Download PDF
By A General Form of Complaint dated 23rd August, 2011 but filed on 26th August2011, the claimant claims against the respondent as follows: 1. A DECLARATION that the summary dismissal of the claimant by the defendant is unlawful, null and void. 2. DAMAGES in the form of monthly salaries and emolument the claimant would be entitled to from the date of her purported dismissal to the date of Judgment. ALTERNATIVELY DAMAGES against the defendant in the sum the claimant would have been entitled to had she been properly disengaged. 3. Interest on the Judgment sum at 21% interest until it is fully paid up. The complaint was accompanied by a list of witnesses, list of documents and copies of documents to be relied on at the trial. The claimant also filed a witness statement on oath dated and filed on the 29th February 2012 and a further testimony on oath on the 6th March 2012. The defendant by order of the court entered appearance and filed statement of defence on 4th of November, 2011. Accompanying the statement of defence is a list of defendant’s witness, list of documents to be relied upon and copies of documents. The defendant also filed what it termed a further statement of defence and additional list of documents. From the statement of facts, the claimant was an employee of the defendant from 14th June, 1990 until 8th December, 2009. The claimant averred that the defendant is a limited liability company engaged in the business of commercial banking in Nigeria. The claimant averred that while she was in the employment of the defendant she rose through the ranks to the position of Head Teller. That the defendant employed one Kemi Owolabi as a Cashier in its Idumagbo branch. The claimant also averred that the defendant’s customers accused Kemi Owolabi of stealing their monies which they had deposited with the defendant to the tune of N4,239,800.00 (Four Million, Two Hundred and Thirty Nine Thousand, Eight Hundred Naira). That Kemi Owolabi was suspected to have done this by failing to post monies paid in by the defendant’s customers. That to ensure that her actions would be untraceable Kemi Owolabi collected the customers’ copies of their tellers. That the activities of Kemi Owolabi was discovered when several customers protested that their statements of account was not a truly reflection of their various deposits. The claimant further averred that upon this discovery Kemi Owolabi was issued a query. That despite her having no knowledge of Kemi Owolabi’s activities, the defendant placed her on suspension without pay. That the defendant also reported the matter to the Police for proper investigation. That the defendant set up a disciplinary panel which absolved her of all wrong doing. That during this period, she took it upon herself to ensure the apprehension of Kemi Owolabi who had absconded following exposure of her activities. The claimant further averred that the Police concluded their investigations and issued their investigation report which also cleared her of complicity in the actions of Kemi Owolabi. That despite been absolved of any wrong doing the defendant summarily dismissed her for an act of gross misconduct. That despite several appeals from herself and her solicitors for the review of her dismissal, the defendant never responded positively. The claimant averred that her summary dismissal was wrongful and illegal as she never engaged in any sort of misconduct and that the defendant never established any misconduct against her before dismissing her and so she was wrongfully issued a summary dismissal as a result of which she has suffered damages. That she has been denied her retirement benefits which she would have been entitled to had she been allowed to serve out her employment or voluntary retire. That she has lost several employment opportunities due to the blight of “gross misconduct†contained in the letter of her summary dismissal. She therefore claimed against the defendant as per her complaint. The defendant’s case is that the claimant was given queries for cash suppression fraud by one Kemi Owolabi who was working under the claimant and for non posting of cash transactions on C – Zard account. That based on the replies to the queries, the claimant was suspended to enable the defendant investigate the matter. That what was reported to the Police for investigation was the issue of cash suppression on various customers account by Kemi Owolabi. The defendant admitted paragraph 12 of the statement of facts to the extent that a Disciplinary Committee was set up to also look into among other things the revelations of the claimant in her reply to the queries issued to her and found her guilty of gross misconduct but denied other averments therein. That the defendant averred that the claimant was not dismissed based on the issue of cash suppression reported to the Police for investigation. The defendant further averred referring to the claimant’s memo dated 15th October, 2009 in reply to the query on cash suppression to the Ag. Chief Inspector and quoted the claimant as follows: “The second issue I want to raise concern loan was the xmas contribution in our branch. We called it (Basiri 2006 and 2004). This fund was generated through our allowances and salary at the end of the month and we used it to assist each and every member of staff. Sometime we do give our customers a short term loan as a result of refusal to grant credit from the Head Office from this fund called Basiri 2006 and 2004. What we usually do is that we collect a cheque since they do not have a collateral. The cheque stand a means of proving that we actually give out loan to them as in most times, the cheque is been presented to us and we give out cash to them from this Basiri 2006 and 2004â€. The defendant also averred that in another reply dated 26th October 2009, to the Ag. Chief Inspector, the claimant stated as follows:- “The second issue was on Xmas contribution in our branch which we called BASIRI 2006 and 2004. This was co-ordinated by Olu-Wilson Okoza before he resigned his appointment from the bank. I became the coordinator along with assistant (SIC) of the operation manager. We debit through salary, but we have some very close customers of the branch and some of them are petty traders, they also benefit by putting in some money into the account of Basiri 2006 and 2004. Below is the capital amount and names of our major contributors who also enjoyed loan from us since they have their money with us. Others are staff of the branch and other branches 1. Mrs. Yusuf Rabiatu Ajoke, amount deposited - N50,000.00 2. Mrs. Arigbedo Alaba Bukola, amount deposited - N400,000.00 3. Mrs. Ramuta Rufai, amount deposited - N200,000.00 4. Mrs. Labulu Toyin, amount deposited - N150,000.00 5. Eniola Dare, amount deposited - N300,000.00 N1,100,000.00 I also attached a copy of evidences to prove that we actually collected money from the people and attached is a roaster which we use in deducting money from other staff on a monthly basis. We have close to (N2,000,000.00) Two Million Naira whereby we give out loan to staffs (SIC) and some of our friends. In the course of giving out loan we collect their cheque as evidences as some of them doesn’t have a collateral and mostly when paying back it is on daily basis and at times (SIC) weekly or monthly because of the nature of their business.†The defendant averred that as a result of the revelation that the claimant was carrying out a banking operation within the defendant bank and in the course of her employment, a Nine Member Disciplinary Committee was set up on 6th November, 2009 with Mr. Ademola Adebise, ED as the Chairman. That the setting of the Committee had in attendance ASSIBIFI President as an observer to the whole proceedings. The defendant also averred that the Committee findings showed that the act of the claimant amounts to gross misconduct for which the claimant was dismissed. That in the Basiri 2006 and 2004 account there were cash deposits, withdrawals, loans, interests, transfers and collection of collaterals which are exactly what the defendant’s business is all about. That cheques were issued and honoured in this account. Also that the claimant stated in her reply of 15th October, 2009 to a query that they give loan to even those that the Head Office of the defendant refused to grant credit. The defendant equally stated that by virtue of its Human Capital Management Policy Manual, gross misconduct included but not limited to theft, fraud and dishonesty of or in connection with Banks business, willful insubordination or disobedience whether as one or in combination with others of any lawful and reasonable order placed by the bank and concealment of information. The defendant also states that the dismissal of the claimant was lawful as the claimant’s act constitutes gross misconduct. That the claimant was not wrongfully dismissed and therefore has suffered no damages. The defendant therefore urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s claim with substantial cost as the dismissal of the claimant was lawful and therefore this action lacks merit. In reply to the statement of defence, the claimant denies paragraph 6 of the statement of defence and states that the Disciplinary Panel absolved her of all wrongdoing and puts the defendant on notice to produce the findings and recommendation of the Disciplinary Panel. The claimant also responded that she was not located at Pelewura Branch at time the Basiri 2006 and 2004 account were opened. The claimant also responded that the accounts operated by Basiri 2006 and 2004 were domiciled with the defendant. She averred that she was never informed of any wrongdoing relating to credit or lending and she never received any query from the defendant in that regard. That she never solicited any of the defendant’s customers to collect any loans from Basiri 2006 or 2004. The claimant also averred that the only customers given loans were those whose loan application had been rejected by the defendant. The claimant also averred that the Basiri 2006 and 2004 accounts were contributions made by staff members towards the yuletide season. That the defendant never gave her any terms of employment beyond her letter of employment. That the first time she saw the defendant’s Human Capital Manager Policy Manual was when the defendant served same on her solicitors. That she was not the person who opened Basiri 2006 & 2004 account and only started co-ordinating the account on behalf of her fellow staff. The claimant also denied that she gave loans, neither did she charge interest on monies taken, neither did she ever give any contributor more money than they contributed. She averred that the defendant is only clutching at straws having found that her dismissal was wrongful and urged the court to grant her prayers as contained in her statement of facts. The claimant’s witness statement on oath deposed to on 29th February 2012 and 6th March 2012 were adopted by the claimant as CW1 on the 25th April 2012. The said witness statements are on all fours with the statement of facts and so need no repetition here. Under cross examination, the claimant responded that she joined the defendant on 14th June, 1990. She agreed that she rose through the ranks to become the Head Teller. She agreed that she is familiar with the rules and regulations governing the banking industry. She said she knows that fraud is not allowed in the banking industry. She also agreed that gross negligence is a ground for dismissal. She agreed that the defendant is a bank. The claimant also agreed that it is an offence for a worker in the bank to collect deposit and not lodge it into his employers account. The claim ant also agreed that it is not proper for an employee to grant loan to a customer when the bank had earlier refused to grant such loan. The claimant denied having Basiri 2006 and 2004 accounts but that CR was domiciled in the branch where she worked. She agreed that as a worker of a bank if she discovers fraud in a particular branch I am working I am expected to report it to management. The claimant responded that the Basiri 2004 and 2006 is a club account for family and friends where those who are staff made contributions towards the yuletide seasons and outsiders who are not staff members who are invited to join, to make some kind of deposit which remains in that branch of the bank. That it is meant to also increase the deposit base of the branch. She insisted that the defendant is aware of this Basiri 2006 and 2004 account. That in fact it is operated in other branches of the defendant in Lagos. The claimant denied giving loans from this Basiri account and also did not collect interest. The claimant also denied that collateral or interest was collected by them from the depositors of this scheme. The claimant responded that she knows Kemi Owolabi. She also agreed that Kemi Owolabi worked under her. That she became aware of the fraud committed by Kemi Owolabi after Kemi Owolabi’s transfer to another branch and customers came looking for their moneys that were not reflected in their accounts, and the deposit slips for the bank was also not found but that they recognized Kemi Owolabi’s signature on the customers deposit slips. The claimant answered that the amount involved was N4,239,800.00. The claimant said in response that despite the fact that she could not discover such a fraud committed by a staff working under her, she is still an effective Supervisor. The claimant said it was not a negligent act that she did not discover such a fraud committed by somebody working under her. She says she agreed that she was queried. She also agreed that she answered the queries. When shown the answers to the queries which is before the court, the claimant confirmed that the answers to the queries were hers. The claimant disagreed that the volume of deposit coming into the Basiri account was more than the deposit coming into the branch. The claimant agreed that some of the monies found in the Basiri Account can be used to open an account with the defendant as at then. The claimant denied that she was queried before she was dismissed. She also denied that she was suspended. That she did not also face a Disciplinary Panel. That she was invited to the Police in respect of the fraud committed by Kemi Owolabi. That the Police did not find her guilty (i.e. the claimant). The claimant responded also that the Police did not investigate gross negligence. That the Police did not investigate the Basiri 2006 and 2004 account. The claimant agreed that she faced a panel of the defendant in respect of Kemi Owolabi’s fraud. She responded that four of them faced the investigation panel about the fraud. She denied that the issue of Basiri account came up in the panel. She says she did not face any issue about gross negligence as per her duties when she appeared before the panel. The claimant denied withdrawing money from the Basiri Account. That other participants also do not withdraw money from the Basiri Account. The claimant responded that among the four of them that were invited two were dismissed and two others warned. The claimant denied knowledge of any collective agreement between her union and the employers association while she was still with the defendant. She equally denied knowledge of the code of ethics and professionalism in the banking industry. She also denied that she is telling lies to the court. There was no re-examination of CW1 by her counsel. The defendant thereafter opened its case by calling its witness. The defendant’s witness DW1, Ahmed Babalola swore with the Holy Bible and adopted his witness statement on oath which he deposed to on 21 March, 2012. DW1 also adopted all documents frontloaded in support of the defendant. The content of the witness statement on oath of DW1 is on all fours with the statement of defence and so need no repetition here. Under cross-examination, DW1 said he works in the Human Capital Management Department of the defendant. DW1 says that his office is at No. 54 Marina, Lagos. He responded that every loan application of a customer must be approved by the management of the defendant bank. DW1 also responded that there has to be a requirement to be met by a customer before loan can be granted to the customer. That he cannot say categorically what these requirements are as according to him he does not work in the branch or the necessary department that deals with loans. The witness also responded that if the requirement of the loan is not met by a customer, no approval can be given for such loan. DW1 also agreed that it is not every loan application that can be granted by the bank. That if the loan application is refused there will be no financial loss to the defendant bank. DW1 denied knowledge of what wonder bank is. He agreed that he served as Secretary to the bank’s Disciplinary Committee. He also agrees that Kemi Owolabi’s case was for cash suppression. He said Kemi Owolabi was issued a query but after she appeared the committee she was no longer issued with a query again. DW1 said he cannot remember when the claimant was transferred to Pelewura Branch of the defendant. DW1 denied knowledge of when the First Basiri account was opened. He said the claimant was dismissed for violation of the defendant’s policy. He said the claimant was practicing a bank within the bank. That the claimant along with others in the Pelewura branch opened an account called Basiri Account and through the account they were granting unauthorized credit facilities to customers of the defendant as a result some other fraudulent practices were perpetrated on the Basiri Account. DW1 says he does not know any customer that benefited from the loan but during investigation the statement of account printed showed that funds were availed to customers, some of these customers gave their cheques as collateral before the loans were given. He said he was not in possession of the said cheques, that the said cheques would have been in the credit and inspection department. That it is a department in the defendant bank. He said he was the Secretary of the defendant’s Disciplinary Committee. He said the claimant was not confronted with any customer but was confronted with the issue of the credit facilities granted. He says he cannot remember if the claimant was shown copies of those cheques. He also says the panel was set up to look at the fraudulent malpractices committed by Kemi Owolabi and to look into the Basiri 2006 and 2004 accounts. The witness also said the organogram was that the claimant was the head of Tellers and all Tellers report to the claimant. That the said Kemi Owolabi was the bulk teller and reports to the claimant as the Head Teller. DW1 says he does not know the claimant’s ranking in the line of authorities, but that she is next to the Operations Manager and so could be the 3rd person in the Hierarchy. DW1 denied knowledge of the outcome of the Police investigation because the action of the Disciplinary Committee is not dependent on the outcome of the investigation. That the claimant was given a query because she was implicated by Kemi Owolabi. The witness also said that Basiri 2004 and 2006 was a fallout of the implication of Kemi Owolabi. That the claimant was issued a query in respect of the whole saga. There was no re-examination of the defendant witness. The defendant thereafter closed its case. Parties were then ordered to file their final written addresses in line with the provisions of Order 19 Rule 13 of the NIC Rules 2007. The defendant’s final written address is dated and filed on 11th April, 2013. The defendant raised two issues for determination: (1) Whether from the facts and evidence before this court, the acts of the claimant constitutes an act of gross misconduct. (2) Whether the claimant was properly dismissed. The defendant’s answer to the first issue is in the affirmative. The defendant submitted that in reply to one of the queries issued to the claimant dated 15th October 2009, the claimant stated as follows: “The second issue I want to raise concern loan was the Xmas contribution in our branch. We called it Basiri 2006 and 2004. This fund was generated through our allowances and salary at the end of month and we use it to assist each and every member of staff. Sometime we give our customer a short term loan as a result of refusal to grant credit from Head Office from this fund called Basiri 2006 and 2004. What we usually do is that we collect a cheque since they do not have collateral. The cheque stands as a means of proving that we actually give out loans to them as in most times, the cheque is being presented to us and we give out cash to them from this Basiri 2006 and 2004.†To the defendant, in view of the above can any reasonable employer or bank retain such a worker who has revealed that much in its employment? The defendant’s answer is in the negative. The defendant submitted that act of the claimant which she revealed herself constitutes an act of gross misconduct which makes her liable for dismissal. The defendant wondered why a bank worker can give out loan to customers whose loan application has been refused by the Head Office from an account being operated within the bank. The defendant also quoted another reply by the claimant dated 26th October, 2009 where she revealed as follows: “The second issue was on Xmas contribution in our branch which we called Basiri 2006 and 2004. This was coordinated by Olu-Wilson Okoza before he resigned his appointment from the bank. I became the coordinator along with assistant of the Operations Manager. We debit through salary, but we have some very close customers of the branch and some of them petty traders, they also benefit by putting in some money into the account of Basiri 2006 and 2004. Below is the capital amount and names of our major contributors who also enjoyed loan from us since they have their money with us. Others are staff of the bank and other branches. 1. Mrs. Yusuf Rabiatu Ajoke, amount deposited - N50,000.00 2. Mrs. Arigbedo Alaba Bukola, amount deposited - N400,000.00 3. Mrs. Ramuta Rufai, amount deposited - N200,000.00 4. Mrs. Labulu Toyin, amount deposited - N150,000.00 5. Eniola Dare, amount deposited - N300,000.00 N1,100,000.00 I also attached a copy of evidences to prove that we actually collected money from the people and attached is a roaster which we used in deducting money from other staff on a monthly basis. We have close to N2 Million whereby we give out loans to staffs and some of our friends. In the course of giving out loan we collect their cheque as evidences as some of them doesn’t have a collateral and mostly when paying back it is on daily basis and at times weekly or monthly because of the nature of their business.†To the defendant the above picture painted by the claimant clearly reveals that the claimant was operating a bank within the defendant bank and this clearly constitute act of gross misconduct. The defendant referred the court to the case of B.A. Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc [2011] SC (pt. 1) 104 at 122 para 25 – 35. The defendant further submitted that wading through the queries and replies of the claimant in this matter and the decision of the Disciplinary Committee the act of gross misconduct was definitely proved against the claimant. That looking at the Basiri 2006 and 2004 account, there were transactions such as cash deposits, withdrawals, loans, interest and transfers. That the claimant also revealed that they collected materials to give out these loans. The defendant therefore wondered whether these are activities in the account not exactly what banks do? That what the claimant was doing in these accounts is clearly in conflict with the interest of the defendant who employed her. The defendant also submitted that in order to follow the due process of law, it set up a Disciplinary Committee that heard the claimant and adjudged her guilty before she was dismissed. That the claimant has not proved she was wrongfully dismissed, citing the case of Dr. E.O. Imasuen v. University of Benin [2011] FWLR (pt. 572) 1791 at 1806 para F – H and OKOMU OIL PALM CO. LTD v. ISER HIENRHIEN [2001] FWLR (pt. 45) 670. To the defendant the letter of dismissal dated December 8, 2008 the claimant was summarily dismissed from the service of the defendant in line with the terms in her contract of employment for an act of gross misconduct. The defendant also cited the case of Mike Eze v. Spring Bank Plc [2011] 12 SC (pt. 1) 173 at 177 para 5 – 25. Continuing, the defendant submitted that the claimant’s dismissal was justified in view of the revelation from the claimant in the queries issued to her and the decision of the Disciplinary Committee. The defendant referred the court to cases of Michelin (Nig) Ltd v. Augustine Alanbe [2010] All FWLR pt. 543 1993 @ 2012 para H – A, Baba v. Nigeria Civil Aviation Training Centre [1991] 5 NWLR (pt. 192) 388 at p. 204 para B – C, OSUMAH v. EDO BROADCASTING SERVICE [2004] 17 NWLR (pt. 902) 332, OMO v. JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMITTEE OF DELTA STATE [2000] 12 NWLR (pt. 682) 444 and MAJA v. STOCCO [1968] 1 All NWLR 141. The defendant submitted that the claimant’s action in this case is clearly against the interest of the defendant. That the claimant was not dismissed on the basis of the Police report. That the claimant stated under cross examination that the Police did not investigate act of gross negligence and did not investigate Basiri 2006 and 2004 account. Summarizing, the defendant reiterated its submission as follows: (a) The claimant received queries for her activities in the cause of her employment. (b) That the claimant revealed that they were operating Basiri 2006 and 2004 Acount. (c) That in the same account there were deposit, withdrawals, transfers, loans and collaterals collected from the customers. (d) That the activities in the account operated by the claimant amounts to operating a bank within the defendant’s bank. (e) That customers that were refused credit by the Head Office of the defendant were granted same by the claimant from the Basiri 2006 and 2004 account. (f) That customers that were supposed to open an account with the defendant deposited their money into the account. (g) That the claimant was given opportunity to be heard before the Disciplinary Committee who recommended her dismissal. (h) That the actions of the claimant were inimical to the interest of the defendant. (i) That the claimant was not dismissed as a result of the matter investigated by the Police. (j) That the claimant was dismissed for an act of gross misconduct. The defendant therefore urged the court to dismiss this matter with substantial cost as it lacks merit. The claimant’s final written address is dated and filed on 23rd May, 2013. The claimant raised two issues for determination: (i) Whether the claimant’s dismissal by the defendant is lawful and valid. (ii) Whether the further statement of defence filed by the defendant is competent. On the first issue, the claimant submitted that the evidence of the defendant’s sole witness Mr. Ahmed Babalola, sworn to on the 21st March, 2012 is instructive particularly paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of his testimony and reproduced it thus: (4) That sometime in 2009, fraud was discovered at the Pelewura branch of the defendant bank implicating one Kemi Owolabi who was working under the claimant. The matter was reported to the Police. (5) That the claimant received series of queries on September, 1st 2009, 2nd October, 2009 and 26th October, 2009 as it was difficult to believe that the said Kemi Owolabi could carry out the fraud without the knowledge of her immediate boss who is the claimant. (6) That in the claimant’s replies dated 15th October, 2009 and 26th October, 2009 she made a lot of revelation which startled the defendant. That from the evidence of the defendant’s sole witness it is obvious that the fraud that was discovered was perpetrated by Kemi Owolabi who was working under the claimant. The claimant pointed out that contrary to the argument of the defendant’s counsel in his address the Police report tendered by the claimant is relevant and forms the fulcrum of the case of the claimant. To the claimant it is clear from the evidence of the defendant that after the discovery of the fraud against Kemi Owolabi where the claimant was implicated the matter was reported to the Police who investigated the alleged fraud by Kemi Owolabi. That the report became pertinent as she was cleared of any complicity in the fraud committed against the defendant. That the defendant having a deep rooted suspicion against the claimant believing that it is impossible for Kemi Owolabi to have committed such fraud without the knowledge of the claimant went ahead to dismiss her from its service. That it is trite that suspicion no matter how strong cannot ground conviction for an accused person, citing the case of Ogundele v. Agiri [2009] 18 NWLR pt. 1173, 219 at 247. Continuing, the claimant submitted that in order to water down the relevance of the Police investigation report, the defendant tacitly abandoned the Owolabi’s case upon which the claimant was queried twice to hold on to the purported revelation of Basiri Account 2006 and 2004 to allege that the claimant was operating banking activities within the bank. That the defendant did not issue the claimant a query to specifically answer this allegation as conjured by the defendant in its defence. The claimant admitted being issued three queries but that the queries related to the issue of Kemi Owolabi’s case suppression which the claimant successfully answered. The claimant submitted that she was not issued a query in respect of the allegation that she was carrying on banking business within the defendant and so her evidence remained unchallenged. And so she was never given opportunity to defend the allegation of lending money at certain interest rate to the customers of the defendant. That the claimant had categorically and variously denied the allegations in her reply to statement of defence and since the denial is unchallenged, the court has a duty to act on it, referring the court to Mogaji v. Nigerian Army [2008] 8 NWLR pt. 1089 at p. 393 para D. The claimant also submitted that she was not given a hearing in respect of Basiri 2006 and 2004 account assuming she even implicated herself by answers given to the queries. The claimant also submitted that the defendant assumption that she was operating a bank within a bank without hearing from her is a fundamental breach of fair hearing. The claimant therefore submitted that her dismissal is wrongful and urged this court to so hold and resolve this issue in her favour. On issue two, the claimant submitted that the further statement of defence filed by the defendant is incompetent as it does not conform with any known rules of practice or procedure. That Order 9 Rule 1 of the NIC Rules 2007 makes it clear that defence must be filed within 14 days. In the event that the statement of defence was not filed within 14 days, the defendant will need a motion for extension of time to do so. That this the defendant had already done when it filed a motion on notice dated 4th November, 2011 alongside with the statement of defence. The shockingly the defendant without any leave of court filed a further statement of defence dated 7th February, 2012 wherein it pleaded three more documents. That it is settled that to every defence filed by the defendant the claimant has a right to file a reply. That the claimant can only file reply to statement of defence once as the defendant is also allowed to file statement of defence once but both parties are at liberty to make amendments to their respective pleadings as much as it will serve the end of justice in the matter. That an incompetent process remains without legal value, citing the case of IMANSON v. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES LTD [2007] 2 N.W.L.R. 1018 p. 211 at 245 para. E. The claimant also submitted that the attached documents in the further statement of defence are equally incompetent as one cannot put something on nothing, citing the case of UAC v. MACFOY [1961] 3 All ER at p.1177. The claimant therefore submitted that the further statement of defense is incurably bad and ought to be completely ignored as it is a worthless bundle of documents which is without any Legal value. The claimant finally urged the court to grant all her reliefs. There was no reply on point of law by the defendant. After a careful consideration of the processes filed, the evidence of witnesses, written addresses and authorities cited by the parties, in my view I will adopt the issues for determination raised by the claimant. These are: (1) Whether the claimant’s dismissal is lawful and valid. (2) Whether the further statement of defence filed by the defendant is competent. I will rather begin with the second issue which is whether the further statement of defence filed by the defendant is competent. Here the defendant after earlier filing its statement of defence, again filed what it termed Further Statement of Defence along with three exhibits attached to it. In doing so the defendant did not state under what rules of court or law the further statement of defence was filed neither was leave of this court sought before the said Further Statement of Defence was filed. This is definitely a strange procedure which is unknown to the law regulating pleadings at least in this court. Under the rules of this court, Order 9 Rule 1 of the NIC Rules 2007 which deals with the duty of a party served with a complaint i.e the defendant as in this case provides: (1) Where a party served with a complaint and the accompanying documents as stipulated in Order 3 of these Rules intends to defend and/or counter–claim in the action, the party shall not later than 14 days or any other time prescribed for defence in the complaint file: (a) A statement of defence and counter claim (if any). (b) List of witnesses. (c) Copies of documents to be relied at the trial. Also the New Practice Direction of this court which came into effect on 1st July 2012, sub-rule 1 (d) of Order 9 provides that the defendant shall file along with the statement of defence written statement on oath of all witness listed to be called by the defendant. From the provisions of Order 9 set out above, there is no provision for the strange procedure adopted by the defendant that is by filing a Further Statement of Defence along with exhibits. It is my humble view that upon receipt of the defendant’s statement of defence, the claimant may file a reply to the statement of defence and when that is done that conclude the exchange of pleadings by both parties. However either of the parties is entitled to seek leave of court to amend its pleadings if it deem fit and this includes the defendant in this case. The defendant is also at liberty to seek leave of court to file additional documents in support of its case if need be. This the defendant in this case has not done, to therefore seek to file a strange process unknown to law even without leave of court is to say the least unprofessional of counsel for the defendant. More worrisome is the fact that in filing this strange process and attaching exhibits to it, the defendant’s counsel sought to bring in additional documents through the back door. In the circumstance, I agree with the submission of the claimant in this regard and hold that this process titled Further Statement of Defence is incompetent and is hereby discountenanced along with the accompanying exhibits. I so hold. The second issue is whether the dismissal of the claimant was valid. A perusal of the letter of dismissal shows that the claimant was summarily dismissed for an act of gross misconduct after she was earlier suspended without pay for acts bordering on suppression of cash on various customers account by one Kemi Owolabi, who was under the supervision of the claimant. That apart from the evidence before this court, the defendant also discovered that the claimant and other colleague of hers were involved in operating a bank within the bank. This the claimant herself admitted both in writing and in evidence before the court that they were granting loans to the defendant’s customers who could not meet the strict loan conditions of the defendant or had no adequate collateral. Such customers were granted loans by the claimant and her cohorts with the money they contributed from their salaries or allowances and in some cases with the defendant’s funds which the affected staff diverted for this purpose. This conduct is against the business interest of the defendant whose core business is lending money to customers. Surely this is a conflict of interest situation which the claimant was involved in. This is an act of dishonesty and fraud on the part of the claimant which no reasonable employer should condone. Article 9.5 of the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policy Manual defines gross misconduct to include but is not limited to: Theft, fraud and dishonesty of/or in connection with the Banks business or property. Any staff guilty of these offences may be liable to prosecution, willful insubordination or disobedience, whether as one or in combination with others of any lawful and reasonable order placed by the Bank, Drunkenness or other acts that make the staff unfit to carry out his/her duties, use of abusive or insulting language severally and beyond control. It is my humble view that the act of the claimant as elicited from the evidence before this court amount to dishonesty and conflict of interest on her part against the interest of the defendant who is her employer. The claimant admitted participating in a scheme which they gave out loans to the defendants customers. This is clearly contrary to her code of conduct as a staff of the defendant. I am of the view that the action of the defendant in dismissing her is not out of place. The argument of the claimant’s counsel that the claimant was not given fair hearing is not valid. In any event the claimant did appear before the defendant’s Disciplinary Committee in line with the disciplinary procedure of the defendant as provided in Human Capital Management Policy Manual. Also the claimant was given queries which she answered and so that satisfies the requirement of fair hearing where misconduct is in question. In B.A. Imonikhe v. Unity Bank (supra) the Supreme Court per Rhodes – Vivor JSC held that accusing and 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 since he answered the queries before he was dismissed. Therefore going by the authority of this decision, the claimant was indeed given fair hearing. Also as regards when an employee can be summarily dismissed and meaning of gross misconduct, the Supreme Court in the case of Eze v. Spring Bank Plc (supra) held that an employee may be summarily dismissed without notice and without wages if he is guilty of gross misconduct. And gross misconduct is a conduct that is of grave and weighty character as to undermine the confidence which should exist between an employee and the employer. Also that working against the deep interest of the employer amounts to gross misconduct entitling an employer to summarily dismiss the employee. To warrant dismissal of the claimant in this case it suffices that the claimant’s conduct in the case at hand is such grave and weighty character as to undermine the relationship of confidence which should exist between the claimant and the defendant. In the instance case it is clear that the claimant has breached that confidence going by her behavior while on the defendant’s employment. In view of the above reasoning, I find and hold that the claimant was lawfully dismissed. The claimant’s case therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. …………………………………… Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu Fishim Judge