Download PDF
By his General Form of Complaint dated 24th November, 2011 and filed same date, the claimant claims the following reliefs: 1. A declaration that the Summary Dismissal of the claimant by the respondent vide letter dated 14th day of October, 2011 is wrongful and unlawful. 2. A declaration that the summary dismissal of the claimant by the respondent vide letter dated 14th day of October, 2011 is a flagrant violation of the rules of natural justice and the provisions of Chapter 4 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). 3. A declaration that the respondent cannot establish the dismissal of the claimant on the grounds of the claimant being found guilty. 4. A declaration that the respondent cannot find the claimant guilt of a crime. 5. An order directing the respondent to pay to the claimant the sum of N1,076,132 same being damages and loss for his wrongful and unlawful summary dismissal broken down as follows: a. N276,132.72 (Two Hundred and Seventy Six Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty Two Naira, Seventy Two Kobo only) being one month salary in lieu of one month’s notice as prescribed by the claimant’s terms of employment. b. N800,000.00 (Eight Hundred Thousand Naira only) being Solicitor’s fee to institute this action. 6. N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira only) as damages for libel and slander including exemplary damages. 7. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondent whether by itself, servant, assigns, agents or otherwise howsoever from further printing and publishing or causing to be published and printed or spreading by any oral medium that the claimant has been found guilty of fraud, dishonesty and fraudulent connivance or any crime whatsoever. 8. Such further Orders at this court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. Accompanying the Complaint are Statement of Facts, List of Witnesses, List of Documents and Claimant’s Witness Statement on Oath. The respondent responded by filing its Memorandum of Appearance, Statement of Defence, List of Witness, List of Documents and the respondent’s Witness Statement on Oath out of time. The respondent also filed a motion on notice dated 4th May, 2012 seeking extension of time within which to file its statement of defence and other processes. Instead of moving the said motion, the respondent’s counsel withdrew it and same was consequently struck out. I will therefore not refer to the respondent’s statement of defence since it is not properly before this court. The claimant’s case is that by a letter dated 1st December, 2007 he was employed by the respondent on a permanent basis with effect from 1st December, 2007. That it was a term of the letter of employment that the claimant’s employment shall be automatically confirmed after a probation period of six months and the claimant’s appointment was confirmed after six months in the employment of the respondent. That by the letter of employment the claimant’s appointment was to be governed by the business Code of Ethics of the respondent. The claimant pleaded that his employment could be terminated with one month notice or one month salary in lieu of notice. That by a letter of 23rd February, 2009 his emolument were revised upward by the respondent and before he was summarily dismissed he was earning the total sum of N276,132.72 per month. That on or about 16th September, 2011 the respondent with the aid of two heavily armed Mobile Policemen accosted him in the most undignifying manner on the allegation of fraud of N16,000,000.00 (Sixteen Million Naira). That he was humiliated, embarrassed, molested, rough handled and forcefully taken away in the full glare of both staff and customers by the respondent on the allegation of fraud of N16,000,000.00. That he was taken to Security Unit of the respondent where some staff of the respondent forcefully took his phone from him and he was detained, traumatized and molested for over four hours with the aid of two heavily armed Mobile Policemen. That he was later interrogated and forced to write statements. That no formal or official query was issued to him by the respondent and no official complaint had been made against him to any relevant law enforcement agency. That he was forcefully arrested by the respondent without any warrant of arrest and throughout his employment with the respondent he was never legitimately found wanting in any regard whatsoever. The claimant also pleaded that he diligently worked for the respondent and never involved in any form of fraudulent activity. The claimant further pleaded that on 26th September, 2011 he was served with a Notification of Suspension by the respondent barring him from visiting any premises of the respondent without permission. That on 1st October, 2011 the respondent sent a Dispatch Rider to drop an unsigned and undated notification of a Disciplinary Meeting at his house. That in the notification of suspension letter, the notification of a Disciplinary Meeting and other letters sent to him, he was addressed as being in the Customer Care Finance Department of the respondent whereas he was in Advert and Promotions Department as a Channel Manager before his dismissal by the respondent. That he was tried and dismissed under a mistaken belief as to his department and work schedule. That in the unsigned notification of Disciplinary Meeting it was stated that he could be represented by a co-worker and that he had access to all statements presented at the inquiry. That he had been barred from visiting any premises of the respondent and there is no way by which he could get access to the alleged written statements made against him in order to prepare for his defence in accordance with Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. He also averred that he subsequently briefed Olu Falana Esq. of Olu Falana & Associates to write to the Managing Director of the respondent and he did by writing a letter dated 5th October, 2011 to the Managing Director of the respondent demanding that his fundamental human rights be respected. That the respondent did not respond to the said letter and refused to furnish him with the statements made against him to enable him prepare for his defence. That despite the fact that the letter of notification of meeting was not signed, the respondent continued his trial based on the unsigned and undated notification of Disciplinary Meeting on 7th October, 2011. That on 10th October, 2011 the respondent served him a letter dated 7th October, 2011 headed “Absence from Disciplinary Meeting”. That by a letter dated 14th October, 2011 he was summarily dismissed from the service of the respondent on the ground that he was found guilty of fraudulent activities without giving him one month’s notice or one month’s salary in lieu of notice as contained in the letter of employment. That in the dismissal letter dated 14th October, 2011 the respondent stated, “Following the outcome of the investigation by the Security Unit and the overwhelming evidence against you, the panel finds you guilty of fraudulent activities.” That the respondent did not establish the ground for his dismissal for fraudulent activities which is a crime since he was not tried and found guilty of crime by a competent court. That his dismissal for fraudulent activities offends rules of natural justice and a violation of the provisions of Chapter 4 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). That he spent the sum of N800,000.00 on his Solicitor’s fee in order to file this suit. That by reason of the respondent’s action he has suffered loss and damages comprising the sum of N276,132.72 (Two Hundred and Seventy Six Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty Two Naira, Seventy Two Kobo) being his one month salary in lieu of notice and the sum of N800,000.00 (Eight Hundred Thousand Naira) being Solicitor’s fee. He also pleaded that he will allow for deduction of tax in respect of his salary and the Solicitor’s fee. The claimant further pleaded that the respondent has circulated among its staff that he is guilty of fraudulent activities, dishonesty and fraudulent connivance and has defamed and slandered him by publishing and spreading the contents of the letter of dismissal as follows: “Following the outcome of the investigation by the Security Unit and the overwhelming evidence against you, the panel finds you guilty of fraudulent activities and dishonesty in that …” That in their natural and ordinary meaning the letter of dismissal dated 14th October, 2011 meant and were understood to mean that: a. he has been convicted of a criminal offence by a court and he is an ex-convict. b. he is not straight, honest and forthright. c. his integrity is questionable. That by way of innuendos, the words complained of above meant and were understood to mean that: a. he has been convicted of a criminal offence by a court and he is an ex-convict. b. he is not straight, honest and forthright. c. his integrity is questionable. The claimant also pleaded that the accusation and imputations of fraud, dishonesty and fraudulent connivance against him are unfounded and false but maliciously printed and verbally circulated by the staff of the respondent in order to lower his estimation of right thinking members of staff of the respondent and members of the public as well as to ruin his goodwill, in the sight of his colleagues, family, friends, associates and the society in general. The claimant further stated that the defamatory publication and slanderous statements of the respondent has caused him considerable damages as some of his friends and former colleagues have personally told him that the defamatory publication and slanderous statements was a big surprise to them and that their confidence in him has been eroded. That if this court does not set the record straight by a declaratory order, right thinking members of staff of the respondent and members of society generally will see him and treat him as an ex-convict. That the letter headed papers of the respondent used to send letter to him contains names of Directors who are no longer Directors of the respondent namely but not limited to Mr. J.A. Hedberg and Mr. V. Raseroka. He finally repeated his reliefs as reproduced hereinbefore. When this matter came up for trial on 4th May, 2012 Mrs. Adesola Adebola testified for the claimant as PW1 adopting her witness statement on oath sworn on 27th March, 2011. There was no cross-examination for the witness. The claimant also testified as PW2 by adopting his witness statement on oath sworn on 27th March, 2012 which was in exact terms as his statement of facts. There was no cross-examination of the PW2. The matter was therefore adjourned to 24th July, 2012 for defence but on that date the respondent was not in court and was not represented. The matter was further adjourned to the 22nd October, 2012 for defence. On 22nd October, 2012 when this matter came up again for defence the respondent and its counsel were not in court. On the application of the claimant’s counsel, the respondent was foreclosed from defending this case. Consequently, parties were ordered to file their respective Final Written Addresses and Reply on Points of Law, if any. The claimant’s Final Written Address is dated 6th November, 2012. Learned Counsel for the claimant raised six issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether the court can act on the uncontroverted and unchallenged evidence of the claimant since the respondent and its Solicitors opted out of the case without any explanation or reason and in utter disregard to the court. 2. Whether the unsigned notice of invitation to a disciplinary meeting amounted to a valid invitation to the claimant so as to give him fair hearing before he was dismissed. 3. Whether the allegation for which the respondent tried the claimant amounts to a crime which ought to be tried by a competent criminal court or tribunal. 4. Whether the respondent can establish the reason for which the claimant was dismissed. 5. Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain a libel and slander claim. 6. Whether the claimant has proved libel and slander. On issue one, Learned Counsel for the claimant stated that the respondent filed a Memorandum of Appearance and Statement of Defence on 4th day of May, 2002 out of time permitted by the rules of this court. That the Motion of the respondent for extension of time to file its Memorandum of Appearance and Statement of Defence was struck out on the 6th of June, 2012 for being incompetent. That the respondent did not cross-examine the claimant’s witnesses. Counsel therefore submitted that where evidence given by a party to a proceedings was not challenged by the opposite party who had opportunity to do so, it is always open to the court seized of the proceedings to act on the unchallenged evidence before it because unchallenged evidence are deemed admitted. He cited the case of Ogunyade v. Oshunkeye [2007] All FWLR (pt. 389) p. 1179 at pp. 1192 – 1193. He urged this court to enter judgment for the claimant on the ground that his evidence was not controverted. On issue two, Learned Counsel submitted that it is trite law that an unsigned document is a worthless document citing Aiki v. Idowu [2006] All FWLR (pt. 293) p. 361 at p. 375, Faro Bottling Co. Ltd v. Osuji [2009] 1 NWLR (pt. 748) p. 311 at pp. 330 – 331. He submitted that as regards the unsigned notification of a Disciplinary Meeting which speaks for itself he referred the court to the case of Aiki v. Idowu (Supra) at p. 374. He urged the court to hold that the respondent did not give the claimant a fair hearing on an allegation of fraud. On issue three, Learned Counsel submitted that the combined effect of Sections 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388 and 390 of the Criminal Code Act Cap M7, LFN, 2004 “fraud” is a criminal act punishable by imprisonment for three years. He also referred to the definition of crime in Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary as: “The crime of deceiving somebody in order to get money or goods illegally”. Counsel submitted that an administrative body lacks the jurisdiction and competence to try the issue of crime, for such a body is not a court much lest a criminal court. He cited the case of Amaechi v. INEC [2008] All FWLR (pt. 407) p. 1 at p. 195, Abang v. University of Calabar [2008] All FWLR (pt. 403) p. 1365 at p. 1374. Learned Counsel submitted further that an administrative panel set up by the respondent cannot try and convict the claimant for crime and urged the court to enter judgment for claimant. On issue four, Learned Counsel submitted that although an employer is not bound to give reasons for terminating the appointment of his employee, but where he gives a reason or cause for terminating the appointment, the law imposes on him a duty to establish the reason to the satisfaction of the court citing the case of Shell Petroleum Dev. Co. Ltd v. Olanrewaju [2009] All FWLR (pt. 458) pp. 208 at 222. He submitted that the respondent cannot establish the commission of a crime for which it dismissed the claimant since it is not a competent criminal court. On issue five, Learned Counsel referred to Section 254 (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). He submitted that the relevant operative clauses under the stated Section are “shall have and exercise exclusive jurisdiction”, “related to or connected with” “and matters arising from workplace” and “matters incidental thereto or connected therewith”. He submitted that when libel or slander arises from a workplace, this court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain such libel or slander claim. He also submitted that where many claims arise from the same cause of action, such claims must ordinarily be made in a single suit citing the case of Opara v. Ikegwum [2007] All FWLR (pt. 374) p. 254. He submitted that this court can entertain a claim in libel or slander where the cause of action arises jointly from a claim. On issue six, Learned Counsel submitted that for an action to be maintainable in libel or slander, the claimant must prove the publication of the libel or slander and that the publication which referred to him is false and that the statement was defamatory of him. He cited Guaranty Trust Bank Plc v. Fadlallah [2010] All FWLR (pt. 537) p. 739. Counsel stated that evidence of libel and slander committed against the claimant by the respondent was neither controverted by cross-examination nor by any evidence as the respondent opted out of the case without any explanation or reason. He submitted that the claimant has proved libel or slander and urged the court to give judgment to the claimant. I have carefully considered the processes filed, the submission of counsel and the authorities cited. The claimant was employed by the respondent by virtue of a letter of employment issued on 1st December, 2007. The claimant’s emolument was revised upwards by a letter of 23rd February, 2009. In 2011, the claimant was investigated for allegation of fraud allegedly committed in the respondent’s company. The claimant was invited to disciplinary meeting on 7th October, 2011 by 11 a.m. as per a letter headed “Notification of a Disciplinary Meeting”. The claimant refused to attend the meeting because he believed the letter did not refer to him and it was neither dated nor signed. By virtue of its letter dated 7th October, 2011, the respondent noting the claimant’s absence in the meeting of 7th October, 2011 re-invited the claimant to another disciplinary meeting slated for 14th October, 2011. The claimant also failed to attend the subsequent meeting of the Disciplinary Committee after receiving the letter of invitation. After the said meeting, the respondent summarily dismissed the claimant from its service by virtue of a letter dated 14th October, 2011. From the facts and circumstances of this case the following issues can be distilled: 1. Whether the respondent validly entered a defence to this suit and in that case what is expected of this court. 2. Whether the summary dismissal of the claimant for fraudulent activities without a court of competent jurisdiction pronouncing him guilty of fraud is wrongful. 3. Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain matters bordering on libel and slander. On issue one, the record of the court reveal that the claimant filed this suit on 24th November, 2011. The respondent was served with the claimant’s Originating Processes on the 9th December, 2011but it did not enter appearance to this suit until 4th May, 2012 when it filed a memorandum of appearance, Statement of Defence, respondent’s List of Witnesses, List of Documents, Witness Statement on Oath and a motion on notice for extension of time within which the respondent may file its defence and other processes all dated and filed on 4th May, 2012. The respondent also filed a motion on notice dated 4th May, 2012 seeking extension of time within which to file Statement of Defence and other defence processes. On 6th June, 2012 when this court sat, the respondent withdrew its motion dated 4th May, 2012 for the extension of time to file defence and it was consequently struck out. The respondent did not refile the said motion and no leave was granted extending the time within which the respondent can enter defence or appearance in this suit. At this point it is imperative to reproduce Order 8 rule 1 and Order 9 rule 1 of the rules of the court which are relevant in deciding this issue. Order 8 Rule 1 of National Industrial Court Rules, 2007 provides as follows: “Every person served with an originating process shall, within the days stipulated therein or if no day is stipulated within 14 days of the service of the originating process, file a Memorandum of Appearance in the Registry of the Court”. Order 9 Rule 1 of National Industrial Court Rules, 2007 provides: “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 upon at the trial (d) written statements on oath of all witnesses listed, to be called by the defendant. It is trite that rules of court should be obeyed and not flouted with impunity. See Oliver v. Dangote Industries Limited [2011] 24 N.L.L.R (pt. 69) p. 344 at p. 371. The operative word in Order 8 Rule 1 and Order 9 Rule 1 of the rules of this court is “shall” which connotes mandatory compliance. From the record of the court, the respondent filed its defence after the expiration of 14 days of service of the Originating Processes and its motion for extension of time was withdrawn and struck out. The respondent did not file another application to regularize its position. There is therefore nothing before the court to show that the respondent complied with the rules of this court. Consequently, I hold that the respondent did not file any defence to this action. Even when the PW1 and PW2 testified in-chief, the respondent’s counsel refused to cross-examine them. The respondent also did not file final written address to argue its case despite being served with Hearing Notices. The respondent therefore has no defence to the suit. The court has held in a plethora of cases that pleadings and evidence that are not challenged by the adverse party are deemed to have been admitted. See Total Nigeria Plc v. Morkah [2002] 9 NWLR (pt. 773) p. 492 at p. 513, Strabag Construction Nig. Ltd v. Adeyefa [2008] 10 N.L.L.R (pt. 26) p. 186 at p. 211. Notwithstanding that the respondent offered no defence to this suit, this court is duty bound to evaluate the case of the claimant and the relevant laws to determine if the claimant is entitled to judgment on the merit. See NEPA v. Inameti [2002] 11 NWLR (pt. 778) p. 397 at p. 426, Nwako v. Bellview Airlines Limited (unreported) Suit No. NICN/LA/151/2012 delivered on 10th January, 2012. The claimant was suspended by the respondent by virtue of a letter dated 26th September, 2011. By another letter addressed to the claimant he was invited for a disciplinary meeting at the respondent’s Head office situated at No. 231, Adeola Odeku on Friday 7th October, 2011 at 11 a.m. on two count charge of fraudulent activities and dishonesty leading to stock shortage of more than N16,000,000.00 (Six Million Naira). The claimant refused to attend the meeting on the ground that the letter was neither dated nor signed and could have referred to a co-worker. Having failed to attend the disciplinary meeting of 7th October, 2011, the respondent wrote another letter dated 7th October, 2011 and signed by one Olusola Aigbe, the respondent’s Head of Human Resources inviting the claimant for another disciplinary meeting scheduled for Friday 14th October, 2011. The claimant also failed to attend the second meeting. After the meeting of 14th October, 2011 which the claimant refused to attend, the respondent by its letter of 14th October, 2011 dismissed the claimant from its service for fraudulent activities. In paragraphs 20 and 33 of his Statement of Facts, the claimant acknowledged receipt of the two letters inviting him to Disciplinary Meeting. In the letter suspending the claimant and the first letter inviting him to attend disciplinary meetings they both quoted the claimant’s name, salary Reference Number 196, the names of promoters and their numbers. The claimant was given enough opportunity to defend the allegation leveled against him but he chose not to do so. He also had opportunity of calling the promoters mentioned in the said letters to ascertain the information contained in the letter especially where it mentioned the name of the claimant against weighty allegation of fraudulent activities and dishonesty leading to a loss of more than N16,000,000.00 to the respondent company. A right thinking person ought to have responded to the invitation to present his side of the case, but the claimant decided to boycott the meetings which had the possibility of deciding his fate in the respondent company. The claimant argued that the first letter inviting him to the meeting was unsigned and undated as his reason for not attending. Assuming the first letter inviting the claimant to the first disciplinary meeting was unsigned and undated, the second letter was duly signed by one Olusola Aigbe, the Head, Human Resources of the respondent. The claimant was therefore given opportunity to defend the allegation against him. To satisfy the rule of natural justice and fair hearing, a person likely to be directly affected by disciplinary proceeding must be given adequate notice of the allegation against him to enable him make a representation in his own defence. The complaint against him must not necessarily be in the form of a formal charge. It is sufficient if the complaint as formulated conveys to him the nature of the accusation against him. See PHCN v. Alabi [2010] 21 N.L.L.R (pt. 58) p. 1 at p. 15, Yusuf v. Union Bank (Nig) Ltd [1996] 6 NWLR (pt. 457) p. 632 at p. 644. In the instant case, the respondent afforded the claimant a full opportunity of fair hearing before dispensing with his service. The averment contained in paragraphs 42, 44 and 45 of the Statement of Facts and the argument of Learned Counsel for the claimant that the claimant’s fundamental rights of fair hearing was violated cannot in the circumstances of this case be substantiated in the face of his glaring awareness of the disciplinary meeting of 7th and 14th October, 2011. The summary dismissal of the claimant was therefore valid. The claimant’s counsel argued in line with the averments in paragraphs 37 to 41 of the Statement of Facts that allegation of fraud which is an issue of crime cannot be tried by an administrative panel set up by the respondent for such a body is not a court of competent jurisdiction. It is not the requirement of the law that before an employer summarily dismisses his employee from his service, the employee must be tried before a court of law where the accusation against the employee is for gross misconduct involving dishonesty bordering on criminality. See Yusuf v. U.B.N Ltd [1996] 6 NWLR (pt. 457) p. 632 at p. 644 paras G – H, Bamgboye v. University of Ilorin [2001] FWLR (pt. 32) p. 12, Olanrewaju v. Afribank (Nig) Plc [2000] 13 NWLR (PT. 731) P. 691. Concerning the issue jurisdiction of this court over libel and slander, the Learned Counsel for the claimant argued that under Section 254C (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) this court has jurisdiction to entertain actions arising from libel and slander. He argued that the respondent broadcasted defamatory words against the claimant to its staff and members of the public and lowered his estimation before them. The jurisdiction of this court is contained in Section 7 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 and Section 254 C (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Act, 2010 and there is nowhere in the two legislations that this court is vested with jurisdiction over tortuous liability of libel and slander. The argument of claimant’s counsel clothing this court with jurisdiction on libel and slander cases is misconceived. Consequently, I hold that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain matters arising from libel and slander. The Reliefs sought in paragraphs 58 (f) and (g) of the Statement of Claim is hereby struck out. In view of the above, the claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought. I find and hold that the claimant’s case is frivolous and misconceived. This Suit is hereby dismissed in its entirety. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. …………………………………… Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu Fishim Judge