Download PDF
The claimant took up a complaint against the defendant dated and filed on 7th February 2012 praying for the following reliefs – a) A DECLARATION that the termination of the claimant’s appointment is contrary to his contract of employment, unlawful, illegal and therefore null and void. b) AN ORDER of court that the defendant should reinstate the claimant back to its employment and to the appropriate level where the claimant would have been if his employment was not interrupted. c) AN ORDER that all salaries, emoluments and other benefits of the claimant be paid from the month of November 2010 till the date of reinstatement by the defendant. d) AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from harassing, intimidating or terminating the appointment of the claimant except with regard to the due process of law and in accordance with his contract of employment. e) Special Damages of N250,000.00 being salary for the month of November 2010 that was not paid the claimant. f) General damages of Ten Million Naira for breach of employment contract and the emotional trauma suffered by the claimant for his unlawful and illegal dismissal. g) Payment of Two Million Naira being cost of this suit by the defendant. Accompanying the complaint are the statement of facts, list of witnesses, list of documents and copies of the documents to be relied upon (Exhibits KA1, KA2, KA3, KA4, KA5, KA6 and KA7). The defendant entered appearance by filing its memorandum of appearance. It later filed its statement of defence, list of witness(es), list of documents and copies of the documents to be relied upon (Exhibits ECO1, ECO2, ECO3, ECO4, ECO5, ECO6, ECO7, ECO8, ECO9, ECO10, ECO11, ECO12, ECO13, ECO13(A), ECO13(B), ECO13(C), ECO14 and ECO15). The claimant filed a reply to the defendant’s statement of defence and the claimant’s witness statement on oath. The defendant then filed its witness statement on oath. At the hearing of the matter, the claimant testified on his own behalf as CW and Mrs. Jeremiah Pelem, an officer at the Human Resources Department of the defendant, testified for the defendant as DW. At the conclusion of hearing, parties filed their respective written address starting with the defendant. The defendant did not, however, file a reply on points of law to the claimant’s written address. The facts of the case, according to the claimant, are that he was an employee of the defendant and before his wrongful or unlawful dismissal, he was the Head of Funds Transfer of the defendant at its Branch in the Office of the Auditor General of the Federation (OAGF Branch), Garki, FCT, Abuja. He started work with defendant as an executive trainee on 14th June 2006. That sometime in February 2010 his then Branch Manager, Mr. Jokthan Suleiman, granted a credit facility in the sum of N44 Million Naira to GCO Integrated services Ltd without any collateral as security for repayment. As a result of the failure of the customer to provide a collateral for the N44 Million credit facility, the Branch Manager, Mr. Jokthan Suleiman, fraudulently withdrew the sum of N110 Million fund of Sigma Pension Plc which was fixed at the Makurdi Branch of the defendant and brought same back to the OAGF Branch as a fund from GCO Integrated Services Ltd. That the claimant knew nothing about the fraudulent activities of the Branch Manager, Mr. Jokthan Suleiman, and that if not for his intervention the fraud would have been successfully perpetrated by the Branch Manager. The claimant went on that he was an operations officer who played no role in the raising of deal slip, confirmation of customer fund and instructions which are the responsibilities of treasury and account officers. That he was invited to a Disciplinary Committee set up by the defendant’s management and that at the said panel he was neither confronted with proof of his involvement in the fraud nor was he asked any question as to his involvement in the fraud. That after the sitting of the Committee, he never heard of the outcome nor was he given any query or warning indicting him in any way; only for him to receive a letter of dismissal from the employment of the defendant. That he was surprised when he was sacked by the management of the defendant vide a letter dated 24th November 2010 without being issued a query in respect of the fraud or given a fair hearing, while those who were deeply involved in the fraud were let off the hook. To the claimant, the defendant’s motive for dismissing him is borne out of malice, ill conceived, victimization and vexatious as the defendant failed or neglected to give the claimant adequate information on the reason why such decision was arrived at. The claimant continued that upon his being giving the letter of dismissal he wrote a letter of appeal dated 6th December 2010 to his employer stating his position on the issue of the fraud perpetrated by the Branch Manager, Mr. Jokthan Suleiman, which letter was not replied to till date. That upon the failure of his employer to reply to his letter he briefed his Solicitors, Messr Moloney Solicitors to intervene on his behalf. His Solicitors caused a letter of appeal dated 7th February 2011 to the defendant which letter was not replied to till date. Upon the failure of the defendant to reply to his Solicitors’ letter, a reminder dated 28th April 2011 was written to the defendant. That he wrote another letter of appeal dated 30th April 2011 to the defendant, which letter was not replied to till date. That the defendant failed to react positively to the demand of his Solicitors and nothing has been done till date to reinstate him back to work as an employee of the defendant. To the claimant, he is a responsible young man with wife and a kid depending on him. That he is seeking a declaration by this Court that his dismissal by the defendant is illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever; and he is praying the Court to compel the defendant to restore him back to his normal position and pay to him his entitlements. The facts of the case, to the defendant, are that it offered the claimant employment as an Executive Trainee, which the claimant accepted on June 26, 2006. That in line with the defendant’s standard practice, the defendant delivered two documents, amongst others, to the claimant. These are (i) the defendant’s Human Resources Policies document; and (ii) Sanctions and Disciplinary Actions document. That the claimant was deployed to the defendant’s OAGF Branch in Abuja as a Customer Service Manager (CSM). As a CSM, the claimant’s duties include, among others, the following: (i) ensure proper documentation for all transactions and authorize transactions within approval limits; (ii) supervise account opening process and ensure complete documentation and prompt scanning of account mandates as well as tracking/follow-up on deferred documents; (iii) ensure effective branch cash management – no cash outs, adherence to COP limits (obtain necessary approvals for excess), prompt evacuations, etc.; and (iv) ensure branch GL accounts are proofed daily, weekly and monthly (as applicable) and ageing items reviewed for timely resolution. Other duties of the claimant as a CSM include to (i) maintain strong control awareness in branch and ensure adequate departmental controls are in place for all products/processes, (ii) ensure strict adherence with the call over process, (iii) provide timely and accurate reports (institutional and regulatory) on branch operations in prescribed formats and intervals, (iv) ensure maintenance of appropriate confidentiality and security of customer and transactional information and safety of bank branch assets, (v) ensure zero regulatory infraction and (vi) ensure zero fraud tolerance/error rates. That the claimant was duly notified of these responsibilities upon his appointment as a CSM in the OAGF Branch. That the claimant was at all times material to this suit, aware of his status as a CSM. That sometime in the year 2010, two internal control officers of the defendant one, Mr. Timothy Ezekiel and one Miss Aderonke Adegboyega, discovered some fraudulent movement of funds (“the Fraudâ€) at the OAGF Branch while carrying out a routine review of the defendant’s cash collateralized credit facilities in the Abuja region. The Fraud was referred to the defendant’s Audit Group for investigation with a view to uncovering the circumstances of the Fraud and the personnel of the defendant who had perpetrated the Fraud. That the said investigation revealed the following: (i) the branch manager of the OAGF Branch, one Mr. Jokthan Suleiman, fraudulently obtained approval for cash collateralized credit facility for GCO Integrated Services Limited (GCO). GCO was introduced to the defendant by Mr. Jokthan Suleiman. GCO did not in fact, provide any cash collaterals for the credit facility; and (ii) in order to cover up the Fraud, Mr. Suleiman fraudulently converted the sum of N110 million being held with the OAGF Branch as fixed deposit by Sigma Pensions (Nig.) Limited to the credit of GCO to serve as cash collaterals for the credit facility improperly procured by Mr. Suleiman for GCO. The defendant continued that the investigation further revealed that: (i) the claimant in his capacity as the CSM of OAGF Branch authorized the inflow of the N110 million belonging to Sigma Pensions Limited into GCO’s account number 1690010221557701 (the “GCO Accountâ€); (ii) the GCO Account was opened with incomplete documentation and the claimant as CSM did not place a “post no debit†enabling the account to be operational and useable for the perfection of the Fraud; and (iii) in particular, the GCO Account was opened without any identity cards and photographs of GCO’s directors. That these were standard policy requirements for the opening of banking accounts with the defendant. That on 19th July 2010, the claimant was interviewed by the defendant’s Audit and Compliance Group (ACG). At his interview with the ACG, the claimant was given adequate opportunity to speak on his involvement in the transaction that led to the Fraud. In order to ensure that all members of staff connected with the Fraud (including the claimant) were given a fair hearing, the defendant invited them to appear before its Disciplinary Committee on October 28 and 29, 2010. That the claimant again appeared before the Disciplinary Committee and made representations to the Disciplinary Committee. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the defendant made the following findings in relation to the claimant: (i) according to the defendant’s policies and operational standards, it is the claimant’s duty to authorize transactions initiated by Treasury Officers and Account Officers; (ii) the said duty also includes a review of all supporting documents for correctness, completeness and compliance with the defendant’s policies; (iii) the claimant failed to perform this duty in relation to the transactions that gave rise to the Fraud and thereby enabled the perpetration of the Fraud; and (iv) as a CSM in the OAGF Branch, the claimant was fully aware of the defendant’s “post no debit†account opening policy and of his responsibility to enforce the same, but the claimant failed in his duty to ensure that an account which had incomplete documentation did not become operational as required under the defendant’s aforesaid banking policy. The defendant went that under its human resources policies, the claimant’s failure to perform his duties and which resulted in the perpetration of the Fraud amounts to gross misconduct punishable by the sanction of dismissal. Accordingly, on November 24, 2010 the defendant dismissed the claimant from its employment effective from November 25, 2010. The defendant framed four issues for the determination of the Court, namely – 1. Whether the claimant is entitled to a declaration that his dismissal by the defendant from the defendant’s employ is “contrary to his contract of employmentâ€, “unlawfulâ€, “illegal†and “null and voidâ€; 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to reinstatement to the defendant’s employment and payment of all salaries, emolument and other benefits from the date of his dismissal; 3. Whether the claimant has made out a case entitling him to the sum of N250,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira only) as special damages or Nl0,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira only) as general damages; and 4. Whether an order of perpetual injunction can be issued against an employer restraining such an employer from terminating its employee’s contract of employment. Regarding issue 1, the defendant contended that the claimant’s dismissal is not unlawful or illegal. To the defendant, the relationship between it and the claimant is that of a master and servant and is subject to the terms of the contract between both parties. That where an employee’s contract of employment is terminated in a manner contrary to the terms of the contract, such termination can only be “wrongful†and not “unlawful†or “illegalâ€. That it is only in situations where an employee’s contract of employment is governed by a statute that a court can declare such termination/dismissal “unlawfulâ€, citing Imoloame v. WAEC [1992] 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 319 and Shell Pet. Dev. Co. Ltd v. Lawson-Jack [1998] 4 NWLR (Pt. 545) 249 at 274 E – G. As a corollary principle, that a “wrongful†termination/dismissal cannot be declared “null and voidâ€. It only entitles the aggrieved employee to damages, citing Union Beverages Ltd v. Owolabi [1988] 1 NWLR (Pt. 68) 128, NNB v. Obevudiri [1986] 3 NWLR (Pt. 29) 387 and NNB v. Osunde [1998] 9 NWLR (Pt. 566) 511 at 521 E – F. The defendant then submitted in view of the foregoing, the declaration sought by the claimant that his dismissal is “unlawful†and “null and void†cannot be granted by this Court and should be dismissed. The defendant continued that the claimant is still not entitled to a declaration that his dismissal from the defendant’s employment is “contrary to his contract of employmentâ€. That the claimant has failed to prove that his dismissal is “wrongful†or in the claimant’s words “contrary to his contract of employmentâ€. That it is trite law that he who asserts must prove; the onus of proof rests on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue in dispute, citing Yusuf v. Adegoke [2007] 11 NWLR (Pt. 1045) 332 and section 133 of the Evidence Act, 2011. That the onus of proof is on the claimant to prove that his dismissal is wrongful or “contrary to his contract of employment†not for the defendant to justify the dismissal, referring to Texaco (Nig.) Plc. v. Kehinde [2001] 6 NWLR (Pt. 708) 224 at 239 C – D. The defendant went on that, where an employee in a master and servant relationship alleges wrongful dismissal, he has the onus of proving the assertion. The employee has to plead and prove the terms of his employment and the way and manner the terms were breached by his employer, referring to Anaja v. UBA Plc [2011] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1270) 377. That in the instant case, the claimant woefully failed to plead and prove his terms of employment and the way and manner the terms were breached by the defendant. The defendant then urged the Court to dismiss the claimant’s claim in its entirety. Furthermore, the defendant contended that, assuming but not conceding that there is any modicum of evidence before this Court in proof of the claimant’s claim for declaration, the claimant’s dismissal is lawful and in accordance with the terms of the claimant’s contract of employment. That the claimant was dismissed on the ground of “gross misconduct†(defined as conduct that is of a grave and weighty character as to undermine the relationship of confidence which should exist between the employee and his employer or act of an employee which is against the interest of his employer: Yusuf v. Union Bank of Nigeria Limited [1996] 6 NWLR (Pt. 457) at 648H and Ajayi v. Texaco (Nig.) Ltd [1987] 3 NWLR (Pt. 62) 577) as result of the claimant’s failure to carry out his duties diligently which contributed to the perpetration of the Fraud. That the claimant’s letter of dismissal dated November 24, 2010 (Exhibit KA2) states that “[p]lease recall your involvement in the above matter. Your actions in that respect amount to gross misconduct. Under the Bank’s disciplinary codes, the above is sactionable by dismissal from [the] Bank’s employment. For this reason, you are hereby dismissed from the Bank’s employmentâ€. That Mrs. Jemimah Pelem, the defendant’s witness, testified at paragraph 14 of the defendant’s witness’ statement on oath as follows – [h]aving concluded investigation and having granted audience to all members of staff connected with the transactions that led to the Fraud (including the Claimant), the Respondent made the following findings in relation to the Claimant – i) According to the Respondent’s policies and operational standards, it is the Claimant’s duty to authorize transactions initiated by Treasury Officers and Account Officers. This duty also includes a review of all supporting documents for correctness, completeness and compliance with the Respondent’s policies. The Claimant failed to perform this duty in relation to the transactions that gave rise to the Fraud and thereby enabled the perpetration of the Fraud. ii) As a Customer Service Manager in the OAGF Branch, the Claimant is fully aware of the Respondent’s ‘post no debit’ account opening policy and of his responsibility to enforce the same, but the Claimant failed in his duty to ensure that an account which had incomplete documentation did not become operational as required under the Respondent’s aforesaid banking policy. To the defendant, this piece of evidence was neither denied nor rebutted by the claimant. That DW was not even cross-examined by the claimant’s counsel on this piece of evidence. That it is trite law that where evidence given by a party to any proceedings is not challenged or controverted by the opposite party who had the opportunity to do so, the Court is obliged to accept such evidence as the truth and to so act on it, referring to CBN v. Igwillo [2007] 14 NWLR (Pt. 1054) 393. Further, that evidence that is not challenged under cross-examination is deemed to have been admitted, citing Provost, LACOED v. Edun [2004] 6 NWLR (Pt. 870) 476. The defendant then reiterated the claimant’s duties as a CSM, submitting that it is the failure of the claimant to perform same that enabled the perpetration of the Fraud. In support, the defendant referred to the testimony of the claimant under cross-examination. That under cross-examination, the claimant stated as follows: “...[y]es, accounts without full documentation should not be operational... [y]es, I authorized the transfer of N100 Million belonging to Sigma Pension to OAGF Branch... [at] the end of the day, the N100Million ended up in the account of GCO Integrated Services Limited... [y]es, the GCO Account did not have full documentationâ€. That from this piece of evidence, the claimant admitted that (i) the GCO Account did not have full documentation, (ii) an account without full documentation should not be operational and (iii) he authorized the transfer of N110,000,000.00 belonging to Sigma Pensions Limited and the said money “ended up†in the GCO Accounts. That in an attempt to exonerate himself, the claimant stated as follows: “... [n]o, I did not perform the duties of a customer service manager... [i]t was not my duty to ensure that these accounts without full documentation became operationalâ€. That this shred of evidence turned to be false when the claimant was shown the transcript of the claimant’s interview with the defendant’s Audit and Compliance Group (Exhibit ECO7) and the defendant’s document on Job Objectives for Customer Service Manager (Exhibit ECO14) which bears the claimant’s signature as evidence of the veracity and receipt of these documents. The transcript of the claimant’s interview with the defendant’s Audit and Compliance Group (Exhibit ECO7) evidences the fact that the claimant was indeed a Customer Service Manager before his dismissal. The defendant’s document on Job Objectives for Customer Service Manager (Exhibit ECO14) sets out the duties of a Customer Manager as well. To the defendant, from the evidence before this Court, the acts of gross misconduct by the claimant can be itemized as follows – 1. The claimant failed in his duty to ensure that an account which had incomplete documentation did not become operational as required under the defendant’s aforesaid banking policy. The GCO Account on which the Fraud was perpetrated was opened with an incomplete documentation. In particular, the GCO Account was opened without any identity cards and photographs of GCO’s directors, referring to paras. 10(iv) – (v) and 14(i) the defendant’s witness statement on oath; 2. The claimant failed to place a “post no debit†restriction on the GCO Account (because it was opened with an incomplete documentation) as required under the defendant’s policy, thereby enabling the account to be operational and useable for the perfection of the Fraud, referring to paras. 10(iv) – (v) and 14(ii) of the defendant’s witness statement on oath; and 3. The claimant in his capacity as the CSM of OAGF Branch authorized the inflow of the N110 Million belonging to Sigma Pensions Limited into GCO’s Account, a different account, referring to para. 10(iii) of the defendant’s witness statement on oath. From the foregoing, according to the defendant, the claimant failed to perform his duties which gave room for the perpetration of the Fraud. That if the claimant had dutifully performed his responsibilities as required of him, the Fraud would have been prevented: the GCO Account would not have been operational if the claimant had placed a “post no debit†restriction on the GCO Account because of its incomplete documentation; the Fraud would not have come to fruition if the claimant had not authorised the inflow of the N110,000,000.00 belonging to Sigma Pensions Limited into another account (GCO Account). The Court was referred to Anaja v. UBA Plc (supra), where the appellant failed to debit the account of a customer after cash withdrawal and the Court of Appeal held that to be a “misconductâ€, “gross negligence†and “irresponsibility of the highest orderâ€. That what the claimant did in the instant case is graver than the appellant’s misconduct in Anaja. Furthermore, that various acts can amount to misconduct. In Osagie v. NNB [2005] 3 NWLR (Pt. 913) 513 at 540 – 541, the Court of Appeal gave examples to include wilful disobedience to lawful or reasonable orders, misconduct of the master’s business, neglect, incompetence and other conducts incompatible with the faithful discharge of the employee’s duties to his employer. That the claimant’s actions and/or omission in the present circumstances fall perfectly within the examples given by the Court of Appeal. That the claimant failed to obey the defendant’s order by allowing an account without complete documentation to be operational. That the claimant misconducted the defendant’s business by authorizing the inflow of N110 Million belonging to Sigma Pensions Limited into a third party’s account (GCO’s Account). That all these actions/omissions of the claimant are riddled with negligence and incompetence and generally incompatible with the faithful discharge of the claimant’s duties to the defendant. The defendant went on that its Human Resources Policy Document (Exhibit ECO4) at EHRP 1904 on dismissal provides that – [p]roper professional conduct at all times is demanded from all Ecobank employees. Ecobank reserves the right to dismiss employee(s) on grounds of misconduct... Ecobank may summarily dismiss, without any entitlement, employees who commit any of the following offences...gross negligence. That the defendant’s witness testified in paragraph 16 of the witness’ statement on oath that – [u]nder the Respondent’s human resources policies the claimant’s failure to perform his duties and which resulted in the perpetration of the Fraud amounts to misconduct punishable by dismissal. I am aware that on November 24, 2010 the Respondent accordingly dismissed the Claimant from its employment effective from November 25, 2010. To the defendant, an employee can only be said to have been wrongfully dismissed if such dismissal was done contrary to the conditions of the employee’s contract of service or in a manner not contemplated by the contract, citing UBN v. Chinyere [2010] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1203) 453 at 472 F – G. That the claimant’s dismissal on ground of gross misconduct/negligence was in accordance with the claimant’s contract of employment and as provided in the defendant’s Human Resources Policy Document (Exhibit ECO4). That it is trite law that where an employee is guilty of “gross misconductâ€, he can be dismissed summarily without notice and wages, referring to Yusuf v. Union Bank of Nigeria Limited [1996] 6 NWLR (Pt. 457) 648H. That the claimant’s conducts as pointed out were grave and amounted to gross misconduct/negligence for which the claimant was rightly dismissed. On issue 2, the defendant contended that the claimant is not entitled to reinstatement and payment of all salaries, emolument and other benefits from the time the he was dismissed on November 25, 2010. That the relationship between the claimant and the defendant is that of master and servant. That it is settled law that termination of a contract of service, even if wrongful, brings to an end the relationship of master and servant, referring to Osisanya v. Afribank (Nig.) Plc [2007] 6 NWLR (Pt. 1031) 565. That the claimant cannot by this action renew the relationship between the parties to this suit. That the law is very clear on this point as the courts cannot impose a servant on an unwilling master, referring to Chukwumah v. Shell Petroleum Development Company Limited [1993] 4 NWLR (Pt. 289) 512 at 560. That an employee’s remedy is in damages where the termination of his appointment is held to be wrongful, referring to Osisanya v. Ajribank (Nig.) Plc (supra) at 565. In the instant case, that the termination of the claimant’s employment was not wrongful as he was dismissed on ground of “gross misconduct†as succinctly already discussed. That an employee would only be paid for the period he served his employee (Osisanya v. Afribank (Nig.) Plc, supra, at 578 C – D). That the claimant is not entitled to any emolument, salary or benefit from November 2010 as he stopped working for the defendant since that date. That the claimant was rightfully dismissed as he was engaged in acts amounting to gross misconduct/negligence which resulted in the loss of the defendant’s depositors’ funds. Furthermore, that the claimant failed to plead and prove his salary and other benefits that he is entitled to. The law is that that in an action for claim for payment of salaries and other benefits, such salary and benefits must be specifically pleaded and proved, referring to IHABUHMB v. Anyip [2011] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1260) 1. That there are no facts on the claimant’s salary and his supposed “other benefits†in the claimant’s pleading filed before this Court. That there is also no iota of evidence before this Court in this regard. The defendant then urged the Court to dismiss the claimant’s claim for salaries and other benefits. Regarding issue 3, the defendant contended that the claimant is not entitled to the sum of N250,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) only as special damages or N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) only as general damages. That the defendant earlier showed that the claimant was dismissed on ground of gross misconduct/negligence. That the claimant’s dismissal is in accordance with the conditions of the claimant’s contract of employment. The claimant is, therefore, not entitled to either special or general damages. The defendant then urged the Court to dismiss the claimant’s claim for special and general damages. Furthermore, that the law is that damages must be specifically pleaded and proved at trial, referring to Nicon Hotels Ltd v. NDC Ltd [2007] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1051) 237. That the claimant did not plead any facts regarding his claim for N250,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) as special damages. Apart from the claim itself, that the claimant did not allege in his pleadings (statement of facts) that he was not paid his salary for November 2010. That no iota of evidence was led in proof of such claim. Also, that there is no scintilla of evidence in support of the claimant’s claim for general damages in the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira). The law is that where a party fails to prove any claim before the Court, such claim is bound to fail and must be dismissed, referring to Orji v. DTM Ltd [2009] 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 467 at 490 D – E. The defendant went on that assuming but not conceding that the claimant has proved his claim for damages, the claimant is still not entitled to the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) as general damages. That it is settled law that in cases of wrongful dismissal the measure of damages is prima facie the amount the plaintiff would have earned had the employment continued according to the contract, citing Imoloame v. WAEC [1992] 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 319E; NNPC v. Osunde (supra); Nigeria Produce Marketing Board v. Adewunmi [1972] 2 All NLR 433; SPDC v. Olarenwaju [2008] 18 NWLR (Pt. 1118) 1; and UBN v. Chinyere [2010] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1203) 453 at 475 A – C. In the instant case, that the claimant’s letter of employment dated June 14, 2006 (Exhibit ECO1) provides for one month’s notice or one month’s salary in lieu of notice for either the claimant or the defendant to determine the contract. That in the absence of the one month’s notice required for the determination of the claimant’s contract of employment, the claimant is only entitled to one month salary in lieu of notice as general damages. On issue 4, the defendant contended that the claimant is not entitled to an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from terminating the claimant’s contract of employment with it. That an order of perpetual injunction is not a remedy available to an employee whose contract of employment has been wrongfully determined. In Shell Pet. Dev. Co. Ltd. v. Lawson-Jack (supra), it was held that – The court will not grant an injunction for the fulfilment of a contract of employment for the same reason that it will not grant specific performance of such contract. Such a contract is one for personal service and one of the fundamental reasons it will not do so is that it comes within the category of contracts whose execution the court cannot supervise. Thus, it follows that an employee would not be entitled to obtain injunction to restrain a dismissal or threatened dismissal by his master. To the defendant, assuming but not conceding that a court can grant an order of perpetual injunction in contracts of employment, the claimant is still not entitled to such an order. That it is settled that an order of perpetual injunction can only be granted after an applicant has established his right and an actual or threatened infringement of it, citing Globe Fishing Industries Limited v. Coker [1990] 7 NWLR (Pt. 162) 293 E – G. That the claimant has not established that he has a legal right worthy of protection by an order of perpetual injunction. Furthermore, that the claim for an order of perpetual injunction is an ancillary relief. An ancillary relief is based on the principal reliefs and cannot act independently of the principal reliefs, citing Adeogun v. Ekunrin [2003] 2 NWLR (Pt. 856) 72G. The defendant went on that, by its earlier arguments, it showed that the principal reliefs sought by the claimant are both frivolous and unsupportable in law. Thus once a court refuses to grant the principal orders sought, the ancillary order cannot be granted, referring to NBCI v. Kumbo Furniture Co. (Nig.) Ltd [2004] 17 NWLR (Pt. 903) 592 D – E). The defendant the urged the Court to dismiss the claimant’s relief for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from terminating the claimant’s contract of employment. In conclusion, the defendant submitted that the claimant’s contract of employment is not governed by statute and the claimant, therefore, is not entitled to a declaration that his dismissal is “unlawfulâ€, “illegalâ€, and “null and voidâ€. Secondly, that the claimant has failed to prove his case that he is entitled to a declaration that his dismissal is “contrary to his contract of employment†or “wrongful†in that the claimant failed to plead and prove his terms of employment and the way and manner in which the terms were breached by the defendant. Thirdly, that claimant’s dismissal is not “unlawful†or “wrongful†as the claimant was dismissed on ground of gross misconduct/negligence in accordance with the claimant’s contract of service. Fourthly, that the claimant is not entitled to reinstatement and payments of salaries and other benefits from the date of his dismissal. The Court cannot order specific performance of a contract of employment except where the contract is protected by statute. The claimant’s employment is not governed by any statute. The claimant also failed to plead and prove his “salaries†and “benefits†as required by law. Fifthly, that the Claimant is not entitled to either special damages or general damages. The claimant’s contract of employment was determined in accordance with his contract of service, the claimant having been dismissed on ground of gross misconduct. The particulars of the special damages/general damages were not specifically pleaded and proved by the claimant as required by law. Sixthly, that the Court is not entitled to an order of perpetual injunction as such relief cannot be granted in a contract of employment. The claimant also failed to establish any legal right worthy of protection as required by law. Lastly, that this action is frivolous, unmeritorious and should be dismissed with substantial costs against the claimant. The claimant adopted the issues framed by the defendant. On whether the claimant is entitled to a declaration that his dismissal is contrary to his contract of employment, unlawful, illegal, null and void, the claimant contended that his dismissal is contrary to his contract of employment. The claimant then asked why he was dismissed. To answer this question, the claimant referred to paragraph 16 of the defendant’s statement of defence, which provides as follows – Under the Respondent’s human resources policies the claimant’s failure to perform his duties and which resulted in the perpetration of the fraud amounts to misconduct punishable by dismissal. Accordingly on November 24, 2010 the respondent dismissed the claimant from its employment effective from November 25, 2010. That DW also deposed verbatim to the above stated fact at paragraph 16 of her written statement on oath dated 14th May 2012 and which she adopted before the Court as her evidence-in-chief. Furthermore, that the letter of dismissal dated 24th November 2010 issued to the claimant by the defendant and admitted in Court as Exhibit KA2 also states, inter alia – Please recall your involvement in the above matter. Your actions in that regard amount to gross misconduct. Under the bank’s disciplinary codes, the above is sactionable by dismissal from the bank’s employment. For this reason, you are hereby dismissed from the banks employment. On whether the claimant was directly involved in the fraud, the claimant contended that the defendant’s sole witness Mrs Jemimah Pelem admitted in her evidence-in-chief as contained in her written statement on oath in paragraph 10(i)&(ii) that – (i) The branch manager of OAGF Branch, one Mr. Jokthan Suleiman fraudulently obtained approval for cash collateralized credit facility for GCO Integrated Services Limited (“GCOâ€). GCO was introduced to the defendant by Mr. Jokthan Suleiman. GCO did not in fact provide any cash collaterals for the credit facility. (ii) In order to cover up the fraud, Mr. Suleiman fraudulently converted the sum of N110Million being held with the OAGF Branch as fixed deposit by Sigma Pensions Nigeria Limited to the credit of GCO to serve as cash collaterals for the credit facility improperly procured by Mr. Suleiman for GCO. That this much was corroborated by the report of the Internal Audit Group (IAG) of the defendant which was admitted in Court as Exhibit ECO8 wherein the IAG at page 3 paragraph 6 found that – In order to ensure that the CA of N44million of GCO Integrated Services Ltd scale through CAD based on the recent process of confirmation of investments from 15 June 2010, Jokthan converted Sigma Pensions Ltd’s investment of N110million to GCO Integrated Services Ltd to create cash collateral on 30/06/10. He perfected the fraudulent conversion of deposit by passing a fake instruction letter purportedly emanating from Sigma Pensions Ltd to Makurdi Branch on 30 June 20I0 to collapse N115million Sigma Pensions Ltd’s investment in its book, rebook N5million and post N110million to Inter Departmental Treasury (IDTR) account of OAGF Branch. He verified the signature on the forged letter as the account officer of Sigma Pensions Ltd. The investment is running in Makurdi Branch database because Jokthan had earlier given the deposit to the BM, Makurdi branch, Amego Omachoko. To the claimant, “the above referred evidences have shown clearly the reason why the defendant sacked the claimantâ€. The claimant, therefore, urged the Court to take a deeper look at the claimant’s contract of employment admitted in Court as Exhibit KA1, the defendant’s human resources policies document admitted in Court as Exhibit ECO4 and the defendant’s Sanctions and Disciplinary Action Grid admitted in Court as Exhibit ECO6 to enable the Court to determine whether the claimant’s dismissal is contrary to his contract of employment or not. That CBN v. Igwillo [2007] (Pt. 1054) at 393 (incomplete citation) held inter alia that – Where a contract including contract of employment involves several documents, the trial court can only determine the issues before it on the basis of the documents including letters relating to the contract and the conduct of the parties. In the interpretation of a contract involving several documents, the documents must be read together. The claimant continued that assuming but without conceding that the claimant’s dereliction of duty aided the fraud single-handedly committed by defendant’s branch manager Mr. Sulaiman Jokthan, then a combined reading of Exhibit KA1 at paragraph 1(ix), Exhibit ECO4 at page 91 and Exhibit ECO6 will show clearly that the dismissal of the claimant by the defendant was contrary to terms of his employment contract. Exhibit KA1 at paragraph 1(ix) states that – You shall be bound by all existing and future rules, regulations, policies and procedure of the company in force from time to time and those to which the company is statutorily bound to comply with. Exhibit ECO4 at page 91 states that – Proper professional conduct at all times is demanded from all ECOBANK employees. ECOBANK reserves the right to dismiss employee(s) on ground of misconduct. However, that in a bid to expatiate on how its sanctions will apply, the defendant in Exhibit ECO6 made clear what sanction will apply to what offence. A perusal of Exhibit ECO6 will show that the sanction for an act of fraud or attempted fraud with staff involvement or collusion is either dismissal, payback of financial loss or prosecution. And where the act of fraud or attempted fraud is not with direct involvement of staff but due to negligence, omission or error, the penalty is either payback of financial loss, suspension without pay, termination of appointment or final warning. That a further perusal of Exhibit ECO6 will also show that acts regarded as gross misconduct which attract dismissal as sanction does not include fraud related offences (all underlining is the claimant’s). It includes the following – i) Criminal conduct to the detriment of the bank ii) Soliciting or accepting bribes iii) Theft. To the claimant, it is, therefore, a misnomer and illegal for the defendant to have dismissed the claimant contrary to its own rules of sanction and disciplinary grid. That there are plethora of authorities of case law which have declared null and void sanction not backed by the law upon which an accused is charged before a trial court. In NNB Plc v. Osunde [1989] 9 NWLR (Pt. 566) at 511, it was held, inter alia, that – The exercise of power of dismissal or termination by an employer in a contract of employment which is not regulated by a statute must be in accordance with the agreement between the parties. The claimant then urged the Court to declare that the dismissal of the claimant is contrary to his terms of employment and, therefore, illegal and invalid. The claimant also referred to Imoloame v. WAEC [1992] 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) at 319, where the Court made a distinction between a claim for wrongful dismissal from employment and a claim that the dismissal of employee was invalid as in this case. That the Court held, inter alia, that – There is a distinction between a claim for a declaration that a servant was not validly dismissed and one that his dismissal was wrongful. This is because different considerations apply where a servant claims that his dismissal was invalid and ineffectual. On whether the claimant is entitled to reinstatement and payment of all salaries, emolument and other benefits from the date of his dismissal, the claimant contended that he should be reinstated as his dismissal is not only contrary to his terms of contract with the defendant but also unconstitutional and, therefore, unlawful as he was denied fair hearing as guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution, as amended, by the defendant. That in his written statement on oath at paragraph 18, he did state that he was not given fair hearing on his failure to ‘post a no debit’ clause on the GCO Account which was alleged to have aided the fraud committed by the defendant’s bank manager, Mr. Suleiman Jokthan. The claimant urged the Court to peruse Exhibit ECO7, which is the transcript of the claimant’s interview with the defendant’s Internal Audit Group. That the Court will find that at no time was the claimant confronted with the issue of the non-completeness of account opening document of GCO Account, which the defendant claimed was what aided the fraud. That in Osagie v. NNB Plc [2005] 3NWLR (Pt. 913) at 533 F – H and 534 A – C, it was held as follows – Ordinarily, a master is entitled to dismiss his servant from his employment for good or bad reasons or for no reason at all. Where parties have reduced the terms and conditions of service into agreement, the conditions must be observed and where a contract of employment had been properly terminated, intention or motive for doing so become totally irrelevant. However where a specific conduct has been advanced as reason for the dismissal of an employee by an employer, the dismissal cannot be justified in the absence of adequate opportunity offered to the employee to explain, justify or else defend the alleged misconduct. That the Court further explained in the Osagie v. NNB at page 536 E – G that – It seems to me from the perspective of the decisions on the power of an employer to dismiss summarily his employee for gross misconduct that the propelling keystone is the preservation of the constitutional right of fair hearing. The claimant accordingly urged the Court to hold that the failure of the defendant’s agents i.e. the Internal Audit Group and the Disciplinary Committee to give him fair hearing nullifies whatever recommendation they might have given the defendant which led to his dismissal. The claimant went on that the defendant in its written brief had claimed that the claimant failed to plead and prove his salary and other benefits that he is entitled to. In this regard, the claimant submitted that this is not true as the claimant pleaded his letter of employment (Exhibit KA1), which contains his salary and emoluments. That “the claimant could front his current earnings as he had been denied access to his email since the 24th of November 2010 by the defendantâ€. On whether the claimant has made out a case entitling him to the sum of N250,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand) as special damages or N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) as general damages, the claimant contended that he is entitled to the special damages of N250,000.00 being his total salary and benefits for the month of November 2010, having pleaded the non-payment of his salary by the defendant in paragraph E of his claims against the defendant in the complaint filed against the defendant in Form 1 pursuant to Order 3 Rule l of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007. Also that his letter of dismissal dated 24th November 2010 (Exhibit KA2) speaks for itself as nowhere in it was his salary for the month of November mentioned and this fact was not challenged by the defendant. That in Nicon Hotels Ltd v. NDC Ltd [2007] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1051) at 270 E – H, the Court held inter alia – Special damages must be specifically pleaded in a manner clear enough to enable the defendant to know the origin or nature of special damages being claimed against him to prepare his defence. That the claimant has consequently shown that his dismissal for gross misconduct is contrary to his contract of employment and therefore invalid. The claimant then urged the Court to order the payment of his November 2010 salary by the defendant. The claimant continued by once again referring to Nicon Hotels Ltd v. NDC Ltd, supra, at pages 269 to 270 H – D, where it was held that – General damages are those damages which the law implies in every breach and on every violation of a legal. It is the loss which flows naturally from the defendant’s act and its quantum need not be pleaded or proved as it is generally presumed by law. The manner in which general damages is quantified is by relying on what would be the opinion and judgment of a reasonable man in the circumstance of the case. Thus, where the plaintiff avers in his pleading that some damages has been suffered without being in a position to calculate its value specifically, damages would be presumed to have resulted naturally from the action of the defendant. In consequence, the claimant urged the Court to grant the N10 million general damages claimed against defendant as the he has suffered untold hardship as a result of the defendant’s action of dismissing him unconstitutionally from its employment which has made the claimant a brilliant young man unemployable as no bank is willing to give a man who was dismissed for fraud any job. That the damage done to his life cannot be quantified. In conclusion, the claimant submitted that even though his contract of employment is not governed by statute, he is still entitled to the declaration that his dismissal is unlawful, illegal, null and void as he has been able to prove to the Court that his dismissal was unconstitutional as his right to fair hearing as guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution was denied him by the defendant. That what is unconstitutional is unlawful and illegal and, therefore, ineffectual. Secondly, that he has been able to prove that even assuming without conceding that he was guilty of negligence which aided Mr. Jokthan, the branch manager of the defendant to defraud it, the sanction meted to the claimant is contrary to what is contained in the sanction and disciplinary grid of the defendant, which therefore makes the sanction illegal and ineffectual. Thirdly, that he is entitled to be reinstated back to the employment of the defendant as his dismissal is not only wrongful but also unlawful because it is unconstitutional and, therefore, ineffectual and invalid. Lastly, that he is entitled to special damages and general damages as his employment was not determined in accordance with his contract of employment with the defendant. That the defendant was wrong in dismissing him for gross misconduct when “what he was accused of was specifically captured under in the defendant’s sanction and disciplinary grid as fraud related which penalty was not dismissalâ€. The claimant then urged the Court to enter judgement in his favour as per his complaint and statement of facts. The defendant did not file any reply on points of law. I heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the processes and written submissions. The claimant’s counsel had adopted the four issues framed by the defendant and stated that he would argue each issue as outlined. Incidentally, however, throughout the claimant’s written address, nothing was said of issue 4 framed by the defendant, which is whether an order of perpetual injunction can be issued against an employer restraining such an employer from terminating its employee’s contract of employment. I consequently take it that the refusal of the claimant to say a word on this issue is tantamount to abandoning a claim. In the instant case, it is tantamount to accepting the submissions of the defendant in that regard. This aside, the law is that an employer has the right to discipline any erring employee in the interest of the organization or institution (Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc [2011] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1262) 624 SC at 649 C), although it may be otherwise if the contract of employment either expressly or impliedly rules out recourse to discipline by the employer (NEPA v. Olagunju [2005] 3 NWLR (Pt. 913) 602). Indeed, as held in Shell Pet. Dev. Co. (Nig.) Ltd v. Omu [1998] 9 NWLR (Pt. 567) 672, it is a disruption of an ordinary employer’s business to fetter him with an injunction not to discipline his servant. What this means is that this Court cannot grant relief d), which is “an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from harassing, intimidating or terminating the appointment of the claimant except with regard to the due process of law and in accordance with his contract of employmentâ€; and I so find and hold. The claimant had argued that his dismissal is unlawful, illegal, null, void and unconstitutional as his right to fair hearing as guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution was denied him by the defendant. In Exhibit KA3, a letter from the claimant to the Managing Director of the defendant, an exhibit objected to (but which objection I do not uphold), the first paragraph states as follows – ...I wish to humbly restate my position and hope that this case will be reviewed in light of my efforts and contributions in uncovering these frauds. For the claimant to be “restating his position†means (and could only) that he had the opportunity to state his case in a first instance. To, therefore, say that he was not given fair hearing cannot be correct on his part. Fair hearing is opportunity to be heard. In this sense, the Court of Appeal case of Gukas v. Jos International Breweries Ltd [1991] 6 NWLR (Pt. 199) 614 and the recent Supreme Court case of Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc [2011] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1262) 624 are apposite. The case of Gukas v. Jos International Breweries Ltd held that an employee whose employment is terminated on ground of misconduct after being given an opportunity and has replied to a written query regarding the issue forming the basis of his termination cannot complain of lack of fair hearing. And the case of Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc at page 648 per the concurring judgment of His Lordship Rhodes-Vivour, JSC held that where an employer accuses an employee of misconduct by way of a query and allows the employee to answer the query, and the employee answers the query before the employer takes a decision on the employment of the employee, that satisfies the requirements of fair hearing because he answered the respondent’s queries before he was dismissed from his employment. The claimant had also argued that going by Exhibit ECO7, the transcript of the claimant’s interview with the defendant’s Internal Audit Group, it will be found that at no time was he confronted with the issue of non-completeness of account opening. Also that he was not anytime given fair hearing regarding his failure to ‘post a no debit’ clause on the GCO account which was alleged to have aided the fraud committed by Mr. Suleiman Jokthan. But the Court of Appeal case of ACB Plc v. Nbisike [1995] 8 NWLR (Pt. 416) 725 has it that an employer, when dismissing his employee, need not allege any specific act of misconduct on the employee’s part as the ground for the dismissal. It is sufficient if such a ground did exist, whether or not the employer knew of it at the time of the dismissal. Therefore, it is not a requirement of the law that the nature or particulars of the gross misconduct are to be disclosed at the time of dismissal. The argument of the claimant in this regard, therefore, goes to no issue; and I so find and hold. Under cross-examination, the claimant acknowledged Exhibit ECO7 to be his and the signature on Exhibit ECO14, which signature was put on 07/05/2010, to be his. Exhibit ECO14 is a document detailing the job objectives and duties & responsibilities of a Customer Service Manager (CSM), a position which the claimant said he was not formally appointed to but the posting profile of which he knows. The claimant also acknowledged that accounts without full documentation should not be operational; although he said that it was not his duty to ensure that these accounts without full documentation become operational. He went on to acknowledge that his loyalty is to the Bank. That if asked to do something wrong by a senior officer, he will not do it. He continued that he is aware of the transaction that gave rise to the instant suit. The claimant also acknowledged that he authorised the transfer of N110 million belonging to Sigma Pension to OAGF Branch. He later on asserted that as Head of Funds Transfer, he has the profile to authorise such a transfer but has no authority to transfer funds from one Branch to another. That at the end of the day, the N110 million ended up in the account of GCO Integrated Services Ltd. That this money was posted as money belonging to OAGF Branch. He then acknowledged that the OAGF nomenclature used to bring in the N110 million was to becloud the audit trail. At this point of the cross-examination, the Court noted that CW did not appear truthful given the haphazard nature of his testimony. The claimant would, however, continue that it was not his duty to confront Makurdi on who the beneficiary of the N110 million is. That as Head Funds Transfer, he did everything as required of him. That he did not confirm who the beneficiary of the N110 million is as it was not his duty. He acknowledged that the GCO account did not have full documentation. That when he sees his senior doing something wrong, he will report it to the internal control officer whose duty is it to check for abuses of processes in the Bank. When the claimant said that he is aware of the transaction that gave rise to the instant suit, what exactly did he mean? The claimant signed for Exhibit ECO14 and yet contends that the duties stated therein are not his. Why then did he sign for them? When the claimant acknowledged that accounts without full documentation should not be operational, how come the claimant authorised the transfer of N110 million belonging to Sigma Pension to OAGF Branch? If as the claimant stated that his loyalty is to the Bank, how come that he did not confirm who the beneficiary of the N110 million is? On the whole, I do not think that the claimant is truthful in his testimony. The evidence points to gross negligence on the part of the claimant in the discharge of his duties when in the employment of the defendant; and I so find and hold. Here, the evidence of DW appears more believable. DW under cross-examination first affirmed that it was the Branch Manager, Mr. Jokthan Suleiman, who perpetrated the fraud. In this regard, I find and hold that the claimant did not perpetrate the fraud in question. However, DW went on that though she wouldn’t know whether staff invited to the Disciplinary Committee indicted the claimant or not, the claimant was supposed to review the account register daily; and that the claimant was being penalised for fraudulent complicity in that he allowed the accounts of GCO and Ablirah Nig. Ltd to be operational without complete documentation as well as the fact that he authorised the conversion of funds belonging to Sigma Pensions to GCO. All of these are incidents of gross negligence in the discharge of the duties of the claimant in the defendant bank. I so find and hold. But the contention of the claimant is that even if found grossly negligent in his duties, the penalty on him by the defendant should not be dismissal, referring to Exhibit ECO6. Exhibit ECO6 in providing for sanctions and disciplinary actions stipulates that what is provided in Exhibit ECO6 shall apply in conjunction with those highlighted in sections EHRP 1903 (dealing with termination) and 1904 (dealing with dismissal) of the Ecobank Group HR Policies (Exhibit ECO4) and are subject to review from time to time. By EHRP 1904 of Exhibit ECO4, the principle is that proper professional conduct at all times is demanded from all employees; and the Bank reserves the right to dismiss employee(s) on grounds of misconduct. In terms of policy statement, EHRP 1904 then provides that the Bank may summarily dismiss, without any entitlement, employees who commit any of the offences listed including gross negligence. Gross negligence is, however, not defined. The policy statement then concludes that all benefits cease on effective date of dismissal. I earlier found that the evidence before the Court points to gross negligence on the part of the claimant. What this means is that the penalty of summary dismissal under EHRP 1904 conforms to Exhibit ECO6 (note that Exhibit ECO6 incorporates EHRP 1903 and 1904), and hence the terms and conditions of the employment of the claimant by the defendant. Even the argument of the claimant in paragraph 4.10 of his written address to the effect that the acts regarded as gross negligence in Exhibit ECO6 which attract dismissal do not include fraud related offences, is difficult to sustain. This is because, the claimant himself acknowledged that criminal conduct detrimental to the Bank is one of the acts listed therein as consisting of gross negligence – and a fraud related offence would invariably also be a criminal conduct detrimental to the Bank. So howsoever it is considered, the claimant fell afoul of the principle of proper professional conduct laid down under the Bank’s rules of conduct. Relief e) of the claimant is a claim for special damages of N250,000.00 being salary for the month of November 2010 that was not paid the claimant. The defendant had argued that the claimant did not prove this and so cannot be granted it. The claimant on the other hand said that Exhibit KA1, his letter of employment, contains his salary and emoluments; and so this must necessarily be taken as proof. Exhibit KA1 actually has a statement of the salary and allowances of the claimant, but only in his position as an Executive Trainee on Band J. Under cross-examination, the claimant testified that after serving as Executive Trainee for a year, he was promoted to Band K, and he later moved to Band L when all other staff were promoted. What is, however, not before the Court is what the current salary and allowances of the claimant (as a Band L staff) are. In other words, the Court has not been told how the claimant arrived at N250,000.00 as his salary for the month of November 2010. For this reason, I agree with the submission of the defendant that the claimant has failed to prove this head of relief. I am supported by my holding by the recent Supreme Court decision in University of Jos v. Dr M. C. Ikegwuoha [2013] 9 NWLR (Pt. 1360) 478 at 498 – 499, which held that a claim by the respondent for an order directing the appellant to confirm him as a lecturer “with all my promotions, allowances and entitlements†can only be met partly in terms of the confirmation but not in terms of the promotions, allowances and entitlements as the respondent did not state with certainty what his allowances and entitlements are. In essence, that the claims were vague, lacking in particulars, not supported by primary facts or evidence and so are no claims at all. On the whole, I find and hold that the claimant has not been able to prove his case in this matter and so his claims fail. The claimant is not, therefore, entitled to any of the reliefs he claims. This case is accordingly dismissed. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip