Download PDF
By her General Form of Complaint dated and filed on 20th March, 2012 the claimant seeks the following reliefs: A. An order of this court directing the defendant to pay to the claimant the sum of N4,916,016.10 (Four Million, Nine Hundred and Sixteen Thousand, Sixteen Naira and Ten Kobo Only) being the arrears of salaries and other entitlements due to the claimant from the defendant from January, 2009 to October, 2009. B. An order of this court directing the defendant to pay the claimant 15% interest or such interest at the rate as this court has power and discretion to award post judgment and for the period the court may in the circumstances determine on all claims in “A” above. Filed along with the Complaint are the Statement of Facts, Claimant’s List of Witnesses, Claimant’s List of Documents and Claimant’s Witness Statement on Oath. In its reaction, the defendant filed a memorandum of appearance dated 4th June, 2012 and filed on 6th June, 2012. The defendant thereafter filed a Statement of Defence and Counter-claim, Defendant’s List of Witness, Defendant Witness Statement on Oath and Defendant’s List of Documents. From the Statement of Facts, the claimant pleaded that by a letter dated 20th February, 2007 the defendant employed her as a Banking Executive which letter incorporated the defendant Staff Handbook into the employment. That she was deployed to the Retail and Personal Banking Sector of the Olodi-Apapa branch of the defendant by a letter dated 7th March, 2007. That in line with the conditions of service she enjoyed up till January, 2009 monthly salaries and allowances in the nature of: N a. Basic Salary - 83,394.83 b. Cola - 50,000.00 c. Transport - 32,500.00 d. Education - 8,333.33 e. Housing - 135,000.00 f. Furniture - 16,666.67 g. Dressing - 16,666.67 h. Entertainment - 15,833.33 i. Utilities - 58,333.33 making a total of N416,728.16 gross payment in a month. The claimant pleaded that she is entitled to a 13th month salary for every year completed or pro rata of such part of the 12th month completed. That until the time of cessation of employment, she is entitled to a yearly ticket allowance of N362,500.00 (Three Hundred and Sixty Two Thousand, Five Hundred Naira Only) as well as leave allowance of N125,092.50. That in January, 2009 the defendant wrote her a letter titled “suspension” suspending her from duty and the suspension was not lifted until a letter dated 12th of June, 2009 was issued to her terminating her appointment to take effect from 22nd July, 2009. That her position and liabilities was not communicated to her until July, 2009. That the defendant informed her that she is indebted to the defendant bank in the sum of N34,526.22 (Thirty Four Thousand, Five Hundred and Twenty Six, Twenty Two Kobo). She further pleaded that the defendant did not pay her the salaries and allowances that are due to her for the months of February to July, 2009 as a result of which she could not pay the defendant’s changed interest on the mortgage facility Account No. 0042020261. That by virtue of the terms of employment and especially the provision of the staff handbook, she is entitled to the salaries and allowances due for the months of February to July, 2009 as the termination did not arise from serious misconduct as set out in Clause 1.7 of the staff handbook nor did arise as a result of prohibited acts set out under Clause 5.10 of the handbook. She further pleaded that under the staff handbook a member of staff under a contract with the defendant can only be suspended on suspicion of commission of a serious misconduct and it is for a period pending the outcome of an investigation in respect of which the staff is suspected to have been involved, and withholding of such staff payment is for the period of the suspension and completion of the investigation. That she is not found to have been involved in any act of misconduct or serious misconduct, and that was not the basis for the termination of her appointment. That the staff handbook does not envisage the non-payment of staff salary for any period immediately preceding the termination of employment or even dismissal from employment. That the non-payment of her salaries and allowances for February to July, 2009 is a breach of contract. That she is entitled to the salaries and allowances that she ought to have earned for the month of August to October, 2009 if the appointment had not been terminated or if 13th month notice had been given to her. She repeated her claim as in complaint breaking it down as follows: (i) Salaries from February, 2009 to July, 2009 at N416,728.16 per month = N2,500,368.96. (ii) Salaries for 3 months from August, 2009 to October, 2009 in lieu of notice at N416,728.16 per month = N1,250,184.48. (iii) Ticket Allowance = N362,500.00. (iv) Leave Allowance = N125,092.55 (v) Pro-rata of the 13th month salary for the year end December, 2009 from January, 2009 to October, 2009 = N347,273.47. (vi) Interest charged by the defendant on the mortgage facility account as at July, 2009 as a result of the failure, neglect or refusal of the defendant to pay the claimant monthly salaries and allowances from February to July, 2009 = N330,596.64 Total = N4,916,016.10 In its defence, the defendant admitted the averment in paragraphs 1 to 6 and paragraph 10 of the claimant’s Statement of Facts. The defendant pleaded that the 13th month salary is a privilege paid only to employees who are in the employment of the defendant till the end of the financial year. That the said 13th month salary is paid to appreciate staff for their dedication, commitment, and loyalty which the claimant is not entitled to, having not earned same as her appointment was duly determined before the end of the financial year. That in accordance with the contract of employment between the parties herein which is embodied in the staff handbook, the claimant did not complete twelve months continuous service to be entitled to paid leave as a leave year means the calendar year. It pleaded that the claimant is equally not entitled to yearly ticket allowance as she claims in paragraph 8 of her Statement of Facts. That in line with the defendant’s handbook, during the period of suspension, an employee shall not be entitled to receive his/her salary and emoluments and that the claimant’s suspension was not lifted. That the claimant’s employment was terminated in line with the terms and conditions of service of her employment with the defendant. That the claimant was placed on suspension for serious misconduct while the defendant’s bank’s credit policy stipulates that staff on suspension for breach of credit policy will be without pay. The defendant further pleaded that the claimant’s suspension became indefinite thereafter having been found culpable by the Disciplinary Committee of the bank on suspicion of the commission of serious misconduct arising from breach of credit policy which led to loss of funds by the defendant. That at the point of the termination of the claimant’s appointment, her terminal benefits and liabilities were promptly communicated to her via letter dated 22nd July, 2009. That the policy of the defendant provides that any of the parties can terminate the contract by giving 3 months’ notice or cash in lieu which is 3 months basic salary. That in accordance with the defendant bank’s policy and staff handbook, the claimant was paid the sum of N250,184.49 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand, One Hundred and Eighty Four Naira, and Forty Nine Kobo). That for the periods February to July, 2009 the claimant was on suspension and could not have earned the salaries and allowances for those months which is in line with the staff handbook of the defendant bank. That the mortgage loan granted to the claimant by the Intercontinental Homes Savings and Loans Plc is purely a commercial loan which was granted to her because she was a staff of the defendant. That the defendant and Intercontinental Savings Home and Loans Plc are two separate and distinct entities. The defendant further pleaded that it was not a party to the mortgage loan agreement between the claimant and Intercontinental Savings and Loans Plc. That the claimant’s continued employment with the defendant was not a term or condition for the grant of the mortgage loan and the defendant was not a guarantor for the said mortgage loan. That the defendant is not liable in respect of any interest charged on the mortgage facility account number 0042020261. That the mortgage loan application was made to Intercontinental Homes Savings & Loans Plc and was in no way connected to the defendant. That the defendant has its own staff loan mortgage scheme which the claimant did not utilize. That the claimant was placed on suspension on grounds bothering on suspicion of the commission of serious misconduct after she appeared before the Disciplinary Committee and Investigation Commission set up by the defendant. That the committee found the claimant culpable of breach of the credit policy, concealment of material information on the credit memoranda and poor monitoring of collateral which exposed it to loss of funds in respect of oil and gas facilities. That part of the responsibilities of the claimant at the Retail and Personal Banking Sector of the defendant at Olodi-Apapa branch includes procuring authority to load and ticket for customers and the collateral for such transactions where the authority to load (ATL) or the Ticket and the responsibility of the claimant was to ensure that the defendant has custody of the authority to load (ATL) or the ticket depending on volume of the transaction. That five (5) of the Oil and Gas facilities/ATL tickets granted to customers of Olodi-Apapa branch directly linked to the claimant became delinquent. The defendant further stated that in line with the prevailing Labour Act and the staff handbook, the claimant promptly paid three months basic salary in lieu of notice upon the termination of her appointment. That the claimant’s 3 months basic salary in lieu of notice was the total sum of N250,184.49 and she collected same and is not entitled to any other sum outside her basic salary. That the claimant’s employment was lawfully determined. By way of counter claim, the defendant/counter claimant repeated its averments in paragraphs 1 – 16 of the statement of defence. The counter-claimant pleaded that it made the claimant’s account position known to her via a letter dated 22nd July, 2009 in line with the staff handbook. That the net indebtedness of the claimant/defendant to counter claim to the counter-claimant stands in the sum of N34,526.22 broken down as follows: N Upfront Allowance 190,777.78 Unearned January 09 Salary 36,369.72 Leave Allowance 12,337.90 Ticket/Passage Allowance 41,835.62 June 09 Lunch Allowance 3,673.33 Total 284,994.35 The counter claimant pleaded that the claimant/defendant to counter claims debt to it attracts interest at the commercial rate. That upon deduction of the balance in the claimant’s salary account and payment in lieu of notice, the sum of N34,526.22 was outstanding as follows: N Balance in Salary Account 283.64 In lieu of notice 250,184.49 250,468.13 Minus 284,994.35 Net indebtedness 34,526.22 The counter claimant therefore claims from the claimant/defendant to counter claim the sum of N34,526.22 being her indebtedness to it after deduction from the balance in her salary account and her basic salary in lieu of notice. Trial in this suit commenced on 19th November, 2012 with the claimant testifying on her behalf as CW1. She adopted her witness statement on oath sworn at the Registry of this court on 20th March, 2012. The said witness statement on oath is in all fours with the statement of facts and will not be reproduced here. Under cross-examination, CW1 stated that her job at Olodi-Apapa Branch of the defendant was a relationship officer, marketing the defendants’ products and services. That she packages credit proposals for approval and monitors customers accounts on daily basis as well as sourcing for deposit for the defendant. That the credit proposals she packaged for the defendant was for customers in the oil and gas sector. That the collateral was the authority to load which will be in the banks. That the amount is less than N20 Million. But for the big customers the collateral is a tripartite ware housing agent. That the product is also a collateral on its own which can only be released on the advice of the bank and the ware housing agent. She stated that part of her responsibility was to ensure that the bank has a tripartite ware housing agreement. That there was no concealment on her part as regards to facts vital to information in the credit memoranda to secure the defendant’s management approval of the facility. That all the customers in the branch were owing the defendant and at the time of her disengagement it was about N83,000.00 with some fractions. She admitted being paid the sum of N250,184.49 which represents her three months basic salary. That she completed 12 months of continuous service in 2009. That she was informed in writing of her suspension and that she was suspended for six months in 2009. That she did not appear before any Disciplinary Committee. She further stated that she derived the benefit of some upfront payment and that her outstanding debt was N34,526.22. That her application for mortgage loan was not made to the defendant and that the defendant was not the guarantor under the mortgage. That the defendant was not a party to the mortgage agreement between her and the Intercontinental Homes Plc. That her continuous employment was a condition for granting her the loan. She further stated that she was advised to go to the defendant’s subsidiaries to get such loans. That it was not written in the agreement for loan that it is given to her as a condition of her continuous employment with the defendant. That the type of loan she was offered was the same with the ones granted to members of the public. That she has not paid back the loan and she is owing the sum of N34,526.22. That owing to her negligence the defendant was exposed to financial losses. She further stated that she is a financial consultant but currently not working under anybody. There was no re-examination. The claimant thereafter closed her case. Dapo Tijani as DW1 testified on behalf of the defendant. He adopted his witness statement on oath and the documents attached thereto. He urged the court to dismiss the case of the claimant and give judgment in favour of the defendant on the counter-claim. The said defendant’s statement of witness is in the same term as the statement of defence and the counter claim. Under cross-examination, the DW1 stated that the counter claim is the sum of N35,000.00 which is the amount due after deducting the balance. That the 13th month salary is an entitlement. That the claimant and all persons in attendance at the Disciplinary Committee meeting were indicted. There was no re-examination. The defendant thereafter closed its case. The parties were ordered to file their respective final written addresses. The defendant’s Final Written Address is dated 25/2/2013 but filed on 7/3/2013, while the claimant’s Final Written Address is dated 3/4/2013 but filed on 5/4/2013. The defendant’s counsel formulated five issues for determination by this court as follows: 1. Whether the claimant is entitled to receive her salary and emoluments during the period of suspension. 2. Whether in all the circumstances of this case, the proper measure of terminal liability to the claim is three months basic salary in lieu of three month’s notice in writing. 3. Whether the defendant need give reason for terminating the employment of the claimant herein. 4. Whether the defendant is privy to the loan or mortgage transaction entered into by the claimant or her guarantor and thus liable for the interest charged on the mortgage facility she took. 5. Whether the defendant’s counter-claim for the sum of N34,526.22 succeeds in view of the admission of the facts of her indebtedness to the defendant. Arguing issues one and two, Learned Counsel referred to Clause 6.2 of the defendant’s Handbook which provides as follows: “Where an employee is suspected of serious misconduct, he may be suspended from duty from that date until investigation is complete. During the period of suspension, an employee shall not be entitled to receive his salary and emoluments. Whenever an employment is suspended, he must be informed in writing”. Learned Counsel submitted that in the instant case, the claimant was informed in writing about the suspension and in accordance with the above cited provision the claimant is not entitled to receive her salary and emoluments from January to July, 2009 as her right to such was suspended during that period. He cited the case of National Union of Banks, Insurance & Financial Institutions Employees v. Management of National Insurance Corporation of Nigeria [1978 – 2006] DJNIC p. 218 where the court held that: “The deprivation of a worker’s wages as punishment for misconduct by suspension for a period of time does not offend Section 5 of the Labour Act”. Learned Counsel submitted that Clause 6.2 of the said staff handbook constitutes the terms and conditions of the contract of employment between the parties regarding the right and obligation of parties during suspension and same must be construed accordingly, citing Abalogu’s v. Shell [2003] 10 M.J.S.C p. 60 at p. 80, Ifeta v. Shell [2006] 7 M.J. S.C p. 121. He also submitted that the word in the said Clause 6.2 to wit, “Shall Not …” denotes that same is mandatory, compulsory and enforceable relying on the case of Abimbola v. Aderoju [1999] 5 NWLR (pt. 601) p. 100 at 111. Learned Counsel also cited Clause 1.7 of the defendant staff handbook and submitted that it is clear that the claimant is only entitled to salary earned to date of termination. He submitted that from the definition of the word “earned” in Blacks’ Law Dictionary, 8th Edition p. 547 the claimant cannot be said to have “earned” salaries and allowances during the period of her suspension. He cited Section 17 (1) (b) of the Labour Act to support the submission that the claimant is not entitled to salary and wages during suspension. He referred the court to cases of Okunoren v. U.A.C Ltd [1958] 20 NLR p. 25, Bird v. British Celanese Ltd [1945] KB, Wall Work v. Fielding [1992] All E.R p. 298 at p. 301. Learned Counsel further submitted that there is no express mention of allowances in computing the 3 months’ salary payable in lieu of notice under Clause 1.7 of staff handbook. He submitted recourse must be had to the position of the relevant law which is the Labour Act. He further submitted that all the claimant is entitled to is under the contract of employment under the staff handbook is only 3 months basic salary in lieu of notice in writing. He cited Section 11 (a) of the Labour Act, 2004 and submitted that the Act excludes the payment of overtime and other allowances in the calculation of payment in lieu of notice. He submitted that the claimant’s claims for 3 months salary and allowances in the nature of yearly ticket allowances, leave allowance, pro-rata of the 13th month salary for the year end December, 2009 from January, 2009 to October, 2009 is a gold digging exercise and unsupported by any shred of evidence or law. Learned Counsel submitted that having not worked till end of year 2009 the claimant is not entitled to 13th month salary under Clause 2.8 of the Staff Handbook which the claimant admitted under cross-examination. On issue three, Learned Counsel submitted that an employer can terminate the contract with his employee at anytime and for any reason or no reason at all. He submitted that there is no obligation on the defendant to state why the claimant’s serves were no more required, citing the case of NITEL Plc v. Akwa [2006] 1 FWLR (pt. 295) p. 61. He also submitted that the claimant was afforded the opportunity to be heard before the Disciplinary Committee and that the Report of the Committee lends credence to this fact. Arguing issue four, Learned Counsel submitted that the defendant is not privy to the loan transaction between the claimant and a 3rd party and thus not liable for her indebtedness to it or the interest charged by the corporate entity to the claimant’s mortgage account. He submitted further that the compelling and overwhelming evidence before this court debunk bogus claim of the claimant and urge the court to uphold the defendant’s submission and refuse relief (vi) of the claimant. He cited the case of Makwe v. Nwukor [2001] 6 M.J.S.C. p. 179. He submitted that relief B which is the claimant’s claim for interest was not strictly proved. That the position of the law is that interest must not only be pleaded it must be strictly proved. He urged the court to dismiss the claims for interest and refuse relief B sought by the claimant, citing the cases of UBA Plc v. Abacha Foundation [2003] FWLR (pt. 178) p. 983, UBN v. SPOK Nig. Ltd [1998] 12 NWLR (pt. 578) p. 338. On issue five, Learned Counsel submitted that it is not disputed that the claimant is indebted to the defendant in the sum of N34,526.22 after computing her terminal benefits and liabilities. He submitted that the claimant did not contradict the claim of the defendant and that an admitted fact is not a fact in issue and need no further proof. He cited the case of Kopek Construction Ltd v. Ekisola [2010] LSCM 86, Olufosoye v. Olorunfemi [1999] 1 NWLR (pt. 95) p. 39. He finally urged the court to resolve the issues in favour of the defendant and dismiss the claims of the claimant in its entirety. Learned Counsel for the claimant formulated five issues for determination by the court as follows: 1. Whether the claimant is entitled to the payment of her salary from the months of February to July, 2009 when the claimant’s appointment was terminated. 2. Whether the 3 months payment in lieu of notice is to be calculated on the basic salary is in accordance with the terms of employment. 3. Whether failure to pay salary to the claimant was entitled to and resulted in the loss to a third party could be maintained in the circumstance. 4. Whether the claimant is indebted to the defendant for the sum of N34,526.22 or any sum at all; and 5. Whether the claimant is entitled to post judgment interest. On the claimant’s salary withheld during suspension Learned Counsel submitted that with the state of pleadings and evidence especially Clause 6.2 of staff handbook the claimant was not suspended pursuant to the commission or suspicion of having committed a serious misconduct within the terms stipulated in the stand handbook. He submitted that a calm construction of Clause 6.2 of staff handbook will show: (a) That an employee must have been suspected of serious misconduct. (b) That on the basis of that suspicion the employee may be suspended. (c) The suspension will exist till investigation into the suspicion of the allegation of gross misconduct is completed; and (d) That it is in this circumstances that the employee will have the payment of his salary withheld. Learned Counsel submitted that the suspension of the claimant was subsequent to an investigation, and the purpose of it was not suspicion of serious misconduct but what the defendant dubbed a recovery suspension to regularize the accounts that were delinquent within 30 days. He submitted that there is no condition of employment which permits the defendant to withhold the payment of its employee during a recovery suspension or prior to the termination of employment as it happened in this case. On the effect of suspension of an employee, Learned Counsel cited the case of Longe v. FBN [2010] 2 – 3 MJSC p. 107 which held that: “Admittedly, an employer suspending his employee may impose terms of the suspension but in a general sense suspension of an employee from work only means the suspension of the employee from performance of the ordinary duties assigned to him by virtue of his office – suspension is not a demotion and does not entail a diminution of rank, office or position. Certainly, it cannot import a diminution of the rights of the employee given to him under the law”. He also cited the case of Gbadegesin v. Wema Bank Plc [2012] 28 N.L.L.R (pt. 80) p. 274 at pp. 305 – 306. Learned Counsel submitted that the suspension of the claimant did not arise as a result of the claimant having been suspected to have committed an act of serious misconduct pending investigation but was sent on recovery suspension which did not permit her to resign her appointment. He submitted that the suspension of the claimant was not effected within the provision of Clause 6.2 of the staff handbook. He enumerated what serious misconducts are under Clause 5.10 of the staff handbook which can attract penalty of termination of appointment or summary dismissal and submitted that even in a case of summary dismissal and submitted that even in a case of summary dismissal the defendant has not claimed for itself the right to hold from the employee the payment withheld while on suspension. He submitted that the net result of Clause 1.7 of the staff handbook is that the claimant not having been dismissed for serious misconduct or any misconduct the right to withhold her salary for February to July does not exist and the non-payment of it is a breach of the terms of employment. He urged the court to award the claim for sum of N2,500,368.96 being unpaid salaries for the months February to July, 2009 at the rate of N416,728.16 per month. On the payment in lieu of notice, Learned Counsel cited Clause 1 – 7 of the staff handbook. He also cited Clause 1.15 which provides that “leave allowance is calculated at the rate of 12.5% of the employee annual basic salary, therefore the invitation to compute the entitlements due on the basic salary should be rejected”. Learned Counsel submitted that written contract of service are binding on the parties and a court of law is lacking in any legal power to look anywhere for the purpose of identifying the terms of termination of contract other than in the written agreement voluntarily entered into by the parties, citing the case of W.N.D.C v. Abimbola [1996] 1 All NLR p. 159. He submitted that the greatest respect that in all cases of entitlement payable in lieu of notice the consideration is “what would the employee have earned” the period of the notice had been allowed to run fully. He submitted that the claimant would not have been given basic salary for the months of August, September and October, 2009 and that the court of equity and law will not permit the employer to profit from its own wrong by short changing the employee over his/her entitlement. He cited the case of Severinsen v. EMTSS Ltd [2012] 27 NLLR p. 374, pp. 457 458. He urged the court to refuse to accede to the argument of the defendant and hold that the claimant is entitled to have her 3 months’ salary calculated on the basis of her terms of employment. On interest arising from non payment of salary Learned Counsel submitted that while the claimant was claiming for damages incidental to the failure of the defendant to pay her salary the defendant pleaded and gave evidence of privity of contract. That the claim of the claimant on this head arose independent of the knowledge or agreement of the defendant but an incidental responsibility flowing from the wrongful refusal of the defendant to pay the claimant what she is entitled to. He further submitted that the direct result is that no issue has been joined with the claimant by the defendant and the claim is deemed admitted and urged the court to enter judgment in favour of the claimant on this claim. On the right to post judgment interest, Learned Counsel referred to Order 21 Rule 4 of the rules of this court which empowers this court to grant order for interest of not less than 10% per annum on the judgment sum. He also cited the case of Unity Bank Plc v. Dendeg Ltd [2012] 18 NWLR (pt. 1332) p. 293, Himma Merchant Ltd v. Aliyu [1994] 5 NWLR (pt. 347) p. 667, Berliet Nig. Ltd v. Kachalla [1995] 9 NWLR (pt. 420) p. 478. He therefore urged the court to grant post judgment interest in favour of the claimant. On the defendant’s counter-claim, Learned Counsel stated that it is agreed that the demand for the sum of N34,526.22 arose as a short fall from the computation of the entitlement of the claimant. That a review of the computation will take care of the short fall giving rise to the counter-claim. He finally urged the court to grant all the reliefs sought by the claimant. I have carefully considered the processes filed, the submissions of counsel for both parties and the authorities relied upon. The issues that arise from the facts of this case are whether the claimant is entitled to the arrears of salaries and other entitlements from January, 2009 to October, 2009, whether the claimant is indebted to the defendant as per the counter claim. The claimant in this case was employed by the defendant via a letter dated 20th February, 2007 as Banking Executive while incorporated the defendant staff handbook into the employment contract. In other words, the contract of master and servant between the claimant and the defendant is governed by the letter of employment of 20th February, 2007 and the defendant staff handbook. It is the defendant’s contention that under Clause 6.2 of the defendant staff handbook the claimant is not entitled to receive her salary and emoluments during the period of her suspension which is from February to July, 2009. That the suspension clause suspended the claimant’s right to salary and emoluments during that period. On the other hand, the claimant contended that under the said clause she was not suspended pursuant to the commission or suspicion of having committed a serious misconduct within the terms stipulated on the staff handbook. That serious misconduct is as contained in Clause 5.10 of the staff handbook. That the claimant having not been dismissed for serious misconduct the right to withhold her salary for the months of February to July, 2009 does not exist. In the instant case, the defendant’s right of suspension is provided for under Clause 6.2 of the staff handbook which is reproduced as follows: “Where an employee is suspected of serious misconduct, he may be suspended from duty from that date until investigation is completed. During the period of suspension, an employee shall not be entitled to receive his salary and emoluments. Whenever an employee is suspended, he must be informed in writing”. In the exercise of the above right, the defendant issued a letter of suspension dated 26th January, 2009 in respect of tickets granted to five customers by the claimant which account the defendant concluded are delinquent and not regularized. The term suspension is defined in the case of University of Calabar v. Esiaga [1997] 4 NWLR (pt. 502) p. 719 at pp. 739 – 740 to mean: “a temporary privation or deprivation, cessation or stoppage of or from the privileges and rights of a person. The word carries or conveys a temporary or transient disciplinary procedure which keeps away the victim or person disciplines from his regular occupation or calling either for a fixed or terminal period or indefinitely. The disciplinary procedure gives the initiator of the discipline a period to make up his mind as to what should be done to the person facing the discipline. Although in most cases, suspension results in a disciplinary action, it is not invariably so…” In the case of Longe v. FBN Plc [2010] 6 NWLR (pt. 1189) p. 1 at p. 60 the Supreme Court defines suspension as, “… a state of affairs which exists while there is a contract in force between the employer and the employee, but there is neither work being done in pursuance of it nor remuneration being paid …” The defendant in this case acted under Clause 6.2 of the staff handbook when it suspended the claimant without pay by virtue of its letter dated 26th January, 2009. In the said letter the defendant made reference to an investigation on oil and gas facilities/ATL ticket to 14 customers of the defendant 5 of which were directly linked to the claimant and which have not been regularized and are now delinquent. There is no list of conducts which are termed serious misconduct. I am of the view that the claimant is not entitled to any salary or emoluments during the period she was suspended from the defendant which is from February to July 2009. This is so because suspension as the name goes suspends the rights and obligations of the parties under the contract of employment until a later period when the said rights and obligations will either resurrect or be extinguished. Therefore, the claimant cannot be heard to seek a relief which did not accrue to her. The claimant claimed the sum of N1,250,184.48 (One Million, Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand, One Hundred and Eighty Four Naira, Forty Eight Kobo) as salaries for (3) three months (August to October, 2009) in lieu of notice at the rate of N416,728.16 per month. In reaction, it was the defendant’s contention that it paid the claimant the three (3) months basic salary in lieu of notice in the sum of N250,184.49 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand, One Hundred and Eighty Four Naira, Forty Nine Kobo). It is in evidence that the defendant terminated the employment of the claimant by virtue of a letter dated 12th June, 2009 with immediate effect. The letter of employment provides under the caption “Termination” that, either party may terminate this appointment at any time by giving to the other three-month notice in writing or pay in lieu thereof”. The defendant’s contention that the claimant is only entitled to three months basic salary in lieu of three months notice is not supported by the terms of the contract. The claimant’s appointment letter which is the contract of employment provided for three months notice or three months pay in lieu of notice and not three months basic salary. The defendant’s reliance on Section 11 (9) of the Labour Act, 2004 is erroneous as the Labour Act is applicable only to Junior workers and the claimant in this case is a Senior Staff. Therefore the Labour Act is not applicable to the claimant. In any event, the defendant’s staff handbook provides that employees terminated will be entitled to salary in lieu of notice based on the contract of employment which in this case is the letter of appointment. The defendant admitted that the sum of N416,728.16 is the claimant’s monthly salary in its paragraph 1 of statement of defence. It is trite that admitted fact need no further proof. See Olugbode v. Sangodeyi [1996] 4 NWLR (pt. 444) p. 500 at p. 516, Ebo v. NTA [1996] 4 NWLR (pt. 442) p. 314, Justin v. Unity Bank Plc (Unreported) Suit No. NIC/JOS/2/2011 delivered on 11th July, 2013. It therefore follows that the claimant’s three months in lieu of notice is the sum of N1,250,184.48. The defendant contended that the claimant was indebted to it to the tune of N284,994.35 (Two Hundred and Eighty Four Thousand, Nine Hundred and Nine Four Thousand, Thirty Five Kobo) which it deducted from the claimant’s three months basic salary which resulted in outstanding debt of N35,526.22. The correct position is the sum of N284,994.35 is to be deducted from the claimant’s three months salary of N1,250,184.48 leaving a balance of N965,190.05. I therefore hold that the defendant is indebted to the claimant in the sum of N965,190.05 (Nine Hundred and Sixty Five Thousand, One Hundred and Ninety Naira, Five Kobo). It equally follows that the claimant is not indebted to the defendant in the sum of N34,526.22. The defendant’s counter claim therefore fails. The claimant also claimed the sum of N330,596.64 (Three Hundred and Thirty Thousand, Five Hundred and Nine Six Naira, Sixty Four Kobo) as interest charged by the defendant on the mortgage facility account as at July, 2009 as a result of the failure of the defendant to pay her monthly salaries from February to July, 2009. To support this, the claimant relied on her statement of account from Intercontinental Homes Savings and Loans. One wonders how the defendant in this case will be made liable to refund interest charges carried out by Intercontinental Homes Savings and Loans which is not a party in this Suit and which is not the claimant’s employer. The said interest charges are therefore not recoverable from the defendant herein. In view of the above, I hold and order as follows: (1) The claimant is not entitled to salaries from February, 2009 to July, 2009. (2) The defendant is ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of N965,190.13 (Nine Hundred and Sixty Five Thousand, One Hundred and Ninety Naira, Thirteen Kobo) being the outstanding sum on the claimant’s three months salary in lieu of notice. (3) The defendant’s counter claim is hereby dismissed. (4) The defendant shall pay N40,000.00 cost to the claimant. Judgment is entered accordingly. …………………………………… Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu Fishim Judge