Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & claims The claimant commenced this suit via a complaint dated and filed 8th August, 2016 along with all other requisite processes as mandated by the Rules of this Honourable Court. The claimant sought the following reliefs against the Defendant:- 1. A Declaration that the Defendant’s summary dismissal of the Claimant is wrongful and unlawful. 2. A Declaration that the Defendant violated the Claimant’s right to fair hearing as guaranteed under the provisions of section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). 3. General Damages in the sum of =N=1, 407, 896. 64 (One Million. Four Hundred and Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Ninety Six Naira and Sixty Four Kobo being the Claimant salary from July to June 2016. 4. Cost of action valued at =N=500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) 5. Other consequential orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstance. The Defendant entered an appearance on 26th April, 2017 and filed its Statement of Defence on 27/4/17 along with other frontloaded processes. The statement of defence filled by the Defendant was regularized by a Motion on Notice dated 26th April 2017. Thereafter, the Claimant filled his reply dated 9th May,2017 to the Defendant’s statement of defence and a further witness statement on oath on 21st June, 2017. The statement of defence was accompanied by witness’ statement on oath as well as copies of documents to be relied on at trial. With the leave of court, the Defendant substituted Umoru Godwin with Francis Jacob Ekere 2. Case for the Claimant. The Claimant opened his case on 7th November, 2017 and testified as CW1. CW1 adopted his witness written deposition 8/8/16 as evidence in chief and tendered 7 documents as exhibits. The exhibits were admitted in evidence without objection and marked as Exh C1-ExhC7. The case for the Claimant as revealed by his witness deposition is that he was employed by the Defendant via a letter of appointment dated 17th November, 2009 as a Gaming Floor Officer; that he conducted his affairs with the Defendant honestly and diligently and with all sense of responsibility; that he was promoted from Gaming Floor Officer via letter dated 1st July, 2013; that his salary was increased at different point in time between November 2009 and July 2015 by the Defendant; that on the 20th day of July, 2015 the Defendant served the Claimant with a notification of suspension on allegation of serious misconduct; that on the 28th day of July 2015, Defendant’s officers accused the Claimant in the presence of one Mr. Peter Ojeka who there and then confessed to the commission of the offence and informed the officers that the Claimant was innocent of the allegations; that the said Mr. Peter Ojeka was dismissed immediately based on his confession; that on the 30th day of July 2015, the Claimant was unjustly dismissed for the offence to which Mr. Peter Ojeka had already confessed; that by his summary dismissal, he has suffered huge financial and economic hardship; that the disciplinary forms and documents relied on by the Defendant either belonged to Federal Palace Hotel or Tourist Company of Nigeria. Under cross examination, the Claimant testified that he was dismissed by the Defendant; that he is aware that Mr. Ben Okoye, a customer of the Defendant complained that an Agent over charged him for 4 shots of Remmy Martins; that Mr. Okoye was served by Mr. Peter Ojeka; that the said Peter Ojeka was his colleague though they were not working in the same Department; that he did not give Ojeka Remmy Martins to serve but Hennesy V SOP ; that he did not give any invoice to Ojeka when he gave him the drink; that he is aware that the Defendant carried out an investigation as a result of the complain by Mr. Okoye; that he wrote a statement; that Ojeka did not make any confession to him; that he was told Ojeka collected some money from Chief Okoye; that he was not given anything from the money; that he was given opportunity to explain himself; that he apologised because he did not want to lose his job; that he does not have evidence of the transfer payment he made to his lawyer; that he followed the laid down procedures in giving the drink to Peter Ojeka. 3. Case for the Defendant. The Defendant opened its case on 12th June, 2018 and called one Justus Ugwu as its DW1. The witness adopted his witness deposition dated 27th April, 2017 as his evidence in chief and tendered 7 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh.D1-Exh.D7. The case of the Defendant is that it employed the Claimant in November 2009 as a Gaming Floor Officer (GSA); that he was promoted to a Guest Service Agent prior to his dismissal; that at the Federal Palace Hotel on the 16th July 2015, the said Peter Ojeka went to the Claimant who worked at another section of the bar which served free drinks for qualified customers and requested for Hennessey VSOP to serve a customer since the bar had run out of the drinks; that in breach of the code of conduct and Standard Operating Procedure(SOP) for drinks service the Claimant gave Peter Ojeka a full bottle of Hennessey VSOP without requesting for the name of the customer to determine or verify if the customer was qualified for a free drink; that Peter Ojeka then served Chief Ben Okoye with the drink and collected the sum of =N=15,000 (Fifteen Thousand Naira), which he did not disclose to the Defendant, thereby defrauding the Defendant of revenue to the tune of =N=15, 000; that by his action, the Claimant is in breach of its standard operating procedure; that the Claimant was given fair hearing by the Defendant as he was formally notified of the allegations against him; that he was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations and that the Claimant raised no objections to the disciplinary panel constituted even after he admitted his guilt, or disputed the evidence of the other persons who were interviewed. While being cross examined, DW1 stated that he has worked for the Defendant for over 9years; that he is the Surveillance Manager of the Defendant; that he was a member of the team that sat on the Disciplinary Hearing; that the Claimant is guided by the standard operating procedure – Exh. D2; that the name of the Defendant is not written on the said Exh. D2; that he does not know what the Claimant does for the Federal Palace Hotel; that the Claimant was dismissed on the basis of Exh.D1; that the Claimant admitted during investigation that he committed the offence and that the Claimant did not take permission from the appropriate quarters before doing what he did. Defendant called Francis Jacob Ekene as its DW2. Witness adopted his written deposition dated 6/6/18 as his evidence in chief and tendered 4 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence without objection and marked as Exh. D8-Exh. D11. Under cross examination, DW2 stated that he has worked for the Defendant for 9years; that he was Head of the security team that interviewed the Claimant; that the Defendant was the employer of the Claimant; that himself, the Claimant and Umoru were at the interview session; that he sent the Report of the interview to the General Manager that there was no complaint against the Claimant; that the team did not interview Chief Ben Okoye. 4. Submission of learned counsel. At the close of trial and pursuant to the direction of the court, learned counsel to the defendant filed a final written address on 11th September, 2018. In it, learned counsel set down 2 issues as follows:- a). Whether the Claimant’s employment was properly terminated in accordance with the terms of his contract of employment and whether he was given fair hearing before his dismissal from the Defendant company. b). Whether the Claimant is entitled to damages before this honourable Court. Arguing the first issue, learned counsel submitted that the Claimant was properly dismissed in accordance with his contract of employment; that the parties are bound by the clear provisions of their agreement. Citing the cases of Kurubu v Zack-Motison (Nig.) Ltd (1992)5 NWLR (Pt. 239) 102 at 116 & Larmie & 1 0r. v. Data Processing Maintenance & Services (DPMS) Ltd (2005)18 NWLR (Pt. 958)438, counsel submitted that it is settled law that parties are bound by the clear provisions of their agreement and the court as well as parties cannot read into or alter the terms of a valid agreement duly executed by the parties and that both parties are bound by the contract of employment as contained in the Claimant’s letter of employment which is Exhibit C1 before this honourable Court. Learned Counsel to the Claimant filed his final written address on 4th September 2018 and set down the following issues for the determination of this honourable court:- a). Whether or not the Claimant could be validly dismissed pursuant to the disciplinary code of conduct belonging to another company. b). Whether or not there is any evidence before the court that established that the Claimant violated the Defendant’s rules/code of conduct to warrant his dismissal. c). Whether or not the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. In arguing the issues, learned Counsel submitted that generally, the letter of employment must be resorted to in considering the rights and obligation of the parties as held in Mrs. Rose Efuribe v. Dr. G.M. Ugbam (2010) LRELR-4079(CA). Counsel submits that from the contents of the Claimant’s letter of employment, Claimant is an employee of the Defendant and not an employee of any other company; that the contract of employment is between the Claimant and Defendant to the exclusion of any third party irrespective of their relationship with the Defendant company; that Defendant’s witness Francis Jacob Ekene (Assistant Security Manager) gave evidence on oath that the Claimant was dismissed for violating the Defendant’ Standard Operating Procedure and relied on documents titled Code of Conduct and Standard Operating Procedure which belonged to Federal Palace Hotel and The tourist Company of Nigeria Plc; that these two companies have separate legal personalities from the Defendant company and their rules cannot be used to dismiss the Claimant who was at all material times, the Defendant’s employee citing Adewunmi v. Nigerian Eagle Flour Mills (2014) LPELR 22557 (CA). Learned Counsel further submitted that from the evidence given by the Defendant, the Claimant was dismissed not based on what the Defendant documented as “ gross misconduct” but based on what other companies termed “gross misconduct” in their handbooks contrary to the provision of the law that an employee handbook cannot be a substitute for letter of employment citing Organ v. Nigerian Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd (2013) LPELR 20942 (SC); that the Claimant was wrongly dismissed by the Defendant from it’s service contrary to the terms of his contract of employment; that the Defendant relied on extraneous documents belonging to other companies as justification of their dismissal of the Claimant. Learned counsel submitted that the Claimant has established his wrongful dismissal and he is entitled to the reliefs sought. 5. Decision I have carefully read and understood all processes filed by the parties in this case. I listened attentively to the oral testimonies of the witnesses called by either side, watched their demeanor and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted at trial. Having done all this, I identify 2 main issues for the just determination of this case as follows:- 1. Whether the Claimant was properly dismissed in accordance with the terms of his contract of employment. 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to all or any of the reliefs sought. It is trite that an employer has the power to discipline an employee. This power is contractual. In some instances, this power is expressly stated in the existing contract between the parties. The power of an employer to discipline any of its workforce is rather inherent in the employer. It goes, strictly speaking, to underscore the obvious fact that he who has the power to hire also has in him the power to fire or impose any other form of discipline. Where there exists a written contract between the parties, parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract as contained in the agreement. The Court will not under any condition look outside the contract document in determining the rights and obligations of the parties concerned. See Aji v. Chad Basin Development Authority & Anor. (2015) LPELR-24562 (SC).The Court will also not permit any parole evidence to vary, add to or remove from the contents of the agreement. In event of dispute, the duty of the Court is simply to give effect to the intentions of the parties as reflected in the contents of their contract document. See Western Nigeria Development Corporation v. Abimbola (1966) NSCC 172, Olaniyan v. University of Lagos (1985) NWLR (Pt.9) 599. The simple case of the Claimant as revealed by his pleadings and evidence is that he was employed by the Defendant, Zchlater Nigeria Limited by a Gambling Employment Contract dated 17/11/09 - Exh. C1; that he was summarily dismissed by Exh. C4 on 30/7/15 on the ground of breach of procedure and negligence of duty. Claimant argued that he was not bound by the documents forming the basis of his summary dismissal. The case of the Defendant is that Claimant was in breach of Exh. D1 (Standard Disciplinary Code of Conduct) and Exh. D2 (Standard Operating Procedure). Now who was the employer of the Claimant in this case? On the face of Exh. C1, it is clearly stated that the Defendant, Zschlater Nigeria Limited is the employer of the Claimant. This shows that the contract of employment exists between the Defendant, Zschlater Nigeria Limited and the Claimant to the exclusion of any other party. It is trite law that, only parties to a contract are bound by the contents and they cannot be enforced by or on third parties. See Alfortin Ltd v. AG Federation (1996) 9 NWRL(Pt.475) 634. Exh. C1 is the contract document between the Claimant and the Defendant. That exhibit contains almost all conceivable terms and conditions. Aside from general provisions, the exhibits also contains clauses relating to Hours of Work/Days Off; Job Flexibility, Pay Day, Public Holidays, Annual Leave, Sick Leave, Pension Fund, Notice of Termination, Confidential Information, Obligations, Explanation of Terms and/or Conditions, signing and Initialing and Receipt of Contract and so on. Claimant was summarily dismissed for having allegedly violated the contents of Exh. D1 & Exh. D2. The former exhibit is headed Company Disciplinary Code of Conduct. It does not carry the name of the Defendant. There is nothing on the face of it linking it with the Defendant. Indeed, on its top right side is the name Federal Palace Hotel & Casino. An address is also there. On the bottom left corner of the exhibit is the name The Tourist Company of Nigeria Plc with its registration number while the name Sun International is on the right side of the bottom of the exhibit. The same information as identified on the front page of Exh. D1 is contained on the front page of Exh. D2. It is apparent that the Claimant was not an employee of either Federal Palace Hotel & Casino or an employee of The Tourist Company of Nigeria Plc. Not being the employee of either of these corporate bodies, the Claimant was not and is not bound by either of Exh. D1 or Exh. D2. It was wrong for the Defendant to have sought to subject the Claimant to terms and conditions which he never subscribed to at any time and which indeed belonged to entirely different employers. Once conditions of service exist between the parties, the provisions contained therein are binding on them. Any disciplinary measures taken by an employer against his employee upon an allegation of misconduct, such as termination of employment or dismissal, must be in accordance with the laid down procedure as provided in the condition of service. See Dornier Aviation Nig AiEP Ltd v.Oluwadare (2011) 23 N.L.L.R (pt 66) 380 (CA). My finding is that the summary dismissal of the Claimant was wrongful for having been done in compliance with terms and conditions of employment of different employers. I so hold. I thus resolve issue 1 in favor of the Claimant and against the Defendant. I therefore declare that the summary dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant is wrongful. I declare that the Defendant violated the right of the Claimant to fair hearing as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended. As a consequential order, I order and direct the Defendant to convert Claimant's summary dismissal to termination of employment without notice effective from 30/7/15. The second issue for determination is whether the Claimant is entitled to all or any of the reliefs sought. The reliefs sought by the Claimant are 5 in all. The first 2 are declaratory reliefs which I have granted already. The third relief is for general damages in the sum of =N=1,407,896.64 being the Claimant's salaries from July to June 2016. This Court has held that the dismissal of the Claimant was wrongful but not unlawful as the employer has the right to discipline its staff. See Obaje v. Nigeria Airspace Management Agency (2013) LPELR-19958 (CA). Of a truth the Claimant was wrongfully dismissed by the Defendant on 30/7/15. That is a finding of wrong committed by the Defendant against the Claimant. It is a trite law that also accords with commonsense that where there is a wrong there must be a remedy. In Jones v. Kaney (2011) UKSC 13, Lord Dyson stated the position of the law thus - ''The general rule that where there is a wrong there should be a remedy is a cornerstone of any system of justice. To deny a remedy to the victim of a wrong should always be regarded as exceptional. As has been frequently stated, any justification must be necessary and requires strict and cogent justification: see, for example, per Lord Hoffmann in Taylor v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [1999] 2 AC 177, 214D; Darker v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police per Lord Hope at p 446D, per Lord Clyde at p 456H and per Lord Hutton at p 468F. If the position were otherwise, the law would be irrational and unfair and public confidence in it would be undermined''. Learned Counsel to the Defendant had argued before me to the effect that even if at all the Claimant is entitled to damages, the same could not be more than what he would have earned during the period of notice required and not given. That is the position as aptly stated by the Court of Appeal in Al-Bishak v. National Productivity Centre & Anor. (2015) LPELR-24659 per Oseji J.C.A that - ''Where a contract of employment stipulates expressly that it is terminated by the giving of a stipulated period of notice, the damages recoverable for wrongful termination will be the amount of wages or salary the employee would have earned during the stipulated period. For instance, if a contract of employment provides for one month's notice, then damages will then be one month's salary or wage. See Obot v. C.B.N (1993) 9 SCNJ 368 and Western Nigeria Development Corporation v. Abimbola (1966) 1 ALL NLR 159; Spring Bank PLC v. Babatunde (2012)5 NWLR (Pt.1292) 83; Onalaja v. African Petroleum Ltd (1991)7 NWLR (PT.206) 691; Olatunbosun v. NISER (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt.145) 506 and Olanrewaju v. Afribank Plc (2001) FWLR (Pt.72) 2008." Earlier in Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited & Anor. v. Udo (2008) LPELR-8440 the Court of Appeal had stated that - ''The award of damages is a matter for the trial court and this court would not ordinarily interfere with it. The quantum of damages recoverable by a party for wrongful termination of his employment will largely depend on whether the wrongful termination of employment was as a result of the failure to give the required notice or as a result of an alleged malpractice. If the wrongful termination is as a result of the former, the quantum of damages recoverable may be the employee's salary for the period of the required notice. But if it is due to the latter then such a determination carries with it some stigma on the character of the employee for which he shall be entitled to substantial damage far beyond his salary for the period of the requisite notice. See Ezekiel vs. Westminister Dedging Ltd. (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt. 672) page 248 at 262 and British Airways vs. Makanjuola (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 311) 276''. Now the termination of the employment of the Claimant by Exh. C4 was by way of Summary Dismissal. By the facts and evidence led in this case, it is apparent that the summary dismissal was predicated on an alleged infraction by the Claimant. The summary dismissal here, though a form of disengagement, carries with it some form of public odium and ignominy. In Ekeagwu v. The Nigerian Army & Anor.(2006) LPELR-7641 (CA) Rhodes-Vivour J.C.A (as he then was) stated that dismissal is punitive, and usually without any terminal benefits to the employee. The employee stands disgraced and held in ignominy. I have noted in this Judgment that a different rule of engagement was applied to the Claimant in the instant case. A code of conduct of a completely different Company was applied for the purpose of dismissing the Claimant. By that singular act of the Defendant, the Claimant was unnecessarily exposed to public odium and ignominy. On the authorities of Makanjuola v. British Airways, Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited & Anor. v. Udo and Ezekiel vs. Westminster Dredging Ltd I hold that the wrong done to the Claimant by the Defendant is not to be remedied simply by award of a month's salary in lieu of notice. By Exh. C7, I find the monthly salary of the Claimant increased from =N=107,637.38 to =N=117,324.75. Cognizance of the entire circumstances of this case, I award to the Claimant his salary for 12 months as general damages in the sum of One Million, Four Hundred and Seven Thousand Naira and Sixty Four Kobo only. The Defendant is ordered to pay the said sum over to the Claimant. Claimant also sought payment to him of the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Naira as cost of this action. In support of this Claimant tendered Exh. C6 being receipt of part payment of the sum of =N=300,000.00 as professional fees to his Counsel. In Wema Bank Plc & Anor. v. Alaran Frozen Foods Agency Nig. Ltd & Anor. (2015) LPELR-25980(CA) the Court following NNPC v. CLIFCO Nig. Limited (2011) LPELR-2022 (SC); Mudun & Ors. v. Adanchi & Ors. (2013) LPELR-20774 (CA) and Olokunlade v. Samuel (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1276) 290 reiterated the fact that cost follows event and that the Courts are empowered by the Rules to award cost. See also Order 55,National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017. It follows that a successful party is entitled to costs unless there are special reasons why he should be deprived of his entitlement. In making an award of costs the court must act judiciously and judicially. That is to say with correct and convincing reasons. This is a 2016 matter in which the Claimant was forced to incur some expenses to seek judicial redress. But for the wrongful conduct of the Defendant this case would not have been in this Court. Considering the foregoing, I order the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=200,000.00 as cost of this proceedings. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, 1. I declare that the summary dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant is wrongful. 2. I declare that the Defendant violated the right of the Claimant to fair hearing as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended. 3. I here order and direct the Defendant to convert Claimant's summary dismissal to termination of employment without notice. 4. I award to the Claimant his salary for 12 months as general damages in the sum of sum of One Million, Four Hundred and Seven Thousand Naira and Sixty Four Kobo only. The Defendant is ordered to pay the said sum over to the Claimant. 5. I order the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=200,000.00 as cost of this proceedings. 6. The sum of money awarded under this Judgment except cost shall attract interest at the rate of 20% per annum from today until final liquidation. 7. All terms of this Judgment are to be complied with within 30 days from today. Judgment is accordingly entered. __________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge