Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS BEFORE HER LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE O.A. OBASEKI-OSAGHAE DATE: May 4, 2012 SUIT NO. NIC/LA/47/2011 BETWEEN 1. Bayonle Lasisi 2. Tunji Siyanbola - Claimants 3. Olusola Ojo AND Spring Bank Plc - Defendant REPRESENTATION Olabode Balogun for Claimants. C.V.C. Ihekweazu for the Defendant. With him is Odunze Leokere. JUDGEMENT The claimants filed a complaint on the 7th June 2011 against the defendant claiming the following: i. A declaration that the 1st Claimant/Appellant is entitled to the sum of N1,017,333.34k (One Million, Seventeen Thousand Naira, and Thirty Four kobo) only from the Defendant/Respondent per month representing his salary and allowances from the month of June, 2009, until the final determination of this suit. ii. A declaration that the 1st Claimant/Appellant is entitled to the sum of N1,244,857.69k (One Million, Two Hundred and Forty Four Thousand, Eight Hundred and Five Seven Naira, Sixty Nine kobo) Only being the amount due to the 1st Claimant/Appellant as Leave Allowance for 2009 service year from the Defendant/Respondent. iii. A declaration that the 2nd Claimant/Appellant is entitled to the sum of N1,017,333.34k (One Million, Seventeen Thousand Naira, and Thirty Four kobo) only from the Defendant/Respondent per month representing his salary and allowances from the month of June, 2009, until the final determination of this suit. iv. A declaration that the 3rd Claimant/Respondent is entitled to the sum of N798,863.24k (Seven Hundred and Ninety Eight Thousand, Eight Hundred and Sixty Three Naira, Twenty Four kobo) only from the Defendant/Respondent per month representing his salary and allowances from the month of June, 2009, until the final determination of this suit. v. An order nullifying the unlawful and forceful termination of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Claimants/Appellants service with the Defendant/Respondent employment. vi. An order for immediate reinstatement of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Claimants/Appellants back to their former desk. vii. An order that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Claimants/Appellants are entitled to the sum of Twenty Million Naira Only (N20,000,000) as damages resulting from the defendant/respondent’s failure to honour its contractual obligations to the Claimants/Appellants. viii. An order of interlocutory Injunction restraining the Defendant/Respondent by itself, its agents and privies from act of recovering, demanding, collecting, and take over the possession of the vehicles officially belonging to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Claimants/Appellants with registration numbers SB 45 GGE, KP 91 KJA and SB 61 GGE respectively, pending the hearing and determination of this suit. ix. 21% interest per annum on the outstanding balance effective from June, 2009 until the final determination of this suit. x. 21% interest on the judgement debt until final liquidation of the judgement. xi. The cost of this action. Accompanying the complaint is the witness statement on oath of the three claimants, list of witnesses to be called and copies of documents to be relied on. In reaction the defendant entered a conditional appearance and filed a notice of preliminary objection dated July 25, 2011 and filed on the same day. The preliminary objection was heard and in a considered ruling was dismissed. The defendant filed its statement of defence on the 29th July 2011 together with its witness statement on oath, name of witness to be called and copies of the documents to be relied on at the trial. The claimants filed their reply to the statement of defence on the 19th September 2011. Parties joined issues. The claimants case on the pleadings is that the 1st claimant was employed by the defendant by virtue of consolidation of legacy banks from Trans International Bank Plc while the 2nd and 3rd by virtue of consolidation of legacy banks from Omega Bank Plc. They pleaded that by a letter of appointment dated 30th May 2006, 28th April 2006 and 30th May 2006 respectively the defendant confirmed their employment as permanent staff in its establishment. They pleaded that the 1st and 2nd claimants were on the post of Senior Manager 2 while the 3rd claimant was on the post of Manager. They pleaded that around May 2009, the defendant through its Managing Director unlawfully instructed the claimants to resign their appointments which they refused to do. They pleaded that the defendants representative Nneka Okpala who was Group Executive, Human Capital Management in a conversation and a text message threatened them, that their appointments will be terminated if they refuse to resign voluntarily as directed by the Managing Director. The 1st and 2nd defendant pleaded that they were scared the threat will be carried out and would damage their good record and so they put in their letters of resignation dated 9th June 2009 and 10th June 2009 respectively. The 3rd claimant pleaded that he refused to tender his letter of resignation and his employment was terminated without notice by the defendant by a letter dated 19th June 2009 signed by Nneka Okpala. They pleaded that since they were unlawfully and forcefully disengaged, the defendant refused to pay their remuneration and outstanding allowances and has put them under pressure to pay up their outstanding indebtedness. They pleaded that they in spite of the letter from their solicitor to the defendant demanding payment of their salaries and allowances, the defendant refused payment of same. The defendant’s case on the pleadings is that the 1st and 2nd claimant were employed by it on the 28th April 2006 while the 3rd claimant was employed by it on the 30th May 2006. It pleaded that on 9th June 2009 the 1st claimant put in his letter of resignation, while on the 10th June 2009 the 2nd claimant also put in his letter of resignation. The defendant pleaded that it terminated the 3rd claimant’s employment for poor performance after repeated warnings by a letter dated 19th June 2009 in line with the terms of his employment contract and three months salary in lieu of notice was credited to his account. It pleaded that the claimants were employed separately under three individual contracts of employment and that it did not compel the 1st and 2nd claimants to resign their appointment neither did it authorize anyone to send text messages to coerce them into resigning their employment but that it was done voluntarily by them. The defendant pleaded that the 1st and 2nd claimants gave notice of their voluntary disengagement and requested that their outstanding leave period be applied as notice in lieu of payment which request it granted and accepted their resignation. The defendant pleaded that the terminal statement of account of the claimants was sent to them and that they are not entitled to any sums of money as they are in possession of the defendant’s property and heavily indebted to it; which they were aware of at the time of their disengagement. It pleaded that it did not harass, intimidate or engage in any unlawful activity in respect of the claimants termination of employment with the bank. Both counsel elected not to call oral evidence and agreed that the matter be argued on the record. Parties were then ordered to file their final written addresses in compliance with order 19 rule 13 (1) of the Rules of court. However, in filing the written address, the order was reversed by the defendant who filed its final address first despite not calling oral evidence. The defendant’s written address is dated 18th January 2012 and filed same day while the claimants is dated 15th February and also filed the same day. The defendants reply on points of law is dated 20th February 2012 and filed same day. The defendants raised 8 issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether considering the Law and preponderance of evidence before the Honourable Court, the 1st claimant is entitled to a judgement of this Honourable Court for a declaration that the 1st claimant is entitled to the sum of N1,017,333.34 per month from the defendant, as his salary and allowances from the month of June, 2009 until the final determination of this suit and the sum of N1,244,857,69 as leave allowance for the 2009 service year from the defendant, notwithstanding his resignation from the employment of the defendant vide a letter dated 9th June, 2009. 2. Whether considering the Law and preponderance of evidence before the Honourable Court, the 2nd Claimant is entitled to a judgement of this Honourable Court for a declaration that the 2nd Claimant is entitled to the sum of N1,017,333.34 only per month from the Defendant, representing his salary and allowances from the month of June, 2009 until the final determination of this suit, notwithstanding his resignation from the employment of the Defendant vide a letter dated 10th June, 2009. 3. Whether considering the Law and preponderance of evidence before the Honourable Court, the 3rd Claimant is entitled to a judgement of this Honourable Court for a declaration that the 3rd Claimant is entitled to the sum of N798,863.24 only per month from the Defendant, representing his salary and allowances from the month of June, 2009 until the final determination of this suit Defendant, notwithstanding the termination of his employment with the Defendant vide letter dated 19th June, 2009. 4. Whether considering the Law and material evidence before the Court in this case, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Claimants are entitled to a final judgement of this Honourable Court nullifying the determination of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Claimants employment with the Defendant. 5. Whether considering the Law and circumstances of this case, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Claimants are entitled to a final judgement of this Honourable Court for an order for immediate reinstatement of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Claimants to their former employment with the Defendant, despite the resignation of the 1st and 2nd Claimants and the termination of the employment of the 3rd Claimant. 6. Whether considering the Law and circumstances of this case, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Claimants are entitled to a final judgement of this Honourable Court for payment of damages in the sum of Twenty Million Naira only by the Defendant to the Claimants. 7. Whether considering the Law and circumstances of this case, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Claimants are entitled to a final judgement of this Honourable Court for an order of Interlocutory Injunction restraining the Defendant/Respondent its agents and privies from recovering, demanding, collecting and taking over possession of the vehicles with registration numbers SB 45 GGE, KP 91 KJA and SB 61 GGE respectively, pending the hearing and determination of this suit. 8. Whether considering the Law and circumstances of this case, the Claimants are entitled to an order of this Honourable Court for payment on interest and cost in respect of the monetary claims in this suit from June, 2009 until final determination of this suit and on the judgement debt until final liquidation of the judgement. In arguing issue 1, learned counsel to the defendant stated that the implication of reliefs (i) and (ii) being sought by the claimants is that the court is to make orders for payment of salaries and allowances to the 1st claimant in respect of periods he was no longer in the employment of the defendant. He submitted that under the law, an employee who alleges that his employment has been wrongfully terminated is only entitled to the sum he would have earned for the period of notice agreed upon in the contract of employment citing Mobil Oil Nig (Ltd) & Anor v S.T. Assan [2003] 6 NWLR (Pt 816) 308 at 318. He submitted that the court is bound to give effect to the clear and unambiguous meaning and content of a document before it and urged the court to give effect to the 1st claimant’s letter of resignation dated 9th June 2009 referring to section 123 of the Evidence Act 2011 and Ezeonwu v Onyechi [1996] 3 NWLR (Pt 438) 499. He argued that having voluntarily resigned his employment, he can only be paid those sums he is entitled to at the time of resignation in line with Article 3.15 of the defendant’s staff manual. Learned counsel submitted that an employee can only be entitled to be paid salaries where he is still in the employment of his employer and not otherwise. He referred to section 91 of the Labour Act CAP L1 LFN 2004 for the definition of wages. It was his contention that this suit was instituted with the sole aim of frustrating the defendant in its intention of recovering the money owed to it by the claimants. Learned counsel referred to relief (iii) on the complaint and submitted that the implication of this is that the 2nd claimant is also seeking for payment of salaries and allowances for periods when he was no longer in the employment of the defendant. He submitted that the 2nd claimant having voluntarily resigned his employment is only entitled to be paid the sums he was entitled to at the time his employment was put to an end. He submitted that the 2nd claimant was not entitled to any sum as his indebtedness to the defendant was more than his terminal benefits at the time of his resignation. It was his contention that his claim is not supported by the evidence before the court. He cited Kabelmetal Nig Ltd v Ativie [2002] 10 NWLR (Pt 775) 250 at 270. On issue 3, he submitted that the 3rd claimant’s employment was duly terminated by the defendant and he is not entitled to the reliefs he is seeking. It was his contention that the 3rd claimant is asking to be paid salaries and allowances for work not done after his employment had been duly terminated. He submitted that an employer is entitled to bring the appointment of his employee to an end for any reason or no reason and so long as he acts within the terms of the contract of employment, his motive for doing so is irrelevant. He submitted that in a case of breach of the terms of the contract of employment by the employer, the employees remedy lies in damages calculated on the basis of what he would have earned for the period of notice agreed upon under the employment contract for ending the employment citing Tamunoemi Idoniboye-Obu v NNPC [2003] 2 NWLR (Pt 805) 589 at 626-627. He submitted that any additional reliefs or damages being claimed by the employee must be specifically pleaded and proved and urged the court to hold that the 3rd claimants claim for payment of salaries and allowances is misconceived and unsupported by the evidence and the applicable law. On issue 4, learned counsel submitted that where a contract of employment is not guided by statute, the termination of that employment cannot be declared by the court to be a nullity or wrongful citing Nitel v Ugbe [2002] 3 NWLR (Pt 753) 186 at 202. It was his contention that the 3rd claimants assertion that his employment was terminated because he refused to tender his letter of resignation is speculative as all official communication should be in writing. He submitted that it is an established principle of law that the motive which impels the termination of employment of an employee is immaterial where the contract of employment gives either party the right to bring the employment to an end with or without notice citing Mobil Oil (Nig) v Assan supra. He submitted that the 1st and 2nd claimants having specifically admitted that they resigned their employment and the 3rd claimant admitting that his employment was terminated cannot turn round to say they were unlawfully terminated, as they cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate citing Woluchem v Gudi [1981] 5 SC 291. He submitted that parties are bound by their pleadings and facts admitted need no further proof relying on section 123 of the Evidence Act 2011 and Ejimadu v Delta Freeze Ltd [2007] 13 NWLR (Pt 1050) 96 at 99. He submitted that the termination of the 3rd claimants employment was in exercise of the defendants legal right as an employer and in line with the staff handbook. He further submitted that an employer can terminate the employment of his employee with or without reason citing Azenabor v Bayero University Kano[2009] 17 NWLR (Pt 1169) 96 at 106, NEPA V Adesaaji [2002] 17 NWLR (Pt 797) 578 at 604. On issue 5, learned counsel submitted that the court cannot lawfully award both damages and reinstatement to a claimant in the same case and therefore the claimants claim for both should be dismissed citing Kabelmetal Nig Ltd v Ativie supra. He also submitted that the courts cannot force an employee on an unwilling employer and that the relationship between the claimants and the defendant was that of master and servant under a contract of employment having no statutory flavor. He submitted that only where an employment is one with statutory flavor will the court order reinstatement citing Olaniyan v University of Lagos [1985] 2 NWLR (Pt 9) 599, Shitta-Bey v FPSC [1981] 1 SC 40, Nwaubani v Golden Guinea Breweries Plc[1995] 6 NWLR (Pt 400) 184. He urged the court to refuse the claimants prayer for reinstatement. On issue 6, he submitted that the claimants claim for damages of N20 million is far beyond what they would have been entitled to for the period of notice if their employment had been wrongly terminated. It was his contention that it is a claim for special damages for which they ought to specifically plead and provide specific proof of the damages suffered. He submitted that there is no proof of general or special damages and urged the court to refuse this claim. He cited Ozigbo Eng. Co. Ltd v Iwuamadi [2009] 16 NWLR (1166) 44, Ekpeyong v Nyong [1973] 2 SC 71 at 80, Arisons Trading & Eng. v Military Governor of Ogun State [2009] 15 NWLR (Pt 1163) 26 at 70, Danjinjin Uman v Mrs C.T.Owoeye [2003] 9 NWLR (Pt 825) 221,Godfrey Isievwore v NEPA [2002], Chukwumah v Shell Petroleum [1993] 4 NWLR (Pt 289) 512, Anambra State Environmental Authority v Raymond Ekwenem [2009] 13 NWLR (Pt 1158) 410 at 439, Odunosu v Africa Continental Bank v Peter Achagwa [2010] 11NWLR (Pt 1205) 339 at 369. On issue 7 & 8, learned counsel submitted that the claimants prayer for an order of interlocutory injunction as a final order is misconceived and incompetent as the main purpose is to preserve the subject matter pending the completion of litigation and the existing legal right of the applicant. He cited U.T.B & 2 Others v Dolmetsch v Pharmacy [2007] 6 SC (Pt 1) 1 at 31, Oguche v Mba [1994] 4 NWLR (Pt 336) 75 at 87, Ogunro v Duke [2006] 7 NWLR (Pt 978) 130 at 132 and urged the court to refuse this prayer, the claimants having not pleaded their rights to the cars. He submitted that the claimants are not entitled to any of the main reliefs claimed by them by way of damages or any monetary sum and by necessary implication are not entitled to any award of interest for the principal sums claimed. He finally urged the court to dismiss the claimants claims in their entirety with substantial costs. Learned counsel to the claimants submitted 4 issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether the 1st and the 2nd Claimants’ disengagement from the Defendant’s employment can be said to have been completed?. 2. Whether the termination of the 3rd Claimant is valid and not ultra vires to the contract of employment between the 3rd Claimant and the Defendant?. 3. Whether there is a breach of contract of employment by the Defendant in this suit?. 4. Whether the Claimants are entitled to Judgement in their favour in terms of their Claims in this suit? He stated that the claimants have placed the terms and conditions of service between the parties before the court which are the defendant’s staff manual and the employment letters of the claimants. He submitted that the employment of the 1st and 2nd claimant can only be determined by the Managing Director in full compliance with the terms of service and that the defendant did not comply with the terms and conditions of the contract of employment which is binding and enforceable citing C.O.E. Ekiadolor v Osayande [2010] 6 NWLR (Pt 1191) 42, Longe v FBN Plc [2010] 6 NWLR (Pt 1189) 1. He submitted that the onus is on the employee to prove that the termination of his appointment is unlawful citing Imasuen v University of Benin [2010] 3 NWLR (Pt 1182) 591, He submitted that the issue before this court is an issue relating to employment of the claimants and not issues of indebtedness of the claimants to the defendant as contained in the defendants final address. He submitted that the evidence before the court shows that the defendant compelled the 1st and 2nd claimants to resign their appointment. He referred to Oil Serve Ltd L.A.v Ibeanu & Co (Nig) Ltd [2008] 2 NWLR (Pt 1070) 191 for the explanation of the word “duress”. Learned counsel then referred extensively to Article 3.15 (i), (viii), (ix) and (xi) of the staff hand book and submitted that there was no letter confirming the separation terms between the 1st and 2nd claimants and the defendant, prepared and signed by the Group Executive HCM Group as provided in Article 3.15. He submitted that the 3rd claimant’s appointment can only be terminated without notice only in a case of misconduct and that there is no proof of misconduct before the court. He referred to Article 3.5 (ii) and Article 5.2 of the staff manual, paragraph 10 and 16 of the statement of defence and submitted that where an employer gives a reason or cause for terminating an employee’s appointment, the law imposes a duty on the employer to establish the reason to the reasonable satisfaction of the court. Learned counsel argued that the defendant has not proved or established the reason the 3rd claimant’s employment was terminated. He submitted that no warning letter was ever issued or addressed to him in line with the provision of Article 5.2 of the staff manual. He submitted that this amounts to a violation of his Constitutional right to fair hearing and is in breach of section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended; and also citing Imasuen v University Of Benin supra. It was his contention that termination of an employment without notice is practically the same thing as a summary dismissal and this implies that the 3rd claimant is still in the employment of the defendant. On issue 3, he submitted that the defendant in not complying with the employment contract, committed a breach that goes to the root of the contract. He submitted that on the documentary evidence before this court, and the authorities of JFS Inv. Ltd v Brawal Line Ltd, C.O.E. Ekiadolor v Osayande supra, the defendant is in breach of the contract of service between it and the claimants. In answering the question whether the claimants are entitled to judgement, learned counsel adopted the arguments contained in issues 1, 2, 3 and submitted that they are entitled to judgement. In addition he referred to Article 7-19 of the staff manual and submitted that the 1st and 2nd claimants have been contributing 7.5% of their salary to the Reform Pension Scheme and are entitled to benefit from the scheme. He cited Teriba v Adeyemo [2010] 13 NWLR (Pt 1211) 242, Longe v FBN Plc supra, Ekiadolor v Osayande supra. He submitted that the 1st claimant is entitled to his 2009 leave allowance as the defendant could not prove it has paid same into his account citing Kopek Const Ltd v Ekisola [2010] 3 NWLR (Pt 1182) 618. Learned counsel also referred to Order 21 Rule 4, Order 24 Rules 1 & 5 of the Rules of this court and submitted that on the authority of these rules, the claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought in number ( ix) & (x) of the complaint. He also cited UBA v Omiyi [2010] 1 NWLR (Pt 1176) 640. He finally urged the court to grant all the reliefs sought. Replying on point of law, learned counsel to the defendant submitted that an employee has the unfettered right to resign his employment with his employer and that it cannot be held to be exercised under duress unless there is clear evidence of real or threatened violence against the employee citing Oil Serve Ltd v L.A.I. & Co (Nig) Ltd [2008] 2 NWLR (Pt 1070) 191. He submitted that there is no evidence of duress before the court. He submitted that Order 21 Rule 4 of the rules of this court and the following cases, SPDC Ltd v Olanrewaju supra and S.S. Co. Ltd v Afropak supra, Longe v FBN Plc supra, UBA v Omiyi supra cited by the claimants were taken out of context and misapplied to the facts and circumstances of this instant case. He submitted that the terms termination, dismissal and resignation have different meanings attached to them citing Mr A.S. Jombo v Petroleum Equalisation Fund & 2 Ors [2005] 7 SC (Pt ii) 30 at 43. He submitted that the law is that a court is bound to accept a documentary evidence as against the deposition on oath. He relied on National Bank v Are Brothers [1977] 6 SC 97, Onyemelukwe v WACC [1995] 4 NWLR (Pt 387) 44. He submitted that it is the law that counsels submission no matter how eloquent cannot take the place of evidence citing Kaugama v NEC [1993] 3 NWLR (Pt 284) 681 at 706. He submitted that a party who has admitted the existence of a fact is stopped from denying the existence of that fact and cited Ezeonwu v Onyechi [1996] 3 NWLR (Pt 438) 499. It was also his submission that a court cannot grant a claimant what he did not claim or more than what he claimed citing Ibemere v Unaegbu [1992] 4 NWLR (Pt 235) 390. He finally submitted that the reliefs sought by the claimants are not supportable under the circumstances and facts of this case. He urged the court to dismiss the claimants case with substantial costs. I have carefully considered the processes filed, the documentary evidence, the written submissions and authorities cited. The issues to be determined are; (i) whether or not the 1st and 2nd claimants voluntarily resigned their employment; (ii) whether the termination of the employment of the 3rd claimant is wrongful; (iii) whether or not the claimants are entitled to judgment on the evidence before the court. I will begin with the 1st and 2nd claimants. There is no dispute between the parties that the 1st and 2nd claimants wrote letters to the defendant resigning their appointment on the 9th and 10th June 2009 respectively. They however allege that they were harassed and forced into resigning and therefore it was not voluntary. The letters of resignation are similar in all respects and reproduced as follows is that of the 2nd claimant: The Group Executive, Human Capital Management, Spring Bank Plc, 143 Ahmadu Bello Way, Victoria Island, Lagos. Dear Sir/Madam, Withdrawal of Service I hereby tender my withdrawal of service notice from the bank with effect from Tuesday, September 8th 2009. In line with my terms of contract, my outstanding previous years accumulated leave of 40days (evidence attached) and the current year outstanding days will serve as the required 3 months notice (vide section 3.15 (1) (i) and 3.15 (1) (vii) of the Bank’s staff manual). Kindly advise me of my net benefit / indebtedness to the Bank. Find enclosed my staff identity card. Yours Faithfully, Tunji Siyanbola. This letter is an exact replica of the resignation letter written by the 1st claimant and there is nothing written in the letter that shows or indicates that they were forced or harassed into tendering their resignation. Constructive dismissal arises where the employee himself terminates the contract of employment by reason of the employers conduct. The law, despite the employee’s resignation impugns a repudiation of the contract to the employer’s conduct which the employee merely accepts by way of resignation. See Steyer (Nig) Ltd v Gadzama [1995] 7 NWLR (Pt 407) 305. There is no evidence before me of conduct by the defendant capable of constituting a repudiation. I therefore find their letters of resignation to be voluntary, unconditional and with an intention to operate as a resignation of employment with the defendant and hold that the 1st and 2nd claimant were not constructively dismissed but voluntarily resigned their positions of Senior Manager without being compelled to do so. They also allege that there has been no letter from the defendant confirming the separation terms prepared and signed by the Group Executive HCM Group as provided in section 3.5 (viii) of the staff manual. That in effect their resignation has not been accepted. However, the defendant in paragraph 12 of the statement of defence pleads as follows: 12. The respondent states that although the 1st and 2nd claimant’s resignation has been accepted by the respondent, there still remains key issues relating to the 1st and 2nd claimants employment and financial obligations to the respondent company which have still not been resolved by them, most especially issues relating to their outstanding indebtedness to the respondents and other properties of the respondent in their possession which they have since refused to return to the respondent. The defendant also tendered the two letters dated 23rd September 2009 and titled “Resignation of Appointment” written and signed by its Group Executive, Human Capital Management to the 1st and 2nd claimant where it attached the computation of their terminal statements and wished them the best of luck in their future career. The letters are listed 4 and 9 in the defendants list of documents. I find these two letters to be evidence in support of the defendant’s pleading above that it has accepted their resignation in compliance with Article 3.15 (viii) of the staff hand book. Having accepted the resignation letters, the contract of employment has come an end and I so hold. The claimants have argued that the issues before the court are the employment of the claimants and not issues of indebtedness. At the point of disengagement, an employer must determine if an employee is entitled to severance pay and other benefits after deducting his outstanding indebtedness in order to arrive at his final entitlements. The manner of disengagement of an employee, his indebtedness and final entitlements are employment issues which are intertwined and cannot be separated at the point of disengagement. It is in furtherance of this that Article 3.15 (ix) provides that “without regard to the mode and circumstances of severance, any earnings due at the time of disengagement will only be paid after all liabilities to the bank are fully settled. HCM Group shall contact all units of the bank to ensure that prepaid advances, loans, etc taken in the course of duty are also liquidated.” The claimants have pleaded as follows in paragraph 17 and 18 of their statement of facts : 17. The claimants aver that since their unlawful and forceful disengagement from the defendant’s employment, they have been under pressure from various branches where their Spring Wealth accounts were domiciled to pay up their outstanding indebtedness. The claimants shall at the trial rely on letters dated Monday 7th March 2011 and Thursday 31st March 2011 and they are hereby pleaded. 18. The claimants wonder where the repayments will come from when their sources of income was abruptly terminated without due regard to all existing rules of the defendant. By these averments, the claimants have admitted that they are indebted to the defendant. It is trite law that admitted facts need no further proof. See Section 123 of the Evidence Act 2011, Alagbe v Abimbola [1978] 2 SC 39, Tijani Jolasun v Napoleon Bamgboye [2010] 18 NWLR (Pt 1225) 285. In their resignation letters, the 1st and 2nd claimant gave the defendant three months notice of resignation of employment in line with their contract of employment and the staff handbook. The effective date of resignation of the 1st and 2nd claimant being September 7 2009 and September 8 2009 respectively. The defendant in its letter of acceptance of the resignation and terminal statement to the 1st and 2nd claimant put the 9th June 2009 and 10th June 2009 as the effective date of their resignation respectively. The defendant has already admitted in paragraph 8 of the statement of defence that it granted the request of the 1st and 2nd claimant to convert their outstanding leave period to notice. It is the law that parties are bound by their pleadings. Having granted this request and accepted their resignation, the effective date of resignation and separation for 1st and 2nd claimant is September 7, 2009 and September 8, 2009 and not June 9, 2009 and June 10, 2009 stated in the letter of acceptance. They are therefore entitled to be paid their salaries for June, July, August, September 7 and September 8, 2009 respectively. This should be deducted from their outstanding indebtedness to the defendant. The 1st claimant is also seeking a declaration that he is entitled to the sum of N1,244,857.69k as leave allowance for 2009 service year. The law is that he who asserts must prove. See Section 131 (1) & (2) of the Evidence Act 2011. There is no evidence before me to prove that this allowance is due to him and has not been paid. I therefore hold that he is not entitled to this declaration. The 3rd claimant’s employment was terminated by the defendant on June 19, 2009. The letter of termination is reproduced as follows: June 19, 2009 Ojo Olusola Head Office Lagos Region, Spring Bank Plc Dear Olusola, TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENT Please be informed that your services are no longer required by the bank. Consequently, your appointment is hereby terminated with immediate effect. Kindly hand over the Bank’s properties in your care to the Group Executive, Head Office Lagos Region. The Human Capital Management Group will advise you of your terminal account soon. We wish you well in your future endeavours. Sincerely, For: Spring Bank Plc Nneka Okpala Group Executive, Human Capital Mgt. The defendant has not stated any reason in the letter for terminating the employment of the 3rd claimant. It is the law that an employer is not bound to give a reason for terminating the appointment of an employee. He may terminate the employment of an employee at any time for a reason or no reason at all provided it is in accordance with the terms of the contract. See Fakuade v O.A.U.T.H. [1993] 5 NWLR (Pt 291)47, SPDC Ltd v Olanrewaju [2008] 18 NWLR (Pt 1118) 1 SC. Even though the defendant pleaded in paragraph 13 of the statement of defence that his employment was terminated for “below-par” performance after repeated warnings, the defendant led no evidence in proof of this. Pleadings are not evidence. Where a party to an action fails to lead evidence in support of the averments in his pleadings, the averments are deemed abandoned. See Ifeta v SPDC Ltd [2006] Vol. 7 MJSC 123. Learned counsels submissions in respect of misconduct, query and disciplinary measures go to no issue. On the 23rd of September 2009, the 3rd claimant was sent a letter by the defendant informing him of his outstanding indebtedness, together with his terminal statement. The separation date on the terminal statement is 19th June 2009 which is the date his employment was terminated. His last salary is May 2009. The 3rd claimant having been terminated on the 19th June 2009 is entitled to be paid his salary till that day. It is to be deducted from his outstanding indebtedness and I so hold. The terminal statement includes the sum of N443,886.15 being three months salary in lieu of notice. His letter of appointment and Article 5.2 of the handbook provides that either party may terminate the contract by giving 3 months notice or payment of three months salary in lieu of notice. Even though payment in lieu of notice is not stated in the termination letter, his terminal statement indicates that this amount has been included in his entitlements in line with his contract of service. I therefore hold that the termination of the 3rd claimant’s employment is in accordance with the terms of his employment contract and not unlawful. The 1st and 2nd claimants allege that they have not been able to access their pensions with their pension company PENCOM because the defendant has refused to release a letter to enable them access the scheme. There is no evidence that they have approached the defendant or their Pension Fund Administrator. Section 11 (4) of the Pension Reform Act 2004 provides that the employee can only have access to his retirement savings account through his Pension Fund Administrator. The submissions of the claimants in this regard go to no issue. For all the reasons given above, I hold that the claimants are not entitled to any of the claims in their complaint and statement of facts. This action is frivolous, lacks merit and is dismissed in its entirety. Each of the claimants is to pay costs of N10,000 to the defendant. Judgement is entered accordingly. ……………………..……………… Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae