Download PDF
The claimant filed a complaint on the 29th September, 2011 against the defendant claiming the following reliefs: 1. A declaration that the dismissal of the claimant for alleged conspiracy and negligence; allowing a fraud which caused the Bank substantial loss vides the defendant letter dated November 8, 2010 is on the fact of this case, perverse and contrary to the recommendations/stipulations of the Oceanic Bank International Plc Employee Hand Book of June 2010 and therefore illegal, unlawful, null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever. 2. A declaration that the power of the defendant to discipline or dismiss the claimant from its employment is circumscribed by the provisions stipulations/ recommendations set out in the Oceanic Bank International Plc Employee Hand Book of June 2010. 3. A declaration that the allegations of conspiracy and negligence; allowing a fraud which caused the Bank substantial loss levied against the claimant is unsustainable, false and baseless and therefore, incapable of grounding the dismissal of the claimant by the defendant. 4. An order of the honourable court setting aside the purported dismissal of the claimant as conveyed by the defendant’s letter of November 8, 2010, and an order reinstating the claimant to his post/rank in the employment of the defendant. 5. An order of the Honourable court directing the defendant to pay salaries and allowances, bonuses and entitlements of claimant from the date of his purported dismissal i.e. November 8, 2010 up to of the date of judgement or until the date his reinstatement in the defendant’s employment. 6. In the alternative, the claimant claims special damages as follows: i. N5,486,119.97 as Redundancy Benefit being claimant’s 8 weeks’ salary for each year, from December 2006 to November 2010. ii. N594,329.66 being One month’s salary in lieu of notice. iii. N1,200,000.00 being contribution to Staff Compulsory Savings Scheme (SSITF) plus interest from December 1, 2005 to March 31, 2010. N7,280,449.63 iv. 10,000,000 as general damages. Accompanying the complaint is the statement of claim, list of witness and documents to be relied on. In reaction the defendant entered appearance on the 24th January 2012 and filed its statement defence, list of witnesses and witness statement on oath on the 20th March 2012. The claimant filed his witness statement on oath on the 21st March 2012. Parties joined issues and the matter went to trial. The claimant’s case on the pleadings is that he is a chartered accountant by training and joined the services of the defendant on December 1, 2005. He averred that his employment was confirmed on August 31, 2006 and that he served meritoriously as resident internal controller in different branches of the defendant and Oceanic Insurance Group a subsidiary of the bank with an unblemished record. That he was promoted to senior officer grade by the defendant on February 25, 2008. He pleaded that prior to his employment with the defendant he had worked with Societe Generale Bank as internal control officer and NNB International Bank as resident controller with an unblemished record. The claimant averred that he was posted to the Broad street branch of the defendant on February 1, 2010 as the resident internal controller covering both Broad Street and Oke-Arin branches of the defendant. He pleaded that his work schedule included reviewing new accounts, opening documentation of branches covered by him amongst other clearly spelt out responsibilities. He pleaded that he was empowered by the management concession/approval dated March 1, 2010 which revalidated an existing management concession of February 24, 2005 to allow the payment of third party instruments into the account of stock brokers who are customers of the defendant. He averred that the requirements for entitlement to benefit under the management approval are that the customer must be a stock broker and must execute an indemnity in favour of the bank. That it was based on these guidelines, express management approval that he allowed the payment of third party instruments dividend warrants in to the account of some stock brokers, customers of the defendant one of whom is Eco Investment and Trust Limited. The claimant averred that the account of this customer is domiciled at the Alaba Electronics branch of the defendant and was classified as a stock broking firm on finacle under occupation. He averred that the customer executed an indemnity in favour of the bank. That based on the information he obtained from the data base of the defendant and further information provided by staff of the defendant where the account is domiciled to the effect that the customer is entitled to the concession, he allowed the customer to benefit from the concession granted by management to customers in that category. The claimant pleaded that the bank in the course of time received complaints that some of the dividends warrants paid into the customers accounts were either fraudulently obtained/revalidated by the customer as a result of which he had to stop the branch from accepting third party instruments into the customers account. The claimant pleaded that he was queried on August 30, 2010 by internal memo on why he did not stop the branch from the practice of allowing third party instruments into customers account without management approval. That he replied the query by his memo dated August 31, 2010. That the defendant through another memo dated September 16, 2010 asked him to explain whether in his opinion, the executed indemnity of the customer covers the acceptance cheques written in the name of Government Agencies and Parastatals. That he responded the same day and in his two replies to the defendant explained that he allowed the transactions based on the express management approval of March 1, 2010 and that the approval did not limit the acceptance of third party instruments into the current account of stock brokers only to instruments written in the names of private/individual customers of the stock brokers, and that the said management approval, actually makes no distinction between third party instruments written the names of private and Government agencies or parastatals customers of stock brokers. The claimant averred that based on his response to the defendants memo of September 16, 2010 an internal memo was sent to Branch Operations Supervisions advising the stoppage of acceptance of cheques written in favour of Government parastatals, ministries and Blue Chip Companies into third party accounts. The claimant averred that he further corroborated and reinforced these explanations when he appeared before the disciplinary committee of the defendant on October 20, 2010. He averred that he was dismissed from the service of the defendant by a letter dated November 8, 2010 for alleged “conspiracy and negligence; allowing a fraud which caused the Bank substantial loss. The claimant pleaded that contrary to the practice of the bank, the findings of the disciplinary committee was not communicated to him to enable him know where he was found wanting. That the allegations upon which he was dismissed cannot be sustained in view of the fact that he acted based on the defendants management approval. He averred that the allegation that he conspired and negligently allowed a fraud which caused the bank substantial loss is false. The claimant pleaded that the customer gave an undertaking to make good any issue that may arise from its past transactions with the defendant in a letter dated 26th October 2010 all in a bid to forestall possible loss to the defendant. He pleaded that the defendant did not have any cause to use either the indemnity of the customer or its letter of undertaking further contradicts the defendants claim that it suffered substantial loss as a result of the transactions with the customer who still maintains its account with the defendant. He averred that the defendant’s decision to dismiss him is contrary to the provisions of the defendant’s Employee Handbook and that the allegations levied against him is not punishable by dismissal or termination in the Handbook. That the circumstances, the category of offences and conduct for which the Handbook prescribes dismissal or termination of employment are non existent in this case. The claimant averred that the entire procedure leading to his dismissal was premeditated and a smoke screen to conceal the illegality of the claimants action. He pleaded that he wrote a letter dated 19th November 2010 wherein he appealed to the defendant for a review of his case and also instructed his counsel to write to the defendant on the unlawfulness of its action and his resolve to challenge same in court if it is not reversed. He pleaded that the reasons adduced for his dismissal portray him in bad light and impugn his reputation and integrity to the extent that no responsible organisation is willing to employ him again unless his dismissal is reversed and/or he is adequately compensated. He said his dismissal has exposed him to ridicule, emotional pain and psychological trauma. The claimant testified as the only witness in support of his claims and his evidence in chief was by way of written statement on oath and in the exact terms of his case on the pleadings. Under cross-examination he said he was the resident internal controller in charge of Broad street and Oke-Arin branches of the bank and that his duties were to ensure that branch operations are carried out in line with the bank policies and procedures. He said his duties included reviewing outgoing and incoming cheques on a daily basis, reviewing branch risk assets, reviewing new account opening documentation ensuring that the banks assets are safe guarded and articulating procedures. The claimant testified that the Alaba branch of the defendant was not under his supervision. That he asked that the Alaba branch to place a “Post No Debit” status on the account of Eco Investment and Trust Limited after a particular transaction raised suspicion. He said he was not the one who opened the Eco Investment and Trust Limited account which was opened without the complete documentation required to open a stock broking firm account. He said the documents include the firms practice license, certificate of incorporation, Memorandum and Articles of Association, Forms CAC 7 and CAC 2. The claimant testified that it was not part of his duties to review old existing accounts. That verification is normally done at the point of opening the account and that verification of a stock broking firm is done at the Stock Exchange where the practice license is verified. The claimant said he did not know if the customer had been verified by the Securities and Exchange Commission. He said that the defendant has a policy for third party cheques and that a third party can be an individual, Corporation or Government Agency. He said there was no special policy for Government Agencies. He said the purpose of a cheque review is to make sure that a cheque is good for payment with no alteration and posted to the appropriate customers account. The claimant testified that he placed a lien on the account when he suspected that the account was being used for fraudulent purposes as dividend warrants were returned which was unusual. He said he also alerted the resident Internal Controller of the Alaba branch where the account was opened. He said he was not aware if management gave approval for the opening of the account. That the account had been running and it was not possible for him to take steps to see if the account had been approved by the management. He said he had been diligent in carrying out his duties as diligence is required in carrying out his duties as a resident internal controller. The claimant then closed his case. The case of the defendant on the pleadings is that the claimant was negligent in his duties as the resident Internal Controller and this resulted in financial loss and unwarranted negative publicity for the defendant. It pleaded that the claimant failed to verify the stock broking license of Eco Investment & Trust Limited for the purpose of opening an account in its Alaba Branch in line with Standard bank practices, particularly with reference to his duties as the resident Internal Control Officer for the branch at all times material to this suit. The defendant pleaded that the claimant’s failure to diligently pursue this duty led to the use of the account for fraudulent purposes, with third party Government cheques being paid into the account contrary to the standard banking policy that third-party cheques issued by Government should not be paid into stock brokers accounts. The defendant pleaded that its sterling reputation was tarnished with the discovery of such questionable practices by an external auditor, which could have been easily prevented had the claimant exercised all due diligence in the exercise of his duties. The defendant pleaded that a third party cheque can be paid into the account of any stock broker subject to the verification of the status of the stock brokers license at the Security and Exchange Commission but that third party cheques in favour of Government Agencies are never paid into stock brokers account. It averred that Eco Investment & Trust Ltd was classified as a stock broker without having the requisite requirement verified by the claimant in his capacity as resident internal control officer of the defendants Alaba branch. The defendant pleaded that the claimant was the resident Internal Control Officer of the defendants Alaba branch where the fraudulent lodgement of the Government cheques were perpetrated and he did not raise any exceptions on the account or put a stop to the practice which should have been done during the call over. The defendant averred that the fraudulent transactions were only brought to the notice of the defendant by an independent auditor who discovered it in the cause of carrying out an external audit of the branch’s accounts. The defendant averred that no approval was given for Eco Investment & Trust Ltd executed indemnity by it. That the claimant refused to flag off the transaction during the call over and never bothered to confirm if the executed indemnity was ever approved. The defendant averred that the claimants duties as resident internal control officer include querying questionable lodgements in unapproved transactions, routinely confirming transactions in identified accounts with respect to such lodgements and flagging accounts with identifiable and questionable activities. The defendant pleaded that the extent of fraud perpetrated through the account could not be quantified prior to the posting of the post No Debit status on it and that all projections upon which the loss to the defendant was based and the deductions made were based on the transactions carried out on the subject account. The defendant pleaded that the procedure it adopted in dismissing the claimant was premised upon the guidelines for dismissal or termination of employment contained in the employee’s handbook it pleaded that it never received the claimants letter dated 19th November 2010 and his solicitors letter dated 30 December 2010. The defendant called one witness Mr Dehinbo Fisayo, (DW) a banking officer with the defendant. His evidence in chief was by way of written statement on oath which was in terms of the defendants case on the pleadings. Under cross-examination, he said he had worked for the defendant for over seven years and that he understand the way the system works. DW testified that the customer service unit which is under Branch Operations opens new accounts in the branches. He said Branch Operations is saddled with the responsibility of verifying documents submitted for opening an account while the compliance unit ensures compliance. DW said verification is done before final approval to open the account and that it is the responsibility of the accounts officer to handle “Know Your Customer” (KYC) and verification of documents. He said the accounts officer belongs to the marketing unit and that the Head of Operations is responsible for entering the information in the data base of the bank which is the Finnacle software. DW said it is not the practice in the defendant Bank to issue cheque books on accounts with incomplete documentation. DW said he did not know when the claimant was posted to the Broad street branch. He stated that at the time the claimant was posted to the Broad street branch, there was a resident internal controller monitoring Alaba branch. He testified that there was a resident internal controller at Alaba branch when the account was opened but that he does not know him. DW said a cheque deposit is not a risk asset of the bank. He said the fraud on the Eco Investment & Trust Limited Account was flagged off by an external body, Union Registrars who during a routine check, saw a lodgement that was cleared and traced it to Oceanic Bank. DW said Union Registrars wrote the Bank enquiring why a third party cheque was cleared into an individual account. He said the Bank made payments to some people who complained that their dividend warrants were paid to this account. DW admitted that the money refunded to Union Registrars was deducted from the customers account. DW testified that there are procedures for dismissal. That the employee has to appear before the disciplinary committee and its report forwarded to the management. Thereafter the management decision is communicated to the staff. He said the defendant did not receive the claimant’s letters dated 19th November 2010 and 30th December 2010 and will be surprised to know that the letters were actually received and acknowledged by the defendant. DW said the claimant was dismissed because he was negligent in his duties which led to the bank incurring a loss of over N7million. He said the dismissal arose as a result of payment of cheques to third party accounts. DW said it was not possible for the defendant to know that stolen cheques would be paid by brokers into third party accounts. DW stated that the defendant Bank does not employ people who have been dismissed from their previous employment on allegation of fraud. The defendant closed its case and counsel were ordered to file their written addresses. The defendant’s written address is dated 28 June 2012 and filed the same day. The claimant’s written address is dated 20th July 2012 and filed the same day. There was no reply on point of law. Learned counsel to the defendant raised two issues for determination by the court as follows: 1. Whether the defendant is entitled to dismiss the claimant summarily from its employ. 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought based on the evidence led in this case. He submitted that an employer may terminate the contract of employment of his employee for good reason, bad reason or no reason and may summarily dismiss an employee for misconduct of any kind which is grave and weighty, erodes and undermines the confidence reposed in the employee to carry out his duty citing 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. He submitted that the power of the defendant to dismiss the claimant is inherent in the defendant and misconduct is whatever the defendant makes it out to be. Counsel stated that the claimant was dismissed for misconduct and that the most the court can do is to enquire into the procedure by means of which the claimant was dismissed citing Oyedele v University of Ife Teaching Hospital [1990] 6 NWLR (Pt 155) 194. He submitted that the law is that he who asserts must prove and that in action for wrongful dismissal an employee must prove that he was an employee of the defendant appointed under certain terms and conditions and terminable under certain terms and conditions. He referred to sections 131 (i) & (ii) and section 132 of the Evidence Act, Ukaegbu v Nwololo [2009] 3 NWLR (Pt 1127) 194 at 230, Ibekwe v Imo State Education Management Board [2009] 5 NWLR (Pt 1134) 234, Morohunfola v Kwara State College Technology [1990] 4 NWLR (Pt 145) 506. It was learned counsel’s submission that the claimant was dismissed in accordance with the procedure outlined in the handbook and was invited to the appear before the disciplinary committee to answer charges levelled against him in keeping with the principles of natural justice. He submitted that the fact that an employer gives a wrong reason for determining the employee’s employment does not make it wrongful as long as the procedure stipulated is followed. It was his submission that the claimant cannot be reinstated his employment not being one with statutory flavour as an order of reinstatement would amount to the court making an order of specific performance on the claimants contract and imposing a willing employee on an unwilling employer citing Katto v Central Bank of Nigera [1996] 6 NWLR (Pt 607) 390, Chukwumah v Shell Petroleum Development Coy [1993] 4 NWLR (Pt 89) 512 at 517. He submitted that an employee wrongfully dismissed will only be entitled to salaries for the period of notice without more citing New Nigeria Bank Ltd v Oniovosa [1995] 9 NWLR (Pt 419) 327. Learned counsel argued that the claimant has listed particulars of his claim for special damages but failed to specifically plead the particulars as loss of earnings he suffered and evidence in proof of same. He submitted that special damages must be strictly proved and cannot be left to conjecture and as such must fail citing Arisons Trading Engineering Company Ltd v Military Governor Ogun State [2009] 15 NWLR (Pt 1163) 26, Osuji v Isiocha [1989] 3 NWLR (Pt 1163), ALhaji Otaru & Sons Ltd V Idris [1999] 6 NWLR) (Pt 606) 330. It was his submission that the general principle underlying the assessment of damages in contract is restitution in integrum citing Barth Ozoana v Public Service Commission [1995] 4 NWLR (Pt 391) 629 at 632 and it is restrictively applied to cases of wrongful dismissal. He submitted that the only damages the claimant is entitled to if any, is his one month salary in lieu of notice referring to Katto v CBN supra, S.P.D.C v Olanrewaju [2008] 18 NWLR (Pt 1118)1 SC 27. He finally submitted that the claimant has been unable to establish his case and same must fail. He urged the court to dismiss the suit with substantial costs. Learned counsel to the claimant raised five issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether the court can enquire into the decision of an employer terminating or determining the employment of its employee. 2. Whether the purported dismissal of the claimant by the defendant is in line with stipulations in the terms and conditions of employment of the claimant. 3. Whether the procedure adopted by the defendant in dismissing the claimant is in line with the principle of fair hearing. 4. Whether the defendant has justified the allegation of “conspiracy and gross negligence; allowing a fraud which caused the Bank substantial loss” based on which the claimant was dismissed. 5. Whether in the circumstances of this case, the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. He submitted that the court is vested with powers to examine the decision of an employer in order to ensure that the terms and conditions governing such an employment and where applicable the principles of fair hearing are complied with citing D.A. (Nig) AIEP Ltd v Oluwadare [2007] 7 NWLR (Pt 1033) 336. He argued that the defendant’s denial of breach of the terms and conditions of service by general traverse without more amounts to an admission and will justify the court’s intervention by reviewing the decision of the defendant dismissing the claimant citing CBN v Uchena Godswill Duneh [2010] 17 NWLR (Pt 1221) 135. Learned counsel submitted that parties are bound by the express terms and conditions stipulated in the contract of employment citing Ezekiel v Westminster Dredging Ltd [2000] 9 NWLR (Pt 672) 248. That the terms and conditions of employment provide a right of appeal against any disciplinary sanction of the defendant which was denied the claimant. He argued that failure to accord the claimant this right and abide by the recommendations for specific offences in line with the provisions of the employee hand book vitiates the entire process and renders it procedurally incompetent, null and void. Learned counsel submitted that the failure of the defendant to inform or confront the claimant with the allegation of conspiracy and fraud for which he was dismissed deprived the claimant of the opportunity to respond to the issue before being dismissed, and in view of the fact that the accusations bothered on criminality, it is in the circumstances of this case, a derogation from the principles of natural justice. He cited Shell Petroleum Dev. Co. Ltd v Olanrewaju [2008] 18 NWLR (Pt 1118) 23, Adeniyi v Governing Council Yaba College of Technology [1993] 6 NWLR (Pt 300) 426, University of Agriculture Makurdi v Jack [2000] 11 NWLR (Pt 679) 658, Myetan v NIFOR [1987] 3 NWLR (Pt 59)48, Nigerian Maritime services Alhaji Afolabi [1978] 2 SC 79, Omoregbe v Lawani [1980] 3-4 SC 108 at 117, Olatunbosun v NISER [1988] 3 NWLR (Pt 80) 25, Garba v University of Maiduguri [1986] 1 NWLR (Pt 18) 550 at 618. Counsel then urged the court to hold that in dismissing the claimant from its employment, the defendant breached the principles of natural justice. It was his further submission that where an employer gives a reason for terminating the employment, the law imposes a duty on him to establish the reason to the satisfaction of the court by evidential proof in line with section 135 of the Evidence Act 2011. He cited S.P.D.C v Olanrewaju supra, Olatunbosun v NISER supra, NEPA v Adeyemi [2007] 3 NWLR (Pt 1021) 331- 332. Learned Counsel submitted that the report of the disciplinary committee disclosing the claimant’s complicity in the alleged fraud was not tendered neither was any audited report of the customers account put in evidence to show that the defendant incurred a loss. He submitted that by virtue of the provisions of section 149 (d) of the Evidence Act 2011, where a party relying on a document fails to produce it and there is no proper explanation on his inability to produce the said document, the court may upon failure to produce it presume that the document, if produced would have been unfavourable to that party. He cited Merchant Bank of Nigeria Plc v Nwobodo [2000] 3 NWLR (Pt 648) 297, Nigerian Institute of International Affairs v Mrs Ayanfalu [2007] 2 NWLR (Pt 1018)246,Isokwa v Awoniyi [1999] 1 NWLR (Pt 586) 1999, Federal Mortgage Finance v Hope Effiong Ekpo [2004] 2 NWLR [Pt 856] 100. It was the submission of learned counsel that from the totality of evidence adduced by claimant which and corroborated by the defence witness, the reason for the claimant’s dismissal as stated in the defendant’s letter to him “ conspiracy and gross negligence; allowing a fraud which caused the bank substantial loss” has not been established. He relied on the cases of Bamgboye v University of Ilorin [2004] 10 NWLR (Pt 622) 290, Aigbadon v State [2000] 7 NWLR (Pt 686) 691. Learned counsel has argued that in the circumstances of this case, the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought as the burden of proof has been discharged. In support of the alternative reliefs being sought, he referred to paragraph 2.8.3 of the defendant’s employee hand book which makes provision for redundancy payments and submitted that there is no need to lead oral evidence in respect of the contents of a written document citing INEC v Oshiomhole [2009] 4 NWLR (Pt 1132) 607, Akinbisade v State [2006] 17 NWLR (Pt 1007) 184, Isokun Motors Nig Ltd v UBA Plc [2008] 2 NWLR (Pt 1071) 378. It was his contention that the claimants demand for N1,200,000 being his contributions to the staff compulsory savings scheme was not denied by the defendant and as such should be adjudged to the claimant citing Ezekiel v Westminster Dredging Ltd supra. Learned counsel drew the attention of the court to the fact that submissions made by learned counsel to the defendant is replete with extraneous evidence and misrepresentations which are not part of the record of proceedings. He stated that this is an attempt to mislead the court in the face of the clear record of proceedings of the court. He submitted that it is trite that address of counsel to a party cannot form or replace evidence in favour of that party citing Alhaji Oloyede Ishola v Memuda Ajibola [1998] 1 NWLR (Pt 532) 71 at 81, Chukwujekwu v Olalere [1992] 2 NWLR (Pt 221) 86 at 93. He finally submitted that the claimant is entitled to reinstatement or substantial award of damages by the court. I have carefully considered all the processes filed, the documents in support, authorities and arguments canvassed by counsel in this matter. In my view the issues for determination in this judgement are: (i) whether the defendant has established the reason for which it summarily dismissed the claimant; (ii) whether the claimant was given a fair hearing on the allegations; (iii) whether the defendant complied with the terms and conditions of the claimants employment; and (iv) whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. It is trite 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 defendant’s letter is reproduced as follows: Nov 8, 2010 Mr Tunde Olagoke 1,Church Close Iju Agege Lagos Dear Tunde, DISMISSAL This is to inform you of your dismissal from the bank with immediate effect for conspiracy and gross negligence; allowing a fraud which caused the bank substantial loss. You are required to submit all the Bank’s property in your possession, including your staff identity card and unused cheque leaves through your Manager to the Head, Human Resources immediately. Your final account is being processed and will be communicated to you soon. We thank you for services rendered to the bank and wish you success in your future endeavours. Yours Faithfully For: Oceanic Bank International PLC Wole Ogunremi Ag Head; Human Resources Having given the reason of “conspiracy and gross negligence; allowing a fraud which caused the bank substantial loss”, the onus is on the defendant to establish that the claimant was indeed guilty of the alleged offences that led to his dismissal. The claimant was queried by the defendant on August 30, 2010 for not stopping the practise of allowing third party instruments to be paid in to customers’ accounts without management approval at its Alaba branch. He replied the query on the 31st August 2010. He was again issued another query on the 16th of September 2010 asking him to explain whether the executed indemnity covers the acceptance of Government Agencies and Parastatals cheques. He replied the same day and was then invited to appear before the defendant’s disciplinary committee on October 20, 2010 in respect of his “involvement in the fraudulent conversion of third party instruments into the account of Eco Investment and Trust”. He was thereafter dismissed from the services of the defendant for “conspiracy and negligence; allowing a fraud which caused the Bank substantial loss”. The report of the disciplinary committee is not before the court. The law is settled that parties are bound by their pleadings. The defendant in paragraph 2 of its statement of defence stated thus: 2. The defendant admits paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20(a, b, c, d, f, g, h) and 22 of the claim. By this paragraph, the defendant has expressly admitted paragraph 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 20 (a, b, c, d, f, g, h,) and 22 of the claimant’s statement of claim which is reproduced as follows: 5. The claimant avers further that he was posted to the Broad street branch of the defendant on February 1, 2010 as the resident internal controller covering both Broad Street and Oke-Arin branches of the defendant. 6. The claimant avers further that his work schedule as the resident internal controller of the defendant included reviewing new accounts opening documentation of branches covered by him amongst other clearly spelt out responsibilities. The claimant shall rely on the defendants internal memorandum to him dated December 6, 2005 detailing his job description at the trial of the suit. 7. The claimant avers further that he was empowered by the management/concession approval dated March 1, 2010 which revalidated an existing management concession of February 24, 2005, to allow the payment of third party instruments into the account of stock brokers who are customers to the defendant. Reliance shall be placed on the above cited memorandum at the trial of this suit, the defendant is hereby given notice to produce. 10. The claimant avers that the account in question is domiciled at the Alaba Electronics branch of the defendant and the customer was classified as a stock broking firm on finacle under ‘occupation’. The customer also executed an indemnity in favour of the bank. The indemnity of Eco Investment and Trust Limited dated 08/06/09 is hereby pleaded; notice to produce is hereby given to the defendant. 11. The claimant further avers that it was based on the information which he obtained from the data base of the defendant and further information provided by staffers of the defendant where the account is domiciled to the effect that the customer is entitled to the concession, that he allowed the customer to benefit from the concession granted by management to customers in that category. 12. The claimant avers further that the bank in the course of time received complaints that some of the dividend warrants paid into the customers account were either fraudulently obtained/revalidated by the customer, as a result of which he had to stop the branch from accepting third party instruments into the customers account. 14. The claimant avers that he explained in his memos dated August 31, 2010 and 16 September 2010 respectively that he allowed the transaction based on the express management approval of March 1, 2010 and that the said approval did not limit the acceptance of third party instruments into the current account of stock brokers, only, to instruments written in the names of private / individual customers of the stock brokers and that the said management approval actually makes no distinction between third party instruments written in the names of private and government agencies or parastatals - customers of stock brokers, since stock brokers render services to private / individuals, companies as well as Government agencies and parastatals. The claimant shall further lead evidence at the trial to show that a critical scrutiny of the account in question by him revealed the following: 20. The claimant avers that the allegation that he conspired and negligently allowed a fraud which caused the bank substantial loss is false, and shall lead evidence at the hearing of this suit, to show that it is particularly unsupportable for the following reasons: a. The account in question is not domiciled in any of the two branches covered by the claimant. b. The account is not a new one which the claimant is expected to scrutinize its documentation. c. The said account qualifies to benefit under the concession granted by management based on the information provided both in the defendants Data base and by the staff of the defendant where the account is domiciled. d. The account is not on POST NO DEBIT (PND) status as is the practise of the defendant for accounts with incomplete documentation. f. The claimant also placed the entire balance on the customer’s account on lien for the Bank in order to forestall the possibility of loss to the defendant. g. The claimant also alerted the Resident Internal Controller of Alaba branch on the need to conduct a proper KNOW YOUR CUSTOMER (KYC) / KNOW YOUR CUSTOMER’S BUSINESS (KYCB) on the account, when it was then discovered that Brokers practising license was not part of the documentation obtained from the customer by the branch, yet the customer was classified as a stock broking firm. h. The claimant was not responsible for account documentation at the Alaba branch, neither was he responsible for designating the customer as a stock broking firm on the data base of the defendant. 22. The claimant further avers that the customer also gave an undertaking to make good, any issue that may arise from its past transactions with the defendant in a letter dated 26th October 2010, all in a bid to forestall possible loss to the defendant. The above cited letter is hereby pleaded. Notice to produce is hereby given to the defendant. Having made these express admissions, the defendant in paragraph 11 of the statement of defence goes on to state again as follows: 11. The defendant admits paragraph 20 (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g) and (h) of the claim only to the extent that the claimants duties as resident Internal Control Officer at all times material to this suit include- a. Querying questionable lodgements in unapproved transactions b. Routinely confirming transactions in identified accounts with respect to such lodgements. c. Flagging accounts with identifiable and questionable activities. This is a further admission by the defendant of the claimant’s averments in paragraph 20 (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g) and (h) of the statement of claim that the allegation against him that he conspired and negligently allowed a fraud which caused the Bank substantial loss is false. It is trite law that admitted facts need no further proof. The claimant’s averments reproduced above have been admitted by the defendant and it is bound by its admissions. There is no burden in law on the claimant to prove any facts admitted as they are regarded as established. See section 125 of the Evidence Act 2011, Alagbe v Abimbola [1978] 2 SC 39, Oseni v Dawodu [1994] 4 NWLR (Pt 338) 390, Tijani Jolasun v Napoleon Bamgboye [2010] 18 NWLR (Pt 1225) 285, Makanjuola v Ajilore [2000] FWLR (Pt 8) 1328. The defendant bank having admitted in paragraph 20 (a, b, c, d, f, g, h) that the allegation of conspiracy, negligence and allowing a fraud which it gave as the reason for dismissing the claimant is false, its letter dated November 8, 2010 dismissing the claimant is baseless and unsustainable. I therefore hold that the claimant’s dismissal is wrongful, null and void. I hereby set it aside. The claimant has argued that the procedure adopted by the defendant in dismissing him did not comply with the principle of fair hearing as the defendant did not hear him on the findings of the committee neither did it hear its appeal against the decision to dismiss him. The documentary evidence before the court shows that the claimant was issued with two queries, he replied to both and was invited to appear before the disciplinary committee in respect of “your involvement in the fraudulent conversion of third party instruments into the account of Eco Investment and Trust”. He appeared before the disciplinary committee. I hold that the procedure which ultimately culminated in the claimant’s appearance before the disciplinary committee has met with the principles of fair hearing. Fair hearing simply means “hear the other side”. The Supreme Court in the case of Imonikhe v Unity Bank Plc [2011] 12 NWLR (Pt 1262) 624 at 640 held that where an employer accuses an employee of misconduct by way of a query and the employee answers the query before the employer takes a decision on the employee’s appointment, that satisfies the requirement of fair hearing. There is no requirement in the defendant’s employee hand book for the defendant to hear the claimant on the findings and report of the disciplinary committee. In any event, the recommendations of a disciplinary committee are usually to the Board or Management. There is also no evidence before the court that the defendant received and acknowledged the claimant’s letter of appeal. The defendant has prayed the court to set aside the dismissal and order his reinstatement. The claimant’s employment is not one with statutory flavour and as such he cannot be reinstated neither is his dismissal on grounds of trade unionism. See Shitta-Bey v Federal Public Service Commission [1981] 1 SC 40. He has in the alternative made claims for special damages as seen in relief 6 of the complaint and statement of facts. There is documentary evidence before the court in respect of the special damages. This can be seen from the claimant’s letter of employment, letter of promotion and the defendant’s employee handbook. The claimant is entitled to be paid his one month salary in lieu of notice, redundancy benefits calculated as eight weeks salary for each of the completed years of service as provided in paragraph 2.8.3 of the defendant’s employee hand book, his contribution to staff compulsory savings scheme and all other severance benefits in accordance with his contract of employment less any indebtedness to the defendant. The claimant is a chartered accountant who was employed by the defendant in the banking industry which is a sensitive sector. The reason for his dismissal is false as admitted by the defendant and it was with immediate effect which suggests that he is guilty of the allegations which are criminal in nature. In Industrial Cartons Ltd v NUPAPPW [2006] 6 NLLR (Pt 15) 258, this court held that the reason given for the termination of the claimants employment was wrong and frowned at the manner the claimant’s employment was terminated which had the effect of suggesting that the claimant did something wrong. Six months’ salary was awarded as compensation to meet the justice of the case. See also Mrs Folarin Oreka Maiya v The Incorporated Trustees of Clinton Health Access Initiative, Nigeria & 2 Ors unreported Suit/No NIC/ABJ/2011 Judgement delivered on 8th November, 2011, in which one year’s salary was awarded to meet the justice of the case; and Andrew Monye v Ecobank Nigeria Plc unreported Suit/No NIC/EN/06/2009 judgement delieverd on October 6, 2011 in which six months salary was awarded as compensation. Based on these authorities and section 19 (d) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 which empowers the court to make an award of compensation or damages in any circumstances contemplated under the Act, I award the sum of nine months salary as compensation to the claimant for wrongful dismissal. For all the reasons given above, I hereby declare and make the following orders: 1. The allegations of “conspiracy and negligence; allowing a fraud which caused the Bank substantial loss” levied against the claimant by the defendant are false and baseless. 2. The dismissal of the claimant by the defendant for alleged “conspiracy and negligence; allowing a fraud which caused the Bank substantial loss” is wrongful and it is hereby set aside. 3. The defendant is to pay to the claimant N594, 329.66 (Five Hundred and Ninety Four Thousand, Three Hundred and Twenty Nine Naira, Sixty Six Kobo) being one month salary in lieu of notice. 4. The defendant is to pay to the claimant redundancy benefit of eight weeks salary for each completed year of service from December 2005 to November 2010. 5. The defendant is to pay to the claimant his contribution to the staff compulsory savings scheme and all other severance benefits less any indebtedness to the defendant. 6. The defendant is to pay to the claimant N5, 348,966.94 (Five Million, Three Hundred and Forty Eight Thousand, Nine Hundred and Sixty Six Thousand, Ninety Four Kobo) being the equivalent of nine months salary as compensation for wrongful dismissal. 7. All sums due to the claimant are to be paid within 30 days from the date of this judgement. I award in favour of the claimant cost of N50, 000.00 to be paid by the defendant. Judgement is entered accordingly. ______________________________ Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae