Download PDF
By a complaint dated and filed on 20th January 2012, the claimant claims against the defendant as follows: (1) A declaration that the purported dismissal of the claimant by the defendant was unlawful, unfair and without regard to the principles of fair hearing as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2) An order setting aside the dismissal of the claimant by the defendant. (3) The sum of N411,000 (Four Hundred and Eleven Thousand Naira) monthly from the 7th day of September, 2011 until execution of the judgment of this court or till same judgment is complied with by defendant being the monthly salary and allowances of the claimant. (4) The sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) being general damages for the mental, psychological and emotional trauma of the claimant for the unlawful dismissal. (5) An order of this court for: (a) Reinstatement as a staff of the Defendant Bank with his full rank and status in the Bank ALTERNATIVELY: (b) Proper disengagement of the claimant from the Defendant Bank as a staff not found wanting for any criminal act or gross misconduct with full terminal benefit of the sum of N4,000,000.00 (Four Million Naira) or any sum of terminal benefit of his category of staff at the time of judgment of this court. The complaint was accompanied by a statement of fact, list of witness, witness deposition on oath, list of documents and documents to be relied upon at the trial. In reaction, the defendant through its counsel filed a memorandum of appearance, statement of defence, list of witness, witness statement on oath, list of documents and documents to be relied upon during trial. The case of the claimant according to his statement of facts is that he was a staff of the Defendant Bank and rose to the position of the Head, Cash Management Centre (CMC) in the year 2011. The claimant avers that the defendant is a Commercial Bank and Corporate Entity with powers to sue and be sued with branches in all the States of Nigeria including Benin City, Edo State. The claimant avers that the defendant has the power to appoint and terminate the employment of its staff in accordance with its policies governing the conditions of service of the staff. The claimant also avers that between 2004 and 2011, he held several positions in the Defendant Bank as follows: May 2004 – November 2005, Cash/Teller Officer (UBA, Ugbowo 2), Benin City. November 2005 – May 2006, Funds Transfer Officer (UBA, Ugbowo 2), Benin City. May 2006 – April 2007, Cash Officer (UBA, Ugbowo 2), Benin City. May 2007 – August 2009, Branch Operations Manager (UBA, Textile Mill Road) Benin City. September 2009 – July 2010, Branch Operations Manager (UBA, Ugbowo 1) Benin City. Head, Cash Management Centre (CMC) UBA Benin Area, Benin City. Claimant avers that he was at the Benin Branch when he was unlawfully dismissed by the defendant. The claimant further avers that before his dismissal, he had discharged his duties diligently and was never found wanting in all the positions he had served. That sometime in July 2010, the Control Officer one Anene Chiedu of the Defendant Bank had sent a query to his e-mail box which he termed as “this transfer is fraudulentâ€. The claimant avers that he was later made to face the Regional Bank, Disciplinary Committee on account of the said query which trial was recorded. That the same trial which took place in July 2010 was headed by Ignatius Onyeama. That upon his trial, the Disciplinary Committee did not find him wanting of fraud. The claimant pleaded that according to the policy of the Defendant Bank, the Disciplinary Committee should sit within one week on any case warranting termination and the report should be rendered within 72 hours from the date of sitting i.e. three working days. That after the meeting of Disciplinary Committee in July, 2010, he was not sanctioned in writing as he was not found wanting. That he worked for another one year after the episode of the 1st Disciplinary Committee before he received a letter of suspension through his mail box from the defendant on the 7th September, 2011 at 6.24 p.m. That the said letter of suspension put him on half pay pending the determination of his case before another Disciplinary Committee he was made to face. Also that on 8th September, 2011 at 10.29 a.m., another e-mail was sent to his box placing him on suspension without pay before the determination of his trial at the Disciplinary Committee. The claimant avers that this interval of time of the two letters of suspension certainly occurred without that meeting of the Disciplinary Committee and an indication of a pre-determined decision of his sack. That the two letters of suspension sent to him was with the subject matter “Alleged fraudulent activities on Etuokwu Maria TD 009900001704 and 02710520206186. The claimant also averred that the subject matter of investigation and trial by the said Disciplinary Committee occurred when the claimant had not been posted to the Ugbowo 1 Branch of the Bank where the alleged fraud took place as he claimant was serving at the Textile Mill Branch of the Bank then. That the 2nd Disciplinary Committee headed by Joan Abolo, sought to know why he was being invited as he was not an officer of the Branch where the alleged fraud took place at the time of that fraud. That the said trial was conducted by the Regional Bank Disciplinary Committee, Midwest Bank of the Defendant. That he was therefore surprised to be served a letter of dismissal from the Bank on the 30th September 2011 for gross misconduct. That he was never invited to the Disciplinary Committee on grounds of misconduct and no particulars of same were ever disclosed to him before, during or after his trial at the Disciplinary Committee. The claimant avers that till date, he does not know the particulars of the gross misconduct he was dismissed for by the defendant and was not given any opportunity of defending himself on same if such existed before his dismissal. That in line with the policy of the defendant, he wrote a letter appealing against his dismissal. That by a letter dated 27th October, 2011, the defendant replied his letter of appeal rejecting his request. Also the claimant commissioned a lawyer to write on his behalf for his reinstatement which demand was again rejected by the defendant. The claimant averred that the dismissal given to him by the defendant was wrong, unfair, unjust and unconscionable having regard to his age as a young man of 34 years who is still in the working class but who by virtue of such dismissal would find it difficult to get any other job either in the Banking Industry, Public Service or any other industry in the country for that matter. The claimant also averred that by virtue of his position in the defendant bank, he is entitled to at least Four Million Naira as terminal benefit if the defendant had ordinarily terminated his appointment. He also averred that with his dismissal, his particulars are forwarded to the Central Bank of Nigeria and by extension to other Financial Institutions in Nigeria as a person who must never have any business or working transaction with the financial institutions in the country, a status similar to a convict in the society. Also that since his 7 years and 3 months in the defendant’s bank, he had worked diligently in the various capacities. The claimant averred also tht he possesses a B.Sc Degree in Industrial Chemistry, 2nd Class Upper Division and has undergone series of trainings, courses, conferences and seminars in the financial industry such as Orientation Course for Executive Trainee, Comprehensive Operations Course, Operations Risk Management Course, Credit Training Course in Banking, Electronic Banking Products, ATM Operations Services and Professional Student of ICAN. That with his purported dismissal by the defendant, all his experiences, qualifications and potentials in the financial industry are ruined. The claimant therefore claimed the reliefs as contained in the complaint already reproduced above. The case of the defendant by its statement of defence is that waiver on the part of the defendant in previous cases is not a bar to taking decisive step in any gross misconduct or breach of existing policies of the defendant. The defendant denied paragraph 8 of the statement of facts and state that by the policies of the defendant and which is well known to the claimant as a senior staff, it is not only fraud that attracts severe sanction like dismissal, the Disciplinary Committee relied on the unambiguous confession of acts of improprietness by the claimant in respect of transaction over the Accounts of the defendant’s customers at its Ugbowo 1 business office in Benin, Edo State which conduct is unbecoming of someone of the status of the claimant as Branch Operation Manager. In response to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the statement of facts, the defendant contended that if there is any such policy, it is only advisory and not mandatory depending on the convenience, nature and circumstance of each case before the Disciplinary Committee set up for the purpose. The defendant state that the investigation exercise and the meeting of Disciplinary Committee were an ongoing affairs and so the Disciplinary Committee need not sanction the claimant after its meeting in July, 2010 without satisfying itself of the evidence before it. The defendant denied being in custody of the recorded audio tapes and the claimant need not issue any notice to produce. The defendant denied paragraph 13 of the statement of facts and states that it will lead evidence to show that the constitutional rights of the claimant were observed by presuming the claimant to be innocent at all time during the investigation activities. The defendant in response to paragraph 14 of the statement of facts averred that in the course of investigation and appearance of all the suspects including the claimant, several facts emerged showing the unauthorized transfer from one customer’s account to another, improper management of Fixed Deposit Account No. TD00900001704 belonging to one Mrs. Etuokwu Maria and personal and direct involvement of the claimant in the attempt to cover up these fraudulent activities all without the knowledge or consent of the account holders using his position as Branch Operation Manager. That the facts leading to the investigation and setting up of the Disciplinary Committee arose as a result of petition dated 30th June, 2010 issued by a customer of the defendant one Etuokwu Maria addressed to the Auditor of the defendant. That at the material time the whistle was blown open, the claimant was on ground at Ugbowo 1 Branch as Business Operation Manager and was in position to know all the facts surrounding the allegation of the said customer but concealed same from relevant authorities instead he was an active participant working in concert with the Branch Manager in various attempts to cover up the shady deals. The defendant also denied that Joan Abolo raised any objection about the presence of the claimant before the 2nd Disciplinary Committee and will put the claimant to the strictest proof of the averment. That the claimant was confronted with the allegations against him and he not only appeared before the Disciplinary Committee but replied to the queries issued to him at various times by various e-mails exchanged between the claimant and designated officers of the defendant particularly the e-mails dated July 13, 2010, July 15, 2010 and July 16, 2010 all in respect of the queries and responses on the allegations made against the claimant which confirmed that the claimant was never in doubt as to the gross misconduct and their particulars alleged against him. The defendant also averred that mere attempt to fully establish case of unauthorized dealings with any customer’s account with the defendant amount to a gross misconduct under the Rules and Regulations of the defendant and which policy is well known to the claimant being a senior staff and the only sanction for such established case of gross misconduct is dismissal notwithstanding the status or age of such employee. That the defendant will contend at the trial that by processing a facility granted to a customer on a mere verbal instruction, transferring money from one customer’s account without due authorization amount to misconduct on the part of the claimant and his subsequent dismissal is both fair and just in the circumstance as such conduct poised a big threat to Banking Industry and innocent customers. The defendant also denied that any entitlement to terminal benefit of N4 Million alleged or for any sums at all is subject to a number of factors including records of performance, number of active service, unblemished records e.t.c and not on what the claimant assumed to be his terminal benefits. The defendant therefore averred that the entire claim of the claimant and the relief sought are frivolous and ought to be dismissed with substantial cost. In reply to the statement of defence, the claimant averred that contrary to the averments in paragraphs 3 and 12 of the Statement of Defence, he the (claimant) had no previous case(s) with the defendant other than the one he was tried for by the Ignatius Onyema led Disciplinary Committee in July 2010 upon queries of one Chiedu Anene and Ibrahim Yesufu to him and his responses in form of emails annexed to the statement of defence. The claimant equally averred that though no ample opportunity was ever given to him to respond to those queries, it was on the strength of the afore stated queries and responses he faced the Disciplinary Committee on or about the 27th July, 2010. Also the claimant in response to the defendant’s averments in paragraph 3 and 6 of the defendant statement of defence averred that at the close of the meeting of the said Disciplinary Committee, he was verbally cautioned in line with the policy of the bank. The claimant also in response to paragraph 12 of the statement of defence avers that the queries issued to him particularly those dated 13th July 2010 and 15th July, 2010 bother on a document which was processed in line with the policy of the bank on request for partial liquidation of fixed deposit by the owner of the deposit. Also that the transfer of the sum of N133,000 which he made to restitute the customer was from the bank internal account which account like any other bank is monitored by the Business Operations Manager and posting to and from this account is discretionally authorized by the Business Operations Manager and no other officer. The claimant also responded that the policies regulating Staff Discipline in the Defendant Bank is well spelt out in Document of the Bank titled UBA GROUP HR DISCIPLINARY PROCESS & SACTION POLICIES, POLICY NO HRG: 002 JUNE 2010. That it is mandatory for the bank to follow the procedure so laid down in the trial and discipline of a staff and that of the claimant ought not to be an exception. The claimant reiterated that he was not suspended on grounds of fraud by the defendant without any iota of fair hearing as guaranteed by the Constitution of Nigeria and the disciplinary process of the Bank Policy. The claimant also responded that his letter of 12 September 2011 was not a confessional statement as claimed by the defendant. Rather the said letter was written by him after the meeting of the 2nd Disciplinary Committee and after he was sent on suspension without pay and not during investigation. That the said letter was an appeal for him to be recalled back to duty from suspension. That he was never invited by the Disciplinary Committee trial as to the content of the purported confessional statement before dismissing him summarily. That he was never given any opportunity to defend himself by adducing any oral evidence before the 2nd Disciplinary Committee neither was he given the opportunity to cross examine anybody accusing him of any offence including Etuokwu Maria whose petition the defendant Disciplinary Committee claimed they investigated. That also at all times material to this case he was never aware of any fraud committed by any of the staff of the branch while he served as the Business Development Manager until this incident happened. That also as the Business Development Manager that he authorized the transfer of N133,000.00 from the bank’s internal account to restitute a customer who was about to cause serious embarrassment to the bank as according to him he took the interest of the bank into consideration. He also responded that he never processed any facility to any customer on mere verbal instruction but rather on a written instruction duly verified by the appropriate officer of the bank. At the trial, the claimant adopted his written statement on oath on the 6th August 2012. The content of the claimant’s witness Deposition on Oath is on all fours with the statement of facts and so need no repetition. Under cross examination, the claimant answered that at the time of his dismissal, he was the Head of Cash Management Centre in the Area Office. He also said he was doubling as the Business Operations Manager. He answered tht he was the Head of the Cash Management Centre Benin Area Office in Edo State. He said that before moving to Benin City he was at Ugbowo 1 Branch. That as at the time he was at Ugbowo 1 Branch, there were series of allegation of fraud in the branch. He agreed that he worked at Ugbowo 1 Branch for 9 months. That during this period there were allegations of ATM Frauds, withdrawals on customers’ accounts without authorization, there were also allegations of customers deposit used to secure loans which the customers did not authorize e.t.c. He said that all the fraud allegations were reported to the authorities by him. He says he recalled that a Disciplinary Committee in July 2010. That it was because there was fraud allegation by a customer of the bank that her fixed deposit was used to secure two facilities approved and disbursed by the Branch. The witness answered that the name of the customers were Etuokwu Maria and Felicon Nigeria Ltd. He said the Disciplinary Committee had five members. He agreed that he was invited, that the Branch Manager was also invited and the Account Officer also. That at the Disciplinary Committee, he told the Committee that he was not the Branch Operations Manager when those facilities were approved and disbursed. He said he was aware of the allegations made against him and that he responded. He said the allegations were as to who booked and approved the transactions. He said the allegation was against the branch. He responded that the amount involved was N950,000.00 and N500,000.00 both of which were booked before he resumed at the branch as Branch Operations Manager. He answered that both loans were approved and disbursed before he resumed as the Branch Operations Manager of the branch. He also answered that at the time he resumed as the Branch Operations Manager the deposit for Etuokwu Maria was N6 Million. That the deposit matured when he was the Branch Operations Manager. He also agreed that when the money was due to be paid it was not paid as expected to the customer. He agreed that this was not the usual practice. He said he did not report to the authority when the customer could not get her money. The witness also agreed that he was aware that when the customer was not fully paid there was crisis between the depositor and the Branch Manager. CW1 also answered that the Branch Manager invited him to intervene in the matter and to help manage the customer. He agreed that he was able to manage the situation correctly. He said the Branch Manager promised to pay up the shortfall into the customers’ account. The witness also said he was in charge of Teller and Cash Management. He said the Branch Manager promised to pay the balance in 7 days time. He said he did not file a report. He denied that they were supposed to file reports daily on the happenings in the branch. He said he did not file a report after one week of the occurrence of this fraud. He agreed that the customer was paid in one week as agreed. He told the court that the Manager then brought the money to him to pay cash, but that he moved money from the internal account to the customers’ account. He explained that internal accounts are accounts of the branch which are under the control of the Branch Operations Manager. He said it was these funds that were used to pay back the money to the customer. He said the cash was paid back into the banks account afterwards in two tranches. The witness also answered that the internal accounts neither belong to the Branch Manager nor the Branch Operations Managers account. That the account belongs to the bank. The witness denied that he asked Anene Chiedu a staff of the bank to help in this matter. That he approached Chiedu to help the bank but he refused. He also said he approached Chiedu to help him with the situation he found himself. He said he received a query and he responded to it. He agreed that there were exchanges of mails between Chiedu and himself in this respect. He agreed that there was a second Disciplinary Committee and he was invited to appear and he did. He agreed that he appealed his dismissal to the management of the defendant bank. There was no re-examination of the witness by his counsel. The claimant thereafter closed his case. The defendant opened its defence by putting forward its witness Patience Ogbonnaya (DW1) who adopted her written Deposition on Oath on 14th November 2012. DW1 deposed that she is an employee of the defendant bank and works in the Human Capital Management Department at the Head Office in Lagos by virtue of which she is conversant with the facts of this case. That she has the authority of her employers to depose to this witness statement on oath on its behalf relating to the facts within her knowledge and as recorded in the office file of the defendant in respect of its employees including the claimant. The witness denied paragraph five of the statement of facts and further state that waiver on the part of the defendant in previous cases is not a bar to taking decisive step in any gross misconduct or breach of existing policies of the defendant. The remaining testimony on oath of DW1 is on all fours with the statement of defence and therefore need no repetition. DW1 deposed this statement in good faith and in accordance with the oath law and urged this court to dismiss the entire claim with substantial cost and the relight sought as being frivolous. Under cross examination by the claimant’s counsel, DW1 said she is an officer of Industrial Relations and Work Ethics in the Human Capital Management of the defendant. She said she was not a member of the two Disciplinary Committees that tried the claimant but he was in custody of all the documents relating to the case. She agreed that she is conversant with the facts that gave rise to the dismissal of the claimant. She agreed that the case was inconclusive and it was so stated in the report. She said she is aware of the regulatory policy of staff discipline of the bank. She denied knowledge that a Disciplinary Committee proceedings must be completed within 72 hours. She said there is no fix period for trying cases that the case can go on as more evidence comes in. She said it is not stated in the policy that cases must go on endlessly but as more evidence emerges a cases can go on. She responded that the staff manual is on the bank’s internet for staff to read and adopt. That there was no other complain against the claimant. She said the claimant was placed on suspension from 7th September 2011. She said the claimant was not entitled to any pay during the suspension. She agreed that the members of the Disciplinary Committee are still within the employment of the bank. There was no re-examination of the witness by her counsel. The defendant thereafter closed its case. Parties were ordered to file their respective final written addresses in accordance with the provisions by Order 19 rule 13 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007. In his written address dated 7th December 2012 but filed on 10th December 2012, the defendant’s counsel raised two issues for determination thus: (1) Whether from the evidence oral and documentary before the court the claimant’s constitutional rights of fair hearing were not complied with before his dismissal from the service of the defendant. (2) Whether the claimant has disclosed reasonable cause of action such that could make the court to grant relief 2, 3, 4 and 5 sought in the statement of facts. Arguing issue one, Learned Counsel submitted that from the statement of defence, it is apparent that the defendant admitted the dismissal, but pleaded justification and specifically denied liability for the remedies claimed in paragraph (1 – 5) of the statement of facts. That in the absence of admission, the burden of proof in a case of this nature rest squarely on the claimant. And that until the burden is discharged, the defendant has no burden to prove otherwise relying on Sections 131 – 136 of the Evidence Act 2011 and the case of Buhari v. Obasanjo [2005] 13 NWLR pt. 941 p. 1 at 122 – 123. To counsel, the claimant by paragraph 3 of his statement of facts admitted that the defendant has the power to appoint and terminate. That it is trite law that fact admitted need no further proof referring to Section 20 of the Evidence Act 2011 and Solana v. Olusanya [1975] 6 SC p. 55 at 62. That the claimant having admitted in his pleadings that there were two disciplinary panels, it cannot come from his mouth again to say that his constitutional right to fair hearing has been breached by not been heard before his dismissal by the defendant. That the position of the law is that a party cannot approbate and reprobate on the same issue, citing Ajide v. Kelani [1985] 3 NWLR pt. 12 p. 248 at 251. Learned Counsel further submitted that it is in every case especially in Internal Administration that oral evidence must be adduced before a decision is taken by Administrative Panel of Inquiry or Disciplinary Committee. That it is enough to issue query to the claimant to afford him opportunity to know the case against him and his response or answer in writing suffices to determine the case without adducing oral evidence. That the claimant admitted receiving a query which alleged “this transfer is fraudulentâ€, that Annexure “A†are emails containing series of queries and answers between the claimant and the defendant. To counsel, with the exchange if these emails, the allegation of lack of fair hearing due to absence of oral evidence is misconceived particularly in this 21st century where Information Technology has made physical presence before Administrative Panel a thing of the past. Counsel referred to De-Smith’s Judicial Review of Administrative Action 4th Edition p. 110. This court was also referred to the case of Hark v. The Military Gov. of Rivers State & Ors [1976] 11 & 12 SC Reprint page 109 at 123 to the effect that natural justice does not require that the hearing should be oral. On this issue, the defendant counsel finally submitted that the burden of proof of fair hearing even if placed on the defendant by law had been discharged by the admission of the claimant that he physically appeared before the two Disciplinary Committees set up to investigate his case. The defendant’s counsel therefore urged this court to resolve issue 1 in favour of the defendant. On issue two, the defendant counsel contended that in law he who asserts must prove. That in the case at hand, the claimant’s claim before this court is that he was wrongfully dismissed by the defendant and which assertion the defendant denied. That it is only when the claimant successfully proves his dismissal that he can be remedied by way of damages, citing the case of College of Medicine v. Adegbite [1973] 5, SC p. 106. To counsel, it is trite law that where there is a wrong, there must be a remedy citing Bello & Ors v. A.G. Oyo State [1986] 5 NWLR pt. 45 p. 428. That for the claimant to be entitled to damages, he must have shown that he has a cause of action to support his right to the judgment of this court. Counsel also submitted that from the facts of this case there is no reasonable cause of action citing again Lasisi Fadare v. A.G. Oyo State [1982] 4, SC 1 at p. 7, Egbe v. Adefarasin [1985] NWLR pt. 3 p. 549, Thomas v. Olufosoye [1986] 1 NWLR pt. 18 p. 689. As regards the claim for general damages of Ten Million Naira, Learned Counsel submitted that there is no such claim known to the law of contract of service. That a servant who has been wrongfully dismissed is entitled to such damages as will compensate him for the wrong that he has sustained. That no compensation can be claimed in respect of mental, psychological and emotional trauma for unlawful dismissal. That the defendant in this case is not liable for any damages and if the court has a contrary view it can only be awarded in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment between the parties, which is not before this court. The defendant’s counsel concluded that the claimant has not shown by credible evidence that he has any legal right that has been breached and so claimant cannot be entitled to any of the reliefs sought. The defendant’s counsel therefore urged the court to dismiss this case in its entirety with substantial cost. The claimant’s written address is dated and filed on 18th January 2013. The claimant’s counsel raised the following issues for determination:- (1) Whether the 2nd trial of the claimant does not amount to subjecting the claimant to double jeopardy hereby breaching the claimant’s right to fair hearing as guaranteed by Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2) Whether the conduct of making the claimant to remain on duty after one year of 1st trial before facing a 2nd trial does not amount to condonation in law. (3) Whether the non production of the reports of the Disciplinary Committees (1st and 2nd) does not amount to presumption of withholding evidence as envisaged by Section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act, 2011. (4) Whether the non production of the UBA Group HR Disciplinary Process & Sanction Policies containing the procedure of trial of erring staff of the defendant does not amount to presumption of withholding evidence as envisaged by Section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act, 2011. (5) Whether the manner of trials of the claimant by the defendant could be said to be in line with the principles of fair hearing. (6) Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in his claim. On the issue of whether the claimant was tried twice by the defendant on the same allegation, the claimant’s counsel submitted that the claimant has successfully established that he was tried by a panel of the defendant in July, 2010. That the fact was admitted by the defence. That the law is that facts admitted need no further proof, citing W.A.E.C v. Oshionebo [2007] All FWLR (pt. 370) p. 1505. To counsel, it is not in contention that the claimant was not sacked by the 1st Committee. That on the contrary the claimant was verbally cautioned in line with the policy of the Bank and transferred to another Branch of the defendant where he worked for another one year before the 2nd trial by another panel. That judicial authorities are bound that once a decision has been taken at the trial of a person, the panel is fonctus officio and the person under trial cannot be subjected to another trial similar offence. Counsel referred the court to the cases of Nigerian Army v. Aminun-Kano [2010] AFWLR pt. 523 p. 1828, Imade v. IGP [1993]1 NWLR (pt. 271) 608, Barmo v. State [2000] 1 NWLR pt. 641 424. That in the instant case the act of subjecting the claimant to two separate trials at different occasions amounts to double jeopardy which is contrary to his right to fair hearing as guaranteed by the provisions of Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The next issue of whether the conduct of making the claimant to remain on duty after one year of 1st trial before facing a 2nd trial does not amount to condonation in law, the claimant’s counsel submitted that making the claimant to be posted from his original place of duty after his 1st trial to another department to work for another one uninterrupted year, amounts to condonation or condonance which has now been received as part of our Labour Law citing Aminun Kano case (supra). To counsel in the instant case, it is condonation on the part of the defendant by making the claimant to continue to work for it after his 1st trial for another one year without any information to the claimant that the alleged same offence would be revisited. That where an employer condones an offence of an employee, such an employer would be barred from proof of same offence if any. The claimant’s counsel therefore submitted that the defendant is estopped in law from proof of same offence against 2nd trial, one year after the 1st trial and same claimant still working uninterrupted for the defendant and urged the court to so hold. On the issue of non production of the reports of the 1st and 2nd Disciplinary Committees or not calling of any member of the panel as a witness by the defence, the claimant’s counsel submitted that the circumstances of this case places a heavy burden on the defendant to produce the report of trial of the claimant both at the level of the 1st Disciplinary Committee and the 2nd Disciplinary Committee. That this is particularly so when the defence has alleged that the report of the 1st Disciplinary Committee which tried the claimant one year before a 2nd Disciplinary Committee has an inconclusive report. Learned Counsel referred to Section 136 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act 2011 and the case of Osunbor v. Oshiomohole [2009] AFWLR pt. 463. Also that it is a breach of the claimant’s constitutional right for the defendant not to show to court their report of how the claimant was tried, the nature of evidence adduced against him, the evidence that was rejected and the reasoning behind the conclusion reached by the panel to enable the court to know whether or not the claimant was given fair hearing. On the issue of whether the non production of the UBA Group HR Disciplinary Process and Sanction policies containing the procedure of trial of erring staff of the defendant does not amount to presumption of withholding evidence as envisaged by Section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act, the claimant’s counsel submitted that the claimant as an employee of the Bank is not in possession of the said disciplinary process regulating the process of staff discipline but only in the custody of the defendant. That the employer has a duty to make available to an employee the written conditions of service including the disciplinary process citing Section 7 (1) of the Labour Act, Laws of 2004 and the case of Nwakhoba v. Dumez (Nig) Ltd [2004] 3 NWLR pt. 861 page 468. Learned Counsel therefore submitted that the trials and consequent sack of the claimant was not in line with the defendant’s Staff Disciplinary Policy and urged the court to so hold. On the issue of whether the manner of trials of the claimant by the defendant could be said to be in line with the principles of fair hearing; the claimant’s counsel submitted that on the series of queries and replies to queries and correspondences between the defendant and the claimant to justify the sack of the claimant, it is sufficient for the claimant to prove the risk of a prejudice of the panel but not necessary to prove that the proceedings of the panel that investigated him were indeed prejudicial to him, citing the case of S.P.D.C Ltd v. Olanrewaju [2008] 18 NWLR pt. 118, p. 6, Olatunbosun v. N.I.S.E.R Council [1988] 3 NWLR (pt. 80) 25, Garba v. University of Maiduguri [1986] 1 NWLR (pt. 18) 550. Learned Counsel further submitted that it is a breach of the claimant’s constitutional right to fair hearing for the defendant not to show to court how the claimant was tried, the nature of evidence adduced against him e.t.c. Learned Counsel submitted that once there exists the likelihood of miscarriage of justice that may be possessed against the person whose right to fair hearing has been breached will go to no issue and urged the court to so hold. On the issue of whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in his claim, the claimant’s counsel submitted that the claimant has by his submissions proved his case against the defendant upon the preponderance of evidence as required by law and urged the court to enter judgment in his favour as per his reliefs. In reply on points of law, the defendant’s counsel submitted that the arguments of the claimant were based on absence of fair hearing and condonation by the defendant. That none of the issues were specifically pleaded by the claimant as required by the Rules of pleadings neither were any evidence led on it. That it is trite law that a party must be consistent in stating his case and in proving same, citing Ezemba v. Ibeneme [2004] SC pt. 1 at 45, Ajide v. Kelani [1985] 3 NWLR pt. as, pg. 248 at 251. As to the issue of trying the claimant by two Disciplinary Panels, the defendant’s counsel replied that contrary to the submission of the claimant, there was no double trial, that the claimant was accused for two offences i.e. the 1st query and the 1st Disciplinary Committee had to do with “This transfer is fraudulent†while the 2nd Disciplinary Committee as shown in the letter of suspension was in respect of “Alleged Fraudulent Activities on Etuokwu Maria†TD009900001704 and 02710520206186. That the two issues are different and urged the court to so hold. The defendant’s counsel also responded that contrary to the claimant’s submission, posting an employee from a particular department to another pending investigation does not amount to condonation of the misconduct of such employee and urged this court to so hold. Also that it is not the requirement of the law that a master must give reason for terminating its relationship with his servant, referring to Sea Trucks (Nig) Ltd v. Pyne [1999] 6 NWLR pt. 607 p. 414. Responding also, the defendant submitted that contrary to the assertion of the claimant, the law does not require a particular number of witnesses for a party to prove his case. That if a single witness is called it suffices if his/her evidence is credible enough to establish the case where the statute requires certain offences to be corroborated by another witness. That in the instant case, the defendant need not call any member of the panel as a witness for her particularly in view of the state of the pleadings and admission of the claimant in his correspondence admitting he took wrong decisions. The defendant also responded that there cannot be claim for general damages in a master-servant relationship not under statutory flavor and urged the court to so hold. The defendant in conclusion urged the court to resolve all the issues in favour of the defendant and dismiss the claimant’s case with cost against him. After a careful consideration of the case of the parties, the evidence adduced both oral and documentary, the issues to be determined by this court are: (1) Whether from the evidence before this court the claimant’s constitutional right of fair hearing was not complied with before his dismissal by the defendant. (2) Whether the claimant was subjected to two trials over the same offence. (3) Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in his claim. From the evidence, the claimant was at the material time the Branch Operations Manager of the defendant’s Ugbowo 1 Business Office in Benin, Edo State. He was queried on two occasions, one for fraudulent transfer and another for “Alleged fraudulent activitiesâ€. The claimant was accused of using his position as Branch Operations Manager to make unauthorized transfers from one customer’s account to another, improper management of two fixed deposit accounts and personal and direct involvement in the attempt to cover up these fraudulent activities in collusion with the Branch Manager of the said Ugbowo 1 Branch. Upon a petition by the affected customer, the claimant was queried and invited to appear before the Disciplinary Committee which he did. As a consequence, he was initially suspended and then eventually dismissed for gross misconduct. The claimant’s submission before this court is that he was never afforded a fair hearing. It is trite law that fair hearing means an opportunity to be heard on an allegation made against a particular person. That before a decision is taken against a person accused of misconduct or any misdemeanor, he or she be given an opportunity to state his side of the story before a decision is taken one way or the other affecting him. In the instant case the claimant was given such opportunity. As a matter of fact, a perusal of the exhibits before the court reveals that the claimant was issued with numerous queries and he responded to them via emails a number of times admitting his involvement in the said transactions. It is evident that after his suspension, he personally wrote to the defendant explaining the role he played in the said saga so also after his dismissal, he equally wrote pleading with the defendant to have another look at the decision taken against him. I therefore wonder why the claimant is now alleging that he was not afforded fair hearing or may be the claimant is laboring on a misapprehension as to the meaning of fair hearing. If that is the case, then we have at hand the Supreme Court’s new thinking as to the meaning of fair hearing especially as regards employment related disputes. In B.A. Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc [2011] 4 SC pt. 1 p. 104 at p. 135, His Lordship Rhodes – Vivour, JSC puts it bluntly as follows: “Audi alteram paterm is a maxim denoting basic fairness. It is a canon of natural justice that has its roots in the Old Testament. The Good Lord heard Adam before he passed sentence. It simply means hear the other side …. Accusing an employee of misconduct, e.t.c by way of a query and allowing the employee to answer the query and the employee answers it before a decision is taken satisfies the requirements of fair hearing or natural justice. The appellant was given a fair hearing since he answered the queries before he was dismissed.†In the instant case the claimant was not only given a number of queries, he also appeared before a Disciplinary Committee more than once. Therefore on the strength of the decision of the Supreme Court just quoted above I am of the firm view that the claimant was given fair hearing and I so hold. His argument that he was not given an opportunity to cross examine his accusers is no longer the position of case law today based on the Unity Banks case (supra). I therefore agree with the defendant that the claimant was given fair hearing before his dismissal. As a matter of fact, the claimant in this case was less than honourable, for instance under cross examination, he agreed that when he resumed as the Branch Operations Manager at Ugbowo 1, the fixed deposit for Etuokwu Maria was N6 Million. That the deposit matured when he was the Operations Manager, and that when the money was due to be paid it was not paid as expected to the customer. The claimant also agreed that this was not the usual practice, that he did not report to the authorities when the customer could not get her money. Instead the claimant used his position as the Branch Operations Manager to illegally transfer the banks internal account under his control to pay back the shortfall to the customer in two tranches. If this conduct of the claimant is not fraudulent, I wonder what else would amount to fraud. The claimant therefore colluded with his Branch Manager to perpetrate fraud on the accounts of customers put in their care and trust. I am of the considered opinion that this conduct of the claimant amounts to gross misconduct and I so hold. In the circumstance I hold that the claimant was validly dismissed by the defendant. As to whether the claimant was subjected to two trials over the same offence or that he was condoned, I disagree with such argument. From the evidence before this court such allegation has not been established. There were more than one allegations against the claimant and his cohorts in the said branch which were being investigated as it was coming to the fore and knowledge of the defendant. Even the claimant admitted that there were series of allegations against members of staff of the said Ugbowo 1 Branch of the defendant. Such allegations were being investigated and as it were the claimant because of his position in the said Branch was always invited to explain the role he played. This cannot be said to be double trial as the claimant want this court to believe. This argument is therefore discountenanced. On the issue of condonation, it was not pleaded by the claimant and is therefore discountenanced by this court. I also agree with the submission of the defendant on this. On the whole I hold that the claimant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed. The case of the claimant fails for lacking in merit and is hereby dismissed. I therefore hold that the claimant’s dismissal was not wrongful. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. …………………………………… Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu Fishim Judge