plaintiff, as the plaintiff having had the benefit of the overview of the Defendant's case, from the witness statements and documents exhibited by the defendant, would be able to make an informed decision as to whether or not the case he has instituted is worth pursuing. It is therefore overreaching for a litigant to frontload a document and tender a completely different one at trial. The position of the law remains the same that an unsigned document amounts to nothing but a worthless piece of paper with no evidential value. See Ikeli & Anor. v. Agber (2014) LPELR-22653(CA). Exh. KO3 is of no evidential value for the determination of this case and although admitted as exhibit, the Court is allowed on the authority of Brewtech Nigeria Limited v. Akinnawo & Anor. (2016) LPELR (CA) citing Garuba v. Kwara Investment Co. Limited & 2 Ors. (2005)5 NWLR (Pt. 917) 160 & Gbadamosi & Anor. v. Biala & Ors. (2014) LPELR-24389 to discountenance and expunge same from its record. I therefore discountenance and expunge Exh. KO3 from the record of this case. The reliefs sought against the Defendant by the Claimant are essentially 5. The first is for a declaration that the summary dismissal of the Claimant for unsubstantiated allegation of gross misconduct by the Defendant is wrongful, unlawful, unjust, wicked and offends against the rule of fair hearing and international best practice. Claimant was dismissed from his employment by Exh. C8 dated 22/10/15. The dismissal was to be effective from 26/10/15. That exhibit Exh. C8 was founded on an alleged Internal Audit Report. That Report has been expunged from the record of this case for being a worthless piece of paper and unreliable piece of evidence. The Court is therefore left with nothing upon which the Defendant is to justify the dismissal of the Claimant. Considering the circumstances of this case, the facts and evidence led, I find and hold that the dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant was wrongful and unlawful. Having so found and held, some consequential orders must necessarily follow. Consequential order is that which flows naturally and directly from the judgment, so that it can give effect to the judgment, even if it was not specifically asked for, provided it relates to the main relief asked for and which was fought for by the parties and pronounced upon by the Court. See Dr. Dalhatu Araf v. Mr. V. Onyedim (2010) LPELR-3797 (CA) following Atoyebi v. Bello (1977) 11 NWLR (Pt 528) 268; Liman v. Mohammed (1999)9 NWLR (Pt. 617) 116 and A.G. Federation v. A.I.C. (2000) 2 SC 142. I have the unchallenged evidence of the Claimant that he was employed in 1999 and that he has worked for a continuous period of 16 years for the Defendant. I have evidence of Claimant's promotion as well as evidence of his 10 Years Continuous Loyal Service to the Defendant (Exh. C6). I believe the evidence of the Claimant respecting his diligence, commitment, dedication and satisfactory performance of his duties which, I dare say, must have accounted in part for the 10 Years Service Award given to the Claimant. Indeed it would seem that since the Claimant joined the services of the Defendant some 16 before the commencement of this suit he was never issued query or warning by any of his Supervisors. In any event, none of such was tendered and admitted in this case. This Court cannot order reinstatement of the Claimant to his employment. For such a cause of action will tantamount to forcing a willing employee on an unwilling employer. See Seven Up Bottling Company Plc v. Anyanya Afam Augustus (2012)LPELR-20873(CA). That is beyond the power of this Court especially as the employment is not one with statutory flavour. Considering the number of years the Claimant had meritoriously served the Defendant, to convert his dismissal to Termination will not serve the interest of justice of this case. I find Paragraph 6.2 of Exh. C7 germane here. That paragraph deals with Retirement. It also deals with Service Gratuity. It is my finding that the Claimant having served for a period of about 16 years is qualified for Retirement under the retirement policy of the Defendant as contained in Exh. C7. I here convert the dismissal of the Claimant to retirement under Paragraph 6.2 of Exh. C7. Secondly, the Defendant is ordered to calculate and pay to the Claimant his service gratuity under paragraph 6.2 (A)(ii) of Exh. C7 forthwith. Reliefs 2, 3 & 4 sought are for an Order that the claimant be paid all his accrued salary emoluments and benefits from the time of his dismissal till the date of delivery of Judgment and with 10% interest thereon after judgment until payment is made; an Order that the Defendant write a letter of apology to the Claimant for tagging him a thief and sentencing his career for life and for award of General Damages in the sum of =N=5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira Only) for wrongful dismissal which occasioned psychological torture, emotional imbalance trauma, shame, humiliation, mental agony, stress, stigma of a thief and sentences his career. In view of the finding and holding in this case thus far especially as respect the first relief and the consequential orders made, to grant any of these prayers will amount to double punishment against the Defendant and double award to the Claimant. I find no basis to grant any of the three reliefs. They are therefore refused and dismissed. The final relief sought is for the cost of this action in the sum of =N=1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira Only). Authorities abound that the award of cost is entirely at the discretion of the Court and that costs follow the event of litigation. Therefore a successful party is entitled to costs unless there are special reasons why he should be deprived of such entitlement. See Unity Bank Plc v. Akpeji (2018) LPELR (CA) & NNPC v. Clifco (Nig.) Ltd (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 255) 209. The award of costs involves a judicial discretion which must be exercised on fixed principles that accord with rules of reason and justice and not according to personal opinion or sentiments. Appellate Courts have held that the bottom-line however is that a successful party in an action, unless he had mis-conducted himself, is entitled to costs as of right. See NNPC Pension Limited v. Vita Construction Limited (2016) LPELR (CA). The Rules of Court also allows the trial Judge discretion in the award of cost. See Order 55 Rule 1, National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017. Considering the whole gamut of this case filed in 2016, I award and order the Defendant to pay =N=100,000.00 as cost of this action to the Claimant. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, 1. The dismissal of the Claimant from his employment by the Defendant is declared wrongful and unlawful. 2. I here convert the dismissal of the Claimant to retirement under Paragraph 6.2 of Exh. C7. 3. The Defendant is ordered to calculate and pay to the Claimant his service gratuity under paragraph 6.2 (A)(ii) of Exh. C7 forthwith. 4. The Defendant is ordered to pay the sum of =N=100,000.00 as 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