Download PDF
Through his General Form of Complaint dated and filed on 8th December, 2011, the claimant seeks the following reliefs: 1. A declaration that the summary dismissal of the claimant from the services of the defendant via the defendant’s letter of October 17, 2011 is ultra vires the defendant, unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void in that before the said summary dismissal, the claimant was not given fair hearing. 2. A declaration that the summary dismissal of the claimant via the defendant’s letter of October 17, 2011 was not in accordance with Article 12.8 of the defendant’s employee’s handbook but in line with an alleged “collective†agreement and therefore null and void. 3. A further declaration that the claimant is still a staff of the defendant and therefore entitled to all his salaries and entitlement till judgment. 4. 10 Million Naira damages for breach of contract. The Complaint is accompanied by a Statement of Claim, List of Claimant’s Witnesses, List of Documents to be relied upon at trial all dated 8th December, 2011. The claimant sought the Leave of Court to file additional Witnesses and Witness Statement on Oath of the claimant and Mr. Naanlong Dogo sworn on 14th August, 2012. In reaction, the defendant entered appearance and filed a Statement of Defence dated 20th February, 2012, List of Witnesses, Documents to be relied upon at trial and Witness’ Statement on Oath. It is the claimant’s case that he was employed by the defendant on the 4th of May, 2008 via letter of same date. That by paragraph 6 of the letter of employment captioned, “employee’s conductâ€, other terms, of the employment were as contained in the defendant’s employee’s handbook. That during the course of his employment in the bank he was loyal, dedicated and hardworking staff with the result that he was regularly sent on training and promoted from the position of an executive trainee to executive assistant during the year 2009 Annual Appraisal Exercise. The claimant states that he is the relationship manager of the defendant and he oversees the functioning of some customers’ accounts as their account officer one of such customers of the defendant bank is Rtd Col. Attahiru Fidelis. That sometimes in September, 2010, the said Col. Attahiru Fidelis sent his P.A one Mr. Naanlong to the defendant bank as usual to withdraw a cheque of N1,000,000.00. That as Rtd. Col. Attahiru’s account officer he immediately assisted the P.A as usual and he left with the money. That afterwards, the P.A as usual and he left with the money. That afterwards, the P.A came back with the sum of N138,000.00 to purchase a draft i.e. managers cheque. That he took the P.A to the Funds Transfer Officer of the claimant branch where he could be attended to and the Fund Transfer Officer explained to the P.A the necessary things to do which was to deposit the said N138,000.00 since the account is funded and he did and left the bank. That about one hour later, the P.A returned and informed him that Rtd. Col. Attahiru asked him to recall the deposit N138,000.00 as it was in mints of N50 (Fifty Naira) notes which he needed for his campaigns. The claimant further stated that he did not suspect anything as he is used to the P.A but assisted him to recall the money N138,000.00. That the purchase of the manager’s cheque had no problems because the customer’s account was funded. The claimant pleaded that four days later the Rtd. Col. Attahiru came to the defendant bank while he was away with the branch manager for debt recovery within Jos and complained that he saw a debt alert for the sum of N138,000.00 but did not see a corresponding credit for the same sum. That when the branch resident Control Officer drew his attention to the complaint, he searched for the P.A and confronted him but the P.A started to plead that he used the money for his personal purpose without the customer’s consent. The claimant pleaded that he requested for the money from the P.A because he did not want the defendant bank to lose the customer and on receiving the money from the P.A he credited the account in the defendant’s sister branch in Beach Road due to the crowd in the main branch. He pleaded that the P.A did not have the correct amount as at the time he confronted him but had only N80,000.00. The claimant stated that he made up the balance by raising a personal cheque of N140,000.00 taking the sum of N2,000.00 and retained the sum of N80,000.00. The claimant further pleaded that he was subsequently served with a query from the RCO which he answered and was placed on suspension from the defendant’s head office Internal Control Division. That sometime in October, 2011 a greener pasture opportunity emerged from a sister bank and he confided in one of the management staff of the defendant bank an action which was his undoing. That the event of 2010 was promptly resurrected and on the 17th October, 2011 he was served with a letter of summary dismissal. That to show the hate and haste associated with the attempt to make him leave the defendant bank, on October, 2011 he was served with earlier letter of summary dismissal with material incongruences. That both letters were signed by persons who called themselves authorized signatories in line with collective agreement. That when he was employed as well as when he was promoted a named representative of the defendant bank signed and endorsed his letter of employment. That authorized signatories is not a name of any representative of the defendant. That the defendant in a circular dated 24th September, 2010 warned staff about signing letters without names. That his condition of employment was never subject to collective agreement the provision of which could have been used in summarily dismissing him from his employment. That in all of this, the event that happened in 2010 did not cause the bank any loss of any kind. That he never faced disciplinary committee and was never given opportunity to defend himself of any allegation before he was summarily dismissed. That he never concealed nor suppressed the sum of N138,000.00 paid by a customer for a manager’s cheque. The claimant pleaded that the disciplinary proceedings encapsulated (code of conduct and sanction) of the defendant’s Employee Handbook particularly as regards warning, definition of offences and or appearance before a disciplinary committee of the defendant were not complied with before he was summarily dismissed. That having disclosed in his response to the query issued to him it was the Personal Assistant Mr. Naanlong of the customer of the defendant Rtd. Col. Attahiru who collected the N138,000.00 fair hearing would only have demanded that both the claimant and the said Mr. Naanlong were invited to face the defendant’s disciplinary committee. That the defendant’s assertion that he concealed and or suppressed the sum of N138,000.00 customers money which is not true and proven has substantially affected him as a person and has the effect of denying him further employment with any organization whatsoever. He therefore repeated his reliefs as per the complaint. The defendant’s case is that the claimant was its staff until his suspension and subsequent dismissal for concealment and suspension of the sum of N138,000.00 belonging to Col. Attahiru Fidelis Sarki a customer of the defendant at Ahmadu Bello Way Branch of the defendant. That the claimant’s unethical conduct fell under category of unethical conducts for which summary dismissal was necessary under the employee handbook as well as other terms and conditions as contained in the “procedural and collective agreement 2007 which binds the staff of the defendant. That the claimant was promoted in 2007 but he had been involved in demanding for gratification from a customer. That the claimant was a relationship manager of the claimant. That Mr. Naanlong Dogo was at the defendant bank to purchase a manager’s cheque for Col. Attahiru Fidelis Sarki on 13th September, 2010 but could not because he was asked to get a written instruction from Col. Attahiru Fidelis or a cheque in order to proceed with the transaction. That the said Naanlong Dogo then made a deposit of the sum of N138,000.00. That the claimant strangely retrieved the N138,000.00 from the bulk teller. Brenda Pius without the consent of the customer. That the bulk teller Brenda Pius amended the deposit slips from the claimant in order to cancel the transaction but the claimant never obliged him but promised to do so which he never did. That the claimant concealed and suppressed the said sum of his own accord and not on the instruction of the customer. The defendant pleaded that Col. Attahiru came back to the defendant bank after making several calls having not seen the alert of the deposit of the N138,000.00 despite the fact that his P.A Naanlong Dogo had brought him evidence of the deposit. That when the resident controller confronted him the claimant denied the allegation of suppressing and concealing the said sum. That when the claimant saw that the concealment has been discovered he went to the Beach Road, Jos Branch of the defendant branch where he made withdrawal from his account of the sum of N140,000.00 and deposited the sum of N138,000.00 into Col. Attahiru Fidelis’s account all in a bid to shield himself from his involvement in the suppression and concealment of the said sum. That the claimant was issued a query and was placed on suspension after answering the query but that the P.A did not raise the sum of N80,000.00 as stated by the claimant. That the claimant withdrew the sum of N140,000.00 from his personal account from which he refunded the N138,000.00 he earlier concealed and suppressed. The defendant further submitted that the claimant was further served with a letter of dismissal after the conclusion of investigations which the claimant after making his representations was found guilty as he indeed admitted his guilt in writing in a letter dated 18th October, 2011 but wishes to be pardoned. That the letter of dismissal emanated from the defendant and was duly signed by its authorized signatories. That the claimant’s employment is subjected to collective agreement which binds every staff and which is a part of the conditions of service of which the claimant’s practice fell squarely within its purview warranting his dismissal. That the claimant’s irregular and unethical practices have brought the defendant into disrepute which is evident in the customer’s refusal to transact serious business with the defendant back. That the claimant was duly and fairly heard before the Resident Controller and was still given opportunity to answer to his query in which he gave unconvincing denials and subsequently admitted his guilt in his letter dated 18th October, 2010. That the claimant’s irregular practice fell within the ambit of summary dismissal both under the employee handbook as well as the collective agreement which forms part of the Handbook whose provisions were appropriately used in summarily dismissing the claimant. That Naanlong whom the claimant subsequently alleged ought to be invited to face the defendant’s disciplinary committee was not under the defendant’s employment and so cannot be summoned to face its disciplinary committee. The defendant further pleaded that the claimant’s unethical conduct of concealment and suppression of funds has grossly affected the reputation of the defendant in the eyes of Rtd. Col. Attahiru. That the claimant was given fair hearing as he was given several opportunities to be heard and subsequently admitted committing the concealment and suppression of the customers’ funds. That the claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought in paragraph 26, 26 (1) – (4) of the claimant’s points of claim. Trial in this case commenced on 25th September, 2012 with the claimant testifying on his own behalf. He adopted his statement on oath as his evidence in this case. The said statement is in the same terms as the statement of facts and will not be repeated. He also adopted the documents attached to the statement of facts. Under cross-examination, the claimant admitted that he was a relationship officer of the defendant as well as account officer. That as an account officer he monitors transaction on the customer’s accounts that are attached to him and ensuring the satisfaction of the customer. He admitted that Rtd. Col. Fidelis Attahiru is one of the customers attached to him. He stated that he did not confirm from P.A to Col. Attahiru before he gave the sum of N138,000.00 to him neither did he confirm from Col. Attahiru whether he was the one that sent his P.A to collect the money even after the P.A has collected the money. That he did not oblige the defendant’s teller with the deposit slip because it was not his duty to do so. That he returned the money from the bulk teller. That the procedure is to normally inform the bulk teller that the money is to be retrieved and then it is given to him. That there is no laid down procedure to retrieving money in the bank. That he did not know whether P.A Naanlong Dogo was asked to go and get the draft. That there is no way money can be withdrawn from an account without a cheque or a withdrawal slip. He stated that he was not in the bank when Col. Attahiru came to the bank to report that N138,000.00 was missing in his account neither did the Col. Attahiru call him to tell him. That when the Head of Operations confronted him with the issue he looked for the P.A to ask him for the money. He admitted writing a letter of apology to the defendant. There was no re-examination. Naanlong Dogo testified as PW2. He adopted his statement on oath as his evidence in this case. By his statement on oath the PW2 stated that he is the Personal Assistant to Rtd. Col. Attahiru Fidelis whereby he carries out instruction from him which includes going to the bank to withdraw money for him. That Col. Attahiru operates an account with the defendant bank at Ahmadu Bello Way, Jos. That he knows the claimant in this case. That he often withdraw money on behalf of Col Attahiru from the said branch of the defendant. That sometime in September, 2010 he was sent to the Ahmadu Bello Way branch of the defendant by Col. Attahiru with a cheque of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) to withdraw cash but Col. Attahiru called the claimant to inform his about his coming. The PW2 stated that he withdrew the sum of N1,000,000.00 as instructed by Col. Attahiru. That when he took the said money to Rtd. Col. Attahiru but he gave him the sum of N138,000.00 to return to the defendant bank and to buy a bank draft for his son’s school fees. That when he got to the defendant bank he met the claimant who took him to funds transfer office to buy the draft but the funds transfer officer informed him that he did not need to bring cash since the said account is funded. That the funds transfer officer asked him to tell Rtd Col. Attahiru to raise a cheque in favour of the school while asking him to deposit the sum of N138,000.00 into Col. Attahiru’s account which he did. That after a while, he came back and met the claimant whom he told that Col. Attahiru requested the recall of the sum of N138,000.00 deposited earlier which he needed for his campaign. That the claimant took him to bulk teller – one Brenda Pius who gave him the said N138,000.00 and he left with it. The PW2 stated that the claimant came looking for him and asked for the N138,000.00 because Rtd. Col. Attahiru came to the defendant bank to complain that he had not seen the alert on the deposit made. That he then pleaded with the claimant that he had spent N58,000.00 out of the N138,000.00 but the claimant asked him to complete the money before 3 pm on that date but he pleaded with the claimant to assist him to make up the balance since he had the sum of N80,000.00. That he later refunded the claimant the sum of N58,000.00 and did not hear from him since then until October, 2011 when he called him that the defendant dismissed him because of the N138,000.00. Under cross-examination, PW2 stated that he is Driver to Col. Attahiru Rtd and not his P.A contrary to what he stated in his witness statement on oath. That he also run all errands for him but he no longer work for him. That when Col Attahiru sends him to bank he goes for him. That whenever he gives him cheque he normally goes to meet whoever he directs him to meet at the bank. There was no re-examination. The claimant thereafter closed his case. The defendant opened his case by calling one Saad Yusuf to testify on its behalf as DW1. He adopted his witness statement on oath as his evidence in this case which is in all fours with the statement of defence. Under cross-examination the DW1 stated that as at the time of the incident he was the branch manager. That the handbook is meant to regulate the claimant’s employment. That it is not true that the claimant was not invited to any investigating committee. That it is not true that the Internal Control Officer alone constitute a committee. That he did not know if all the letters from the defendant must be signed. That the termination letter is not signed by a named person. That on the day the incident happened he was not in Jos. That he is not in the bulk teller office. That he may know what happened even though he was not present as he can know by means of documents and the channels put in place to know what happens in the branch. That promotion is a reward for performance and the claimant’s promotion throughout his service with the defendant was not withdrawn. There was no re-examination. The defendant thereafter closed its case. The parties were ordered to file their respect Final Written Addresses. The defendant’s Final Written Address is dated 6/2/2013 but filed on 7/2/2013. The claimant’s Final Written Address is dated 12/4/2013 and filed on same date. Defendant raised the following issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether the claimant was guilty of the misconduct of concealment and suppression of funds belonging to a customer of the defendant. 2. Whether the defendant gave the claimant fair hearing before the determination of his employment with it. 3. If Issue 1 above is in the affirmative then, whether the summary dismissal of the claimant is proper in law. Arguing on issue one, Learned Counsel submitted that the case of concealment and suppression of funds against the claimant is rock solid and obvious. He pointed out that the claimant admitted his guilt in respect of concealment and suppression in a letter dated 18th October, 2011 tagged “Letter of Apology and Appeal for pardon to Resignâ€. He submitted that this voluntary admission alone has put it beyond question that the claimant indeed concealed and suppressed a customer’s fund. He cited the case of S & D Construction Company Ltd v. Ayoku [2011] 13 NWLR (pt. 1265) p. 487. He further submitted that the claimant’s admission remains unchallenged and established and that this court ought to accept and act on it citing the case of Olotu & Ors v. Ifodo & Ors [2010] 12 SC (pg. 1) p. 165 at 198. Learned Counsel argued that the evidence of the PW2 that he went away with the money in December, 2012 cannot override the stronger evidence of express admission by the claimant himself in his letter dated 18th October, 2011. He referred the court to the case of S & D Construction Company Ltd v. Ayoku (Supra). On issue two, Learned Counsel submitted that the claimant’s misconduct is not only a grave violation of an express term of his employment but also a breach and violation of all known norms and implied terms in the banking world. That as an employee of the defendant, the claimant owes both the defendant bank and its customers a duty of integrity, honesty and utmost good faith among others and the breach of this duty automatically rendered the claimant liable to summary dismissal. He referred to the case of Anaja v. UBA Plc [2011] 15 NWLR (pt. 1270) p. 377. He submitted that both the Employee Handbook and the Collective Agreement provide for summary dismissal of an employee for misconduct such as the instant case, citing for Chapter 12.8 (a) of the Employee Handbook as well as Article 4 (iv) of the Collective Agreement. On fair hearing, Learned Counsel submitted that the fact that the claimant was served a query to which he responded before his dismissal, alone shows that he was heard and given the opportunity of putting up a defence. He referred the court to the case of Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc [2011] 12 NWLR (pt. 1262) p. 624. He urged the court to hold that the requirement of fair hearing was satisfied by the defendant in dismissing the claimant from its employment. Learned Counsel further submitted that the defendant as a master has full powers to terminate the employment of the claimant as its servant at anytime for any reason or indeed for no reason at all, citing the case Anaja v. UBA Plc (Supra). Concerning the letter of dismissal, Learned Counsel argued that the defendant has not denied issuing the letter which was reiterated in paragraphs 21 (a) of the statement of defence and paragraph 15 of the defendant’s witness statement on oath. He submitted that the said letter was duly signed by the authorized signatories of the defendant, therefore, the letter is not null and void. The claimant’s counsel formulated four issues for determination by the court as follows: 1. Whether the summary dismissal of the claimant via the defendant’s letter dated 17th October, 2011 is not unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void. 2. Whether the evidence of the defendant’s only witness (DW1) does not amount to hearsay. 3. Whether the claimant is not entitled to general damages claimed against the defendant. 4. Whether the claimant is entitled to be paid all his entitlements from 2011 until judgment of court. On issue one, Learned Counsel for the claimant submitted that the termination of the claimant’s employment via the defendant’s letter of 17th October, 2011 is unlawful, unconstitutional and null and void. He submitted that the defendant was grossly in breach of the contract of employment between it and the claimant when it summarily dismissed the claimant without following the procedure of summary dismissal as stipulated in the employee handbook. He submitted that the collective agreement is not contained in the employee’s handbook and as such cannot be said to be part of the terms governing the employment of the claimant. He further submitted that the offence for which the claimant was summarily dismissed falls under Chapter 12, paragraph 12.7 (viii) of the employee handbook which provided modalities for disciplining erring staff. He argued that the contract of employment between the parties is still subsisting because the defendant breached the fundamental condition of the terms of the contract. Learned Counsel submitted that parties to a contract are bound by the terms of the contract and the defendant is duty bound to follow the procedure stipulated in the employee’s handbook for termination of employment, citing the case of Gateway Bank of Nig Plc v. Abosede [2005] 14 NWLR (pt. 1055) p. 504, Afrotec v. M.I.A [2000] 15 NWLR (pt. 692) p. 730. He submitted that the collective agreement under which the employment of the claimant was terminated is foreign to the contract of employment entered into by the parties. That the authenticity of the letter of summary dismissal dated 17th October, 2011 is in doubt and urged the court to disregard same for being null and void. He submitted further that by the defendant’s instruction Circular No. UB/GM1/ICD/INST/09/2010/162 on signing of official correspondence, the defendant has by themselves stated that it is against the bank’s policy to send out correspondences without the names of person authorizing it. Learned Counsel urged that another reason for challenging the summary dismissal of the claimant is predicated on the fact that the claimant was not accorded fair hearing before his dismissal. He submitted that paragraphs 4 to 12 of the defendant’s statement on oath made criminal imputation as regards the claimant alluding to the fact that the claimant was fraudulent and a criminal. That the defendant having made serious allegations of fact of concealment and suppression ought to have afforded the claimant an opportunity of fair hearing before a court or tribunal vested with the criminal jurisdiction before any disciplinary action can be taken against the claimant, citing S.P.D.C (Nig) Ltd v. Olanrewaju [2000] FWLR (pt. 140) p. 1640, PJCN v. Alabi [2010] 5 NWLR (pt. 1186) p. 65, Kennedy v. I.N.E.C [2009] 1 NWLR (pt. 1123) p. 614, Olatunbosun v. Niger Council [1988] 3 NWLR (pt. 80) p. 25. On issue two, Learned Counsel submitted that paragraphs 6 to 12 of the DW1 statement on oath amounts to hearsay. That once the evidence of a witness amounts to hearsay the court has a duty to disregard such evidence, citing the case of INEC v. Ray [2005] All FWLR (pt. 265) p. 1047. He pointed that the DW1 under cross-examination stated that he was away for training outside Jos when the alleged incident happened. He also pointed out that the DW1 stated in paragraph 9 of the statement of witness on oath that one Brenda Pius was the bulk teller who demanded for the deposit slips from the claimant. Learned Counsel submitted that the said Brenda Pius would have been the proper witness to testify in this matter as the DW1’s testimony amounts to hearsay. That the defendant’s failure to call Brenda Pius to testify is fatal, the defendant knowing that if Brenda Pius was called her evidence would have been unfavourable to them, citing Section 167 (d) of Evidence Act, Ukpo v. Imok [2009] 1 NWLR (pt. 1121) p. 90. On issue three, Learned Counsel submitted that the claimant is entitled to general damages. That by the act of the defendant by summarily dismissing the claimant the claimant has been finding it difficult to fend for his family and cannot possibly secure job due to reasons of his summary dismissal. That the claimant has suffered irreparable damage by the defendant’s actions, citing the case of Bodi v. Agyo [2003] FWLR (pt. 156) p. 815. On issue four, Learned Counsel submitted that the defendant in summarily dismissing the claimant from its employment did not follow the procedures laid down in the employee handbook which stipulates the staff policies. He further submitted that the summary dismissal of the claimant by the defendant via a letter dated 17th October, 2011 is ultra vires the defendant, unconstitutional and null and void. That the claimant is entitled to his salaries and entitlements since he was wrongfully dismissed citing the case of Shell Petroleum Dev. Co. Ltd v. Olanrewaju [2009] All FWLR (pt. 458) p. 208. He finally urged the court to give judgment in favour of the claimant. I have carefully considered the processes filed in this case, the submission of counsel for both parties and the authorities relied upon. The issue for determination in this case is – whether the summary dismissal of the claimant in this suit is lawful. From the evidence available in this case, the claimant was at all time material in this case a staff of the defendant. Sometime in September, 2010 one Mr. Naanlong Dogo, Personal Assistant to Col. Attahiru Fidelis Sarki made a deposit sum of N138,000.00 at the defendant bank on behalf of Co. Attahiru Fidelis. Instead of credit alert, the said Col. Attahiru saw a debit alert in the sum of N138,000.00 in his account which led him to complain to the defendant bank. Investigation was conducted leading to a query being issued to the claimant in this suit to which he responded. The claimant was suspended and subsequently dismissed by a letter dated 17th October, 2011. In his response the claimant wrote a letter dated 18th October, 2011 apologizing for his gross involvement and misconduct in the case of concealment and suppression of customers’ case and appealed for pardon to resign. The claimant’s terms and condition of employment made provisions for dismissal for acts of gross misconduct. The defendant summarily dismissed the claimant for concealment and suppression of its customer’s cash deposit at Ahmadu Bello Way Branch, Jos. The claimant admitted being involved in the said illicit act but apologized while pleading for pardon and to be allowed to resign. The claimant also averred in his statement of facts that he was issued query by the defendant to which he answered. The apex court held in the case of Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc [2011] 12 NWLR (pt. 1262) p. 624 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 satisfied the requirements of fair-hearing because he answered the respondent’s queries before he was dismissed from his employment.†In view of the above authority the argument of the claimant that he was not given fair hearing is misconceived because the claimant was afforded opportunity to make representation to the allegation against him. It is obvious that the claimant admitted the allegation of concealment and suppression of customer’s cash deposited at the defendant bank in his letter of 18th October, 2011. It is age long principle of law that facts admitted need no further proof. See Section 20 and 21 of Evidence Act, 2011 Capt E14 LFN, 2004, Olugbode v. Sangodeyi [1996] 4 NWLR (pt. 444) p. 500 at p. 516, Ebo v. N.T.A [1996] 4 NWLR (pt. 442) p. 314. The claimant also argued that he ought to be afforded opportunity of fair hearing before a court or tribunal vested with the criminal jurisdiction before any disciplinary action can be taken against him. It is not a requirement of the law that before an employer can summarily dismiss his employee, the employee must be tried before a court of law where the accusation against him is for gross misconduct bordering on criminality. See Yusuf v. Union Bank Plc [1996] 6 NWLR (pt. 457) p. 632, Bamgboye v. University of Unilorin [2001] FWLR (pt. 32) p. 12, Olanrewaju v. Afribank (Nig) Plc [2000] 13 NWLR (pt. 731) p. 691, UBN Ltd v. Ogboh [1995] 2 NWLR (pt. 380) p. 647 at 669. In view of overwhelming evidence before this court ably strengthened by the admission of the claimant in his letter of 18th October, 2011 the summary dismissal of the claimant is lawful. The claimant’s claim for damages is unsubstantiated. It is trite that an employee who was dismissed for gross misconduct is not entitled to his salary or any other entitlement. He is not also entitled to damages for breach of contract. See Mr. Seyi M. Suleiman v. Master Stroke Packages Ltd, Unreported Suit No. NIC/LA/08/2011 delivered on 13th February, 2012. In view of the above, the claimant’s suit is hereby dismissed. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. …………………………………… Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu Fishim Judge