Download PDF
The Claimant initiated this suit by her General Form of Complaint dated and filed on the 29th July, 2011. The Claimant was granted leave by this court on 16th December, 2011 to amend her statement of claim pursuant to which the Claimant filed her Amended Statement of Facts dated 27th February, 2012. The Claimant seeks the following reliefs: 1. A Declaration that the Defendant's suspension of the Claimant in fragrant disregard of the Defendant's Condition of Service Manual and Claimant contract of employment is wrongful, null and void and of no effect. 2. An Order setting aside the suspension of the Claimant by the Defendant. 3. General Damages for wrongful suspension in the sum of N100,000,000.00 for breach of procedure, and wrongful suspension, pain, mental and psychological torture, stress, loss of honour, name and reputation and extreme deprivation. 4. A Declaration that the Defendant's suspension of the Claimant in fragrant disregard of the Defendant's Condition of Service Manual and Claimant contract of employment is wrongful, null and void and of no effect. 5. An Order setting aside the suspension of the Claimant by the Defendant. 6. General Damages for wrongful suspension in the sum of N100,000,000.00 for breach of procedure, and wrongful suspension, pain, mental and psychological torture, stress, loss of honour, name and reputation and extreme deprivation. 7. GENERAL DAMAGES in the sum of N200,000,000.00 for breach of procedure, wrongful suspension, unlawful dismissal, pain mental and psychological torture, stress, loss of honour, name and reputation and extreme deprivation. 8. SPECIAL DAMAGES in the sum of N305,988,000.00 being total unpaid earnings, entitlements and benefits from 1st May, 2011 to 30th November, 2032 when the claimant would be due for retirement at the age of 60 years in accordance with the defendant’s condition of service. PARTICULARS OF SPECIAL DAMAGES (a) Total unpaid salaries from 1st May, 2011 to 30th November, 2032 when the claimant was due for retirement at age 60 years in accordance with the defendant’s conditions of service manual at N520,000.00 per annum N197,088,000.00 (b) Total unpaid housing benefits from 1st January, 2012 to 31st December 2013 being the claimant year of retirement at age 60 years in accordance with the defendant’s conditions of service manual at N1,900,000.00 per annum N58,900,000.00 (c) Total value of the defendant’s notional share option in the name of the claimant in the defendant from 1st May, 2011 to 30th November, 2032 valued approximated at N50,000,000.00 by 2032 being the claimant year of retirement at age 60 years in accordance with the defendant’s conditions of service manual N50,000,000.00 a. LAN (Notional Share Options) of 1,700 b. GAN (Notional Share Options) of 1,600 9. Interest at 17% per annum on the entire sums from 1st May, 2011 to judgment and thereafter at the rate of 17% per annum until the whole amount is liquidated. Accompanying the Statement of Facts are the List of Documents, Witness Statement on oath and documents attached. In response, the Defendant filed 2nd Amended Statement of Defence, Witness Statement on Oath, List of Documents and documents attached thereto dated 4th July, 2012. The Claimant further filed an Amended reply to the Statement of Defence as well as Additional Witness Statement on Oath. The Claimant’s case is that she is at all material time to this suit and until her unlawful summary dismissal on April 28 2011 was the Regional Sales Manager in the South Eastern Nigeria of the Defendant and has her residence at No. 4, Ademola Street, South west Ikoyi Lagos. That by a letter dated March 4, 2002 she was offered employment by the Defendant as a Trade Marketer from March 6, 2002 to November 1st 2005, when the position was realigned to that of a Distributor Account Executive. That her appointment as a Trade Marketer for Lagos South-West Region was confirmed by the Defendant by letter dated October 29, 2002 and that since the confirmation of her appointment she has been promoted, trained, transferred and also served in various units, regions and branches of the Defendant in different capacities. The Claimant pleaded that her employment in the Defendant was governed by the Defendant Condition of Service Manual which formed an integral part of her contract of employment with the Defendant. The Claimant pleaded the Condition of Service. That the Defendant's Condition of Service Manual provides inter-alia for the Defendant staff matters especially on matters of discipline and is structured to form and or to be used along with her contract of employment. That she served the Defendant with loyalty, diligence and dedication for over 9 years and to confirm Claimant's contributions to the Defendant, the Defendant periodically reviewed Claimant's salary and gave her commendation in writing on several occasions. The Claimant pleads and shall rely on the various Defendants' letters of commendation at the trial of this suit. That on August 27, 2007 she was promoted to the post of Regional Sales Manager before she was transferred to Asaba Delta State in which capacity she managed 22 of Defendant's distributors in the south-eastern states of Nigeria with consequent upward increase in salary, entitlement and allowance in line with the Defendant's Condition of Service Manual. The Claimant further pleaded that at no time in the cause of her employment with the Defendant did the Defendant have reasons to issue query to her until April 28 2011 when she was summarily dismissed from service. That on 14 February 2011 she sequel to the unlawful dismissal on 28 April 2011 had received a phone call from the Human Resources of the Defendant to proceed on immediate suspension and to submit to the Defendant's security her Identity Card, official car, laptop and other office tools in her possession which the Defendant's security had been instructed to withdraw from the Claimant and without any prior query and that she shall receive a formal letter of suspension in a few days in which she shall be notified of the reasons for the suspension. That though she was shocked and surprised at Defendant's procedure, she complied with the Defendant's instruction by handing over her Identity Card, official car, laptop and other office tools to the Defendant's security and went home while expecting the Defendant to formally notify her of the reasons for the suspension and or serve her with a query but all to no avail as the Defendant neglected and or refused to notify her of the reasons for her suspension. That when she waited from 14 February 2011 to 17 March 2011 for the Defendant's formal letter of suspension which shall notify her of the reasons for the suspension and or a query from the Defendant, she sent an Short Message Service (sms) to the Defendant's Human Resources Department one Iyang whereof the Defendant apologised and promised to follow up. That notwithstanding the assurances of the Defendant no letter of suspension was forwarded whereupon on 25 April 2011 she sent another Short Message Service (sms) to Chioma Egbuka demanding the letter of suspension whereupon she was informed that the letter was passed on the Defendant's security supervisor, one Davis Eke to deliver to her but was not sure whether the letter was dispatched but the Defendant's officer promised to confirm the position with one Ibitola Somide who was to check with Davis Eke, the security supervisor and return to her. The Claimant pleaded that when she did not hear from the Defendant as promised by the Defendant on 18 April 2011 she wrote to the Defendant demanding the letter of suspension which will notify her of the reasons for the suspension and or any query for her to answer. She pleaded the said letter. It is the Claimant’s claim that notwithstanding her letter of 18 April 2011 the Defendant failed and refused to inform her of the reasons for the suspension and or issue any query to her whereupon on 21 April 2011 she sent an electronic mail (e-mail) to the Defendant which the Defendant thereof replied informing her that the Defendant is still investigating why she had not received the letter of suspension and will revert to her as soon as possible. The Claimant pleaded that on the same day vide the same correspondence she was invited to the Formal Disciplinary Hearing of the Defendant scheduled within 7 days. The Claimant states that she was wrongfully suspended for more than 30 days without any information stating reasons and grounds of the suspension and without notification of the extension of the suspension. The Claimant pleaded the particular of wrongful suspension as follows: i. That she was verbally suspended from service on 14 February, 2011 without any formal letter of suspension from the defendant stating the reasons and grounds for the suspension and despite several requests by her to the defendant to issue the defendant’s letter of suspension the defendant failed until 21 April, 2011 when she was invited by the defendant to the defendant’s Formal Disciplinary Committee Hearing on 28 April, 2011. ii. That she did not know the case against her from 14th February, 2011 when she was unlawfully suspended up till 21st April, 2011 when she received the defendant’s letter cataloguing various criminal offences against her and inviting her to the defendant’s Disciplinary Committee Hearing on 28 April, 2011. iii. That she was suspended for more than 30 days without hearing; and iv. That even if she can be suspended for more than 30 days she was neither notified of any extension of the suspension nor informed of the basis/reasons for the suspension in accordance with the defendant condition of service manual and rules of fair hearing inscribed in the constitution of Nigeria. The Claimant pleaded that she has suffered undue deprivation as a result of the Defendant's unconscionable conduct which has forced her to become completely dependent on the goodwill of friends and relations for her sustenance. That her suspension from the employment of the defendant was wrongful unlawful and contrary to her contract of employment and stipulations of fair hearing and fair trial contained in the defendant’s conditions of service manual. The Claimant states that she was summarily dismissed from service without recourse to her contract of employment and without recourse to the stipulations of fair trial and fair hearing contained in the Defendant's Condition of Service Manual and enshrined in the constitution of Nigeria and that she was accused, tried and judged by the Defendant without the Defendant affording her hearing and fair trial. That her summary dismissal from the employment of the Defendant was wrongful unlawful and contrary to her contract of employment and stipulations of fair hearing and fair trial contained in the Defendant's Conditions of Service Manual. The Claimant pleaded particulars of unlawful dismissal as follows: i. That the Defendant did not give her opportunity to prepare for the Defendant's Formal Disciplinary Committee Hearing on 28 April 2011 when she was served the Defendant's letter of invitation after working hours on Thursday 21 April 2011, a day preceding the Easter Holidays, being Friday the 22nd day of April 2011 and Monday the 25th day of April 2011, a Federal Government Public Holiday and Election day of Tuesday the 26th April 2011, in contravention of her contract of employment and stipulations of fair hearing and fair trial contained in the Defendant's Conditions of service Manual and enshrined in the constitution of Nigeria. ii. That she was not giving opportunity to prepare for the Defendant's Formal Disciplinary Committee Hearing on 28 April 2011 as the Defendant had confiscated her work tools and laptop where data, information and other necessary facts relevant for her case and defence were stored when on 14 February 2011 she was suspended and chased from the Defendant and since denied access into the Defendant premises to retrieve and assemble documentations required for her defence. iii. That she was not heard as the Defendant denied her the opportunity to assemble and call witnesses, present documents and prove her case when the Defendant suspended her, chased her away, denied her access into the Defendant's office and the Defendant's documentations and witnesses. iv. That she was stampeded by the Disciplinary Committee to appeal the decision of the Formal Disciplinary Hearing on the day in which the decision was given by the committee in contravention of her contract of employment and stipulations of fair hearing and fair trial contained in the Defendant's Conditions of service Manual. v. That the Defendant failed, refused and or neglected to consider the Appeal of she filed. The Claimant pleaded further that she was verbally suspended from service on 14 February 2011 without any formal letter of suspension from the Defendant stating the reasons and grounds for the suspension despite several requests by her to the Defendant to issue the letter of suspension, until 21 April 2011 when she was invited by the Defendant to the Defendant's Formal Disciplinary Committee Hearing on 28 April 2011 in fragrant disregard and without recourse to her contract of employment and stipulations of fair trial and fair hearing contained in the Defendant's Condition of Service Manual and enshrined in the constitution of Nigeria. That the Defendant's letter of 21 April 2011 which invited her to the Defendant's Formal Disciplinary Committee Hearing on 28 April 2011 catalogued various acts of misconducts against her which borders on crime and which the Defendant lacked capacity or competence to adjudicate and which the Defendant never reported to the police for investigation and of which she was never charged, in contravention of Claimant's contract of employment and the stipulations contained in Defendant's Conditions of service Manual. That at no time during the course of her employment that she was invited to the Defendant's Formal Disciplinary Committee Hearing on 28 April 2011 by letter dated 21 April 2011, nor did the Defendant issue query to her on acts of misconduct bordering on falsification of official documentation, academic qualifications, NYSC certificates, medical certificates, invoices receipts, dishonesty or attempted dishonesty, conspiracy, theft. bribery, fraud, giving false or misleading statements to the Defendant or the Defendant's customers or the Defendant's employees or persons having dealings with the Defendant, contravention of Defendant policy, procedure or process with significant impact to the business, doubtful integrity, manipulation of Defendant's process or transaction with or without insider knowledge for gain, collusion with a service partner to consummate a transaction prejudicial to the Defendant. The Claimant pleaded that she joined the employment of the defendant in March 4, 2002 at the age of 31 and has worked without blemish for 9 years and that she has no other means of livelihood apart from her job in the defendant. That she can no longer pay her bills and rent as a result of the defendant unconscionable conduct which has forced her to be completely dependent on the goodwill of friends and relations for her sustenance. The Claimant repeated her reliefs as above. In its defence the Defendant vehemently denied every allegation of facts in paragraphs 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Statement of Claim and puts the Claimant to the strictest proof thereof. The Defendant equally denied fervently all the allegation of facts in contained in paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 of the Statement of Claim and likewise put the Claimant to the strictest proof of same. The Defendant admits Paragraphs 2, 3, and 6 of the Claimant's Statement of Claim. The Defendant pleaded that after confirming the Claimant's employment it thereafter trained and promoted her in line with its employment policy. That contrary to the averments contained in Paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim, the Defendant averred that the employment of the Claimant or of any other staff of the Defendant was and is still governed by rules included in but not limited to condition of service manual, but also by the code of conduct and Disciplinary Matrix which for all intents and purposes forms an integral part of the Claimant's contract of employment or that of any other person in the employment of the Defendant. The Defendant admitted paragraphs 7 and 33 of the Statement of Claim only to the extent that the Claimant was in the employment of the Defendant for nine years within which the Defendant at various times had reviewed the Claimant's remuneration in line with the Defendant's employees' salary structure but denies every other allegation of facts contained in those paragraphs most especially as to the Claimant's claims of unblemished loyalty, diligence and dedication to the Defendant in the light of the later and more recent developments leading to the present suit. That contrary to the allegation of facts contained in Paragraph 9 of the Statement of Claim, following an investigation conducted by the Business Risk Management Department of the Defendant, the Defendant issued a Letter of Suspension to the Claimant, dated 14th February, 2011, which letter informed the Claimant of her suspension and the reason thereof. The Defendant pleaded the said letter. The Defendant states that it did not verbally suspend the claimant as alleged but had duly issued a letter of suspension dated February 14, 2011 which letter specifically stated the basis for the claimant’s suspension by the defendant. For avoidance of doubt, the suspension of the claimant was in accordance with the defendant’s conditions of service manual as the claimant was duly notified of her suspension. That the Claimant's alleged ignorance of any query regarding the various allegations of misconduct is false and deceptive because the Defendant had at various times before the Claimant's suspension invited the Claimant to answer a number of queries concerning allegations of misconduct and to which the Claimant responded to in writing. The Defendant pleaded its e-mail invitation of the Claimant dated February 8, 2011 and the Claimant's hand-written responses dated January 11 and February 11, 2012 respectively which were in response to certain queries issued by the Defendant. It further pleaded that by its letter dated April 21, 2011 it invited the Claimant to its Formal Disciplinary Hearing detailing the allegation of misconducts as well as the Claimant's entitlement thereat, which letter queried the Claimant on certain misconducts. That the said letter further gave the Claimant ample opportunity to make her defence before the Defendant's Formal Disciplinary Hearing which hearing was held on April 28, 2011. That it does not have knowledge of the Claimant's purported text message (SMS) sent to the Defendant's Human Resources or to one Inyang or one Chioma Egbuka or any member of its staff whatsoever, either on the 17th or 18th day of March, 2011 or on the April 25, 2011 or on any other day at all as alleged. That assuming but without any iota of concession that such alleged SMS were sent, none was received by the Defendant to which it could have officially acknowledged or responded to. The Defendant further pleaded that any member of its staff so suspended would usually surrender all company property in his/her possession as contractually stipulated and in compliance with the defendant’s condition of service manual. That although its Human Resources Business Partner did contact the Claimant on April 21, 2011 to inform and have the invitation to the Formal Disciplinary Hearing conveyed to the Claimant, the Defendant unequivocally affirm that it neither failed nor refused to inform the Claimant of the rationale for her suspension. That the Defendant did not at any time wrongfully suspend the Claimant as alleged and prior to the Defendant's official letter of invitation to the Formal Disciplinary Hearing dated 21st April, 2011, the Defendant had earlier issued a notification of suspension via the letter of suspension to the Claimant dated February 14, 2011, which letter detailed reason and basis for the Claimant's suspension. That the decision to place the Claimant or any employee of the Defendant on suspension for 30 days or any other number of days whatsoever is at the discretion of the Defendant, which discretion is usually exercised by the defendant when investigation is still on-going and which places no obligation to notify or give reasons for extending the suspension beyond the initial 30 days. That in specific denial of the allegation of wrongful suspension as particularised in paragraph 19 of the Statement of Claim, the Defendant states that the claimant was duly notified of her suspension from the defendant’s service on February 14, 2011. That by its letter to the Claimant dated February 14, 2011, the Defendant informed the Claimant of her suspension and the reason therefore and by its subsequent letter of April 21, 2011, the Defendant equally informed the Claimant of the Formal Disciplinary Hearing scheduled to hold on April 28, 2011, which letter further detailed allegation of misconduct levelled against the Claimant as well as the Claimant's privileges thereat. That the Defendant, in a manner consistent with its contractual obligation may, at its discretion, suspend the Claimant or any of its employees for 30 days or more in the course of instituting and conclusion of formal disciplinary hearing as provided in its Condition of Service and Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Matrix. In specific response to paragraphs 20, 27 and 35 of the statement of Claim, the Defendant states that the Defendant is not responsible for the Claimant's "undue deprivation" or dependence on the goodwill of other people for sustenance as alleged. That contrary to the averments in paragraphs 21 of the statement of claim, the defendant states that the suspension of the claimant was not in any way at all inconsistent with due process as stipulated in the claimant’s contract of employment or the defendant’s condition of service manual. That contrary to the claimant’s contention of being entitled to claim for wrongful suspension in paragraph 22 of the statement of claim, the defendant pleads that the claimant is not entitled to any declaration, or order or general damages or any damages whatsoever for her purported wrongful suspension as the defendant followed due process and had acted in accordance with the defendant’s condition of service manual as well as code of conduct and disciplinary matrix which are the fundamental bases of the claimant’s contract of employment or that of any other person in the employment of the defendant. That contrary to the allegation contained in paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 of the statement of claim, the defendant states that the dismissal of the claimant from the services of the defendant was not only in line with the claimant’s contract of employment and condition of service but which, amongst others, specifically outlined the code of conduct and disciplinary procedure of the defendant’s employees and which also encompasses the spirit of fairness as provided in the constitution of Nigeria. That the claimant was notified and afforded the opportunity to appear and defend herself before the defendant’s Formal Disciplinary Hearing and did in fact, present her defence thereat. That the Claimant had unhindered opportunity to appeal the findings of the Disciplinary Hearing and in actual fact, appealed same. It is the Defendant’s case that it had by its letter dated 21st April, 2011, notified the Claimant of the allegation of misconduct, violation of the code of conduct and the penalty therefore, which letter equally served as the official invitation of the Claimant to the Defendant's Formal Disciplinary Hearing scheduled to hold on the 28th day of April, 2011, which hearing the Claimant attended and whereat the Claimant presented her defence to the allegations and thereafter, appealed the decision of the said Disciplinary Hearing. That in rebuttal of the averments in paragraphs 26 of the Statement of Claim, the Defendant states that the Claimant had all the opportunity to prepare her defence as the Defendant had by its letter dated April 21, 2011, given her notice and invitation to the Formal Disciplinary Hearing slated to hold on April 28, 2011 which letter was preceded by an e-mail informing the Claimant of same. That as a precaution to hindering proper investigations, an employee on suspension may not re-enter the defendant’s premises unless the express prior approval of Defendant's Human Resources has been obtained as stipulated in the Defendant's Condition of Service. That Appeal against the findings of the Formal Disciplinary Hearing may be made within three (3) days after the findings of the panel has been communicated and accordingly, the Claimant, on her own accord chose to appeal the decision of the findings on the same day the Formal Disciplinary Hearing was convened and same duly considered by the Defendant. The Defendant pleaded a copy of the Defendant's Letter of Dismissal dated April 28, 2011 informing the Claimant of the outcome of the disciplinary session. That the Claimant is not entitled to any claim, declaration, order or any general damages or any type damages or compensation whatsoever for her alleged unlawful dismissal as the Defendant has not and did not breach any procedure and had followed due process from the Claimant's suspension to subsequent dismissal. That contrary to the averments in paragraph 29 of the Statement of Claim states that the defendant did not verbally suspend the claimant on the 14th February, 2011 or at any other time as alleged but had formally notified her in writing and vide a Letter of Suspension dated 14th February, 2011, which letter detailed the reasons for her suspension. That the defendant had at various times before the claimant’s suspension invited the claimant to answer a number of queries on allegations of misconduct and which allegations the claimant gave written responses. That the defendant had also by its letter dated 21st April, 2011 invited the claimant to the defendant’s formal disciplinary hearing which letter queried the claimant on various allegations of misconduct and that the said letter further gave the claimant ample opportunity to make her defence before the defendant’s formal disciplinary hearing which hearing was held on April 28, 2011. The Defendant pleaded that the various acts of misconduct levelled against the claimant bordered on violation of the defendant’s conditions of service and code of conduct and disciplinary matrix, which documents inter alia prescribe sanctions, and for which the defendant is competent and has the capacity to settle in-house without recourse to the police. The Defendant pleaded further that it did not at anytime whatsoever impede the claimant’s opportunity to prepare for the defendant’s formal disciplinary hearing as alleged. It is the defendant’s policy as stipulated in its conditions of service manual and code of conduct and disciplinary matrix to give notice to an employee, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the disciplinary hearing. The claimant was in fact, advised by the defendant to attend the disciplinary enquiry seven (7) clear days before convening same vide the defendant’s letter dated 21st April, 2011. That the defendant did not, at anytime whatsoever, fail to give the claimant the opportunity to present her case before the formal disciplinary hearing as alleged. It was within the claimant’s right to take advantage of all the rights available to her under the defendant’s conditions of service manual and the code of conduct and disciplinary matrix. Thus, the way and manner in which the claimant or any other invitee to a formal disciplinary hearing conducts her/his defence is solely within her/his discretion in availing herself/himself of opportunities under the defendant’s condition of service manual and the code of conduct and disciplinary matrix. That the defendant did not on the 14th February, 2011 or at any other time whatsoever confiscate the claimant’s work tool, laptop or any other gadget as alleged. The claimant was not chased away from the defendant’s premises on February 14, 2011 or on any day at all, nor was the claimant denied access to retrieve and assemble documentations required as alleged. For avoidance of doubt, the defendant was within its rights to retrieve its properties from the claimant or any staff whatsoever. That it is the defendant’s policy to suspend an employee as a preliminary step and advise such employee to attend disciplinary hearing at a later date where the continued stay of such employee in the office may hinder proper investigation or where the business of the defendant may suffer more damage or could be exposed to risks resulting from the continued stay of the employee in order to enable the defendant conduct its investigation unhindered and without interference. That the defendant did not refuse to consider the claimant’s appeal as alleged. In fact, the defendant, on receipt of the claimant’s appeal dated April 28, 2011, against the decision of the formal disciplinary hearing, had duly deliberated on the appeal on the merit and got the verdict of same communicated to the claimant vide letter dated May 4, 2011. The Defendant urged the court to dismiss the Claimant’s action with substantial cost. In her reply to the statement of the claimant joins issues with the respondent upon the respondent’s Amended Statement of Defence dated 4th July 2012, and restates and maintains all the paragraphs of the claimant’s statement of claim dated 27th February 2012. In response to paragraphs 7, 8, 8(a), 8(b), 8(c), 8(d), 10, 11, 11(i), 11(ii), 12, 12(a), 12(b), 12(c), 13, 19(i) and 20, 20(i), 20(ii), 20(iii) and 20(iv) of the Amended Statement of Defence the claimant retains and maintains paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19 (i-iv) and paragraphs 26 (i-v), 29 (i-iii), paragraphs 31 (i-ii) of the claimants Amended Statement of Claim. The Claimant also pleaded mails dated 21st April, 2011, 27th April, 2011, The Claimant further pleaded that she did not know the case against her from 14th February, 2011 when she was verbally unlawfully suspended up till 21st April, 2011 when she received the respondent’s letter cataloguing various criminal offences against her and inviting her to the defendant’s formal disciplinary hearing of 28th of April, 2011. That in specific response to paragraph 18(f) of the defendant’s Amended Statement of Defence she states that the alleged summary report and minutes of the formal disciplinary hearing did not accurately reflect or report the proceedings of the formal disciplinary. That at no time during or after the meeting did she make any of the admissions or any admissions credited to her in the alleged summary report and minutes of the formal disciplinary hearing and put the respondent to the strictest proof thereof. That the alleged summary report and minutes of the formal disciplinary hearing of the respondent was produced by the defendant in anticipation of this suit. That in specific response to paragraph 8(b) and 8(c) and paragraph 20(ii) and 20(iii) of the Amended Statement of Defence she retains and maintains paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, paragraphs 19(i), 19(ii), 19(iii) and 19(iv) and paragraphs 26(i), 26(ii), 26(iii) and 26(iv) and paragraph 29(i), 29(ii), 29(iii), paragraphs 30(i), 30(ii) and 30(iii) and paragraphs 31(i) and 30(ii) of her Amended Statement of Claim. The Claimant further pleaded that she was never invited at anytime by the defendant to answer queries concerning allegations of misconduct or any queries at all but rather was requested to attend an interview with the Forensic Unit of the defendant which she did on 11th January, 2011 and 12th February, 2011. That at the first interview of 11th January 2011, she was told by the defendant that the interview was going to be a short chat between the defendant’s forensic department and herself. That she was also told that the interview was a fact finding session and that one of the defendant’s staff will take notes during the session. That during the second chat she was told that the session was scheduled because the forensic unit had obtained documents which needed her clarification. That the defendant requested her to write down summarily her responses during the interview chat sessions which she did. That at no time before, during or after the interview sessions did the defendant raise questions of fiduciary breach or questions relating to misconduct against her. The Claimant pleaded that at no time before, during or after the interview sessions did she admit breach of fiduciary obligation to the defendant or admit any misconduct in the course of her duties. That in further answer to paragraph 8(b) and 20(ii) of defendant’s Amended Statement of Defence that at no time during the interview sessions did the defendant query her on the alleged misconduct and fiduciary breach of duty, rather the defendant only inquired how she conceived and managed the south-east champions league for which she was awarded the individual first price-executive award by the defendant in February 2011. The claimant reiterates her claims in the amended statement of claim. Trial in this suit commenced on the 16th October, 2012 with the Claimant giving evidence –in-chief as PW1. She adopted her witness statement on oath made on 28th December, 2012 as her evidence -in-chief. The PW1 also adopted her additional statement on oath sworn on 6th December, 2012. The statement of Claimant’s witness on oath as well as her additional statement on oath are in all fours with her statement of facts and reply to statement on oath and will not be repeated here. During cross-examination, the PW1 stated that she made written statement to the business fraud unit of the defendant on the 11th January, 2011 and 11th February, 2011 which statements were tendered in evidence as Exhibits 16 and 17th. She admitted that she was suspended on 14th February, 2011 and her suspension was immediately after she made the two written statements before the business fraud unit of the defendant. She admitted being invited by the defendant to the formal disciplinary hearing of the defendant via a letter dated 21st April, 2011 which she received on the same date and in the said letter she was alleged to have committed misconducts. She stated that 22nd April which was a Friday and 25th April, 2011 which was a Monday were public holidays. She stated that 23rd April, 2011 was a Saturday and 27th April, 2011 was a Wednesday and not a public holiday. She added that there was no request form her to the defendant to grant her access to the defendant’s premises to enable her get information needed to prepare her defence before the formal disciplinary hearing. The PW1 further stated that she did not request the defendant to postpone the hearing of the formal disciplinary hearing of the defendant which took place on 28th April, 2011 because she was not aware she could ask for a postponement. She added that she is currently unemployed. There was no re-examination. The Claimant thereafter closed her case. The defendant opened its case by fielding Mrs. Feyisetan Omoniyi who testified as DW1. She stated that she is the Employee Service Manager in Human Resources Department of the defendant. She adopted her witness statement on oath made on 5th July, 2012 and the documents attached thereto as her evidence-in-chief. The said documents are MTN1 to MTN 10. The witness statement on oath is in all fours with the Amended Statement of Defence and will not be repeated here. During cross-examination, DW1 stated that she joined the defendant on the 3rd March, 2003. That she does not have the date the Code of Conduct Manual was introduced but that she is acquainted with the regulations in the condition of service manual of the defendant. That one of her duties is to keep and maintain employment record and dozier of the defendant’s employees which are kept in her department. She claims knowledge of the Claimant but her duty is to keep records and don not have the responsibility to access employees. That she is aware that the Claimant worked for nine years and that she received many awards and commendations from the defendant. That the Claimant was queried but it was not on falsification of official document. That the Claimant was not queried based on her academic and NYSC qualifications. That the Claimant was not queried based on falsification of her medical certificate or falsification of invoices and receipts. DW1 further stated that the Claimant was also not queried for dishonesty, attempted dishonesty, involving conspiracy, theft, bribery and fraud, false or misleading statements to the defendant’s customers, employees or persons having dealings with the defendant, doubtful integrity, contravention of the defendant’s policy and manipulation of the defendant’s process of transactions. DW1 stated that she knows Inyang Osazuwa. That the Condition of Service Manual is binding on all staff and the defendant and there are sanctions for non compliance by the employees. She denied the assertion that the defendant dismissed the Claimant verbally. She stated that she is not aware that the Claimant wrote to the defendant complaining that she never received the letter of suspension posted to her. That Saturdays and Sundays are not working days in the defendant. That the letter inviting the Claimant to the disciplinary panel was dispatched to her plus an email so as to be sure she received it since she was out of Lagos. There was no re-examination. The defendant thereafter closed its case. Parties were ordered by this court to file their respective Final Addresses in accordance with Order 19 Rule 13 of the Rules of this court, 2007. The Defendant’s Final Written Address is dated 19/6/2013 and filed same date, while the Claimant’s Final Written Address is dated 9th July, 2013 and filed on 11th July, 2013. The Defendant filed a Reply on Points of Law dated 24th July, 2013. The Defendant’s Counsel raised lone issue for determination – “whether the Claimant’s dismissal from the defendant’s employment for gross misconduct is unlawful as to entitle the Claimant to the claim in her statement of claim”. The Learned Counsel opened his submission on the dispute concerning issuance of query and submitted that the Court has the power to resolve contradiction in oral evidence by the use of documentary evidence. He referred the court to paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 of Amended Statement of Claim and paragraph 10 (c) of the Statement of Defence to buttress the Defendant’s contention that it issued a query to the Claimant as well as reliance of letters respectively dated 11th January and 11th February, 2011 tendered through the Claimant and admitted as Exhibits 15 and 16 which were the Claimant’s responses to the query raised by the Defendant’s Business Fraud Unit. He submitted that the Claimant’s denial of being issued a query when she indeed replied to the query in the letters mentioned above is a contradiction. Learned Counsel raised a question as to whether there is a nexus between the Claimant’s responses i.e. Exhibits 15 and 16 and the alleged acts of misconduct, letter of suspension, the minutes of the formal disciplinary hearing and the Claimant’s letter of appeal against the disciplinary hearing. He pointed out that the essence of comparing the said documents is to enable the Court draw necessary inference that the Claimant could not have been responding to an unasked query. He referred the court to the cases of Essien v. Etukudo (2009) All FWLR (pt.496) p. 1886; UBA Plc v. Godm Shoes Industries Nig. Plc (2011) 8 NWLR (pt. 1250) p. 590. He submitted that Exhibit 12 detailed six (6) allegations of various breaches and a comparison and scrutiny of the Exhibit 12 with Exhibits 15 and 16 would reveal the existence of a nexus between the two set of documents before the court. He added that the facts stated in Exhibit MTN 06 (the Claimant’s letter of appeal against the decision of the disciplinary hearing panel) are in tandem with the Claimant’s responses in Exhibits 15 and 16 as well as Exhibit MTN 07 which is the minutes of the Disciplinary Hearing. He admitted that based on the evidence before the court the Claimant could not reasonably be said to be oblivious of the fact that an investigation was being conducted by the Business Risk Management of the Defendant. He submitted that it is the duty of the court to use documentary evidence in resolving conflicting oral evidence adduced by parties citing the case of Bung v. Governor of Rivers State (2006) 12 NWLR (pt. 995) p. 573, Tippi v. Notani (2011) 8 NWLR (pt. 1249) p. 285. On the power of the employer to hire and fire, Learned Counsel submitted that assuming without conceding that the Defendant did not issue any query to the Claimant before suspending or terminating her appointment, it is the principle of law that an employer is at liberty to terminate the employment of an employee with or without notice and reason therefore. He referred the court to the case of Lake Chad Research Institute v. Mohammed (2005) 11 NWLR (pt. 935) p. 1; Isheno v. Julius Berger Nigeria Ltd (2008) 6 NWLR (pt. 1084) p. 582. He submitted that in the instant case there is no dispute as to the existence of employer employee relationship between the parties before the termination of the Claimant’s employment. He further submitted that it is not in contention that the Defendant’s condition of service manual and the code of conduct and Disciplinary Matrix governs the term of contract between the parties. On the contention of the Claimant that her suspension on the 14th February, 2011 was wrongful and unlawful, the Defendant’s Counsel submitted that it is fundamental that the Claimant who alleges wrongful suspension has the burden of proving the allegation, otherwise the claim will fail, citing Sections 131, 132 and 133 of the Evidence Act 2011. He submitted that in the instant case, suspension of the Claimant can only be lawfully implemented in accordance with conditions of service manual (admitted as Exhibit 8 and MTN 9 and Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Matrix (Exhibit MTN 10). Learned Counsel submitted that the combined provisions of Clauses 12.10.1; 12.18.6; 12.19.6.1 and 12.19.6.2 of the Conditions of Service Manual, the Defendant has the choice to either suspend an employee who is being investigated or not which suspension may not ordinarily exceed thirty days at the first instance subject to the Defendant’s discretion to extend same with or without the need or obligation to notify the Claimant of such extension. He further submitted that where the words used in the terms of contract are clear, the court is only bound to give effect to such contractual terms and not to make a new contract for the parties citing the cases of Bung v. Governor, Rivers State (supra), Ogundepo v. Olumesan (2011) 18 NWLR (pt. 1278) p. 54. He submitted that an act which is not forbidden is permitted and that it is the Defendant’s choice to elect whether or not to notify the Claimant of her suspension or even extend her suspension beyond the initial 30 days period or to give reason therefore, and is under no obligation to notify the Claimant of the extension of such suspension formally or informally. Learned Counsel submitted that no evidence in respect of the alleged wrongful suspension or how the Defendant’s decision to suspend the Claimant had breached the terms of contract or the Claimant’s fair hearing was adduced at the trial. That the failure of the Claimant to lead evidence to support allegation of wrongful suspension renders the allegation otiose and of no moment. He cited the cases of Yaktor v. Governor of Plateau (1997) 4 NWLR (pt.498) p. 216; Durosaro v. Ayorinde (2005) 8 NWLR (pt. 927) p. 407, Sections 131 and 132 of Evidence Act, Awuse v. Odili (2005) 16 NWLR (pt. 952) p. 416 and Ogunleye v. Oni (1990) 2 NWLR (pt.135) p. 745. Learned Counsel argued that having responded to queries by Business Risk Management (Fraud Unit) via Exhibits 15 and 16, the Claimant’s attempt to rely on Exhibit 11 and other trails of electronic mails exchange with certain individuals in the employ of the Defendant referred in paragraphs 4 to 10, 16 and 19 of the Claimant’s Additional Written Statement on Oath is hypocritical and self-serving. That there was no proof that the purported e-mails were directed to the Defendant’s Human Resources Department. That the e-mails are inadmissible having failed to satisfy the conditions for admissibility of documents produced by computers especially Section 84 (4) of the Evidence Act, 2011. He submitted that a court can only determine issues on legally admissible evidence and whenever inadmissible evidence is tendered, it is the duty of the court not to make use of it at any stage, even where no objection is raised. He cited the cases of Suberu v. State (2008) 8 NWLR (pt. 1197) p. 586; Alade v. Olukade (1976) 10 NSCC 34; Shittu v. Fashawe (2005) 14 NWLR (pt. 946) p. 671. Learned Counsel further submitted that where a court wrongfully admits inadmissible evidence, it ought as a duty to disregard the inadmissible evidence in the consideration of the judgment in the matter, citing the cases of Timitimi v. Amabebe (1953) 14 WACA 374, and Ajayi v. Fisher (1956) 1 FSC p. 90. He pointed out that the Claimant’s claim to ignorance of the reason for suspension and notice thereof is inconsistent with statement made in Exhibit 10 i.e. the dated April, 2011 and captioned “Non-Formalization of Suspension”. That it is the law that where there are contradictions in the testimony of a witness, such evidence should not be acted upon but be totally discountenanced as unreliable. He referred the court to the cases of Osadim v. Tawo (2010) 6 NWLR (pt. 1189) p. 155; The Queen v. Joshua (1964) 1 All NLR 1. He further submitted that from the argument canvassed above the Claimant’s allegation of wrongful suspension is without merit and urged the court to so hold. Concerning the Claimant’s claim for unlawful dismissal, Learned Counsel submitted that it is non-issue that the Claimant was served with invitation or notice to the Disciplinary Hearing of the Defendant on 21st April, 2011 which detailed allegations of misconduct against the Claimant. That it is not in issue that the said Formal Disciplinary Hearing took place on the 28th April, 2011. He submitted that where there is no dispute between parties in their pleadings there is no issue between the parties on such facts as there will not be need to call witness thereon. He referred the court to the case of Ita v. Dazie (2000) 4 NWLR (pt. 652) p. 168. Learned Counsel submitted that to determine whether the Claimant was lawfully dismissed from service recourse will be had to Clause 12.14.1.1.b of the Conditions of Service Manual which governs disciplinary hearings that may lead to the termination or dismissal of an employee and Clause 12.18 which relates to procedure leading to the Defendant’s Formal Disciplinary Hearing. He submitted that a scrutiny of the terms of employment as stipulated in the Conditions of Service Manual vis-à-vis the evidence led at the trial would reveal the hopelessness of the allegations of the Claimant against the Defendant. He submitted further that in the instant case the Defendant conformed with the terms of the contract with regards to the length of notice and content of such notice. That the Claimant who alleged that the Defendant denied her ample time to prepare her defence has a duty to prove the allegation by adducing solid evidence in proof of same and that the Claimant was found wanting in that regard as she neither adduced evidence in proof thereof nor established the Defendant’s culpability. He submitted that the entire gamut of the claim of the Claimant as it related to the alleged unlawful dismissal, breach of fair hearing and breach of fair trial are premised on mere averments which do not translate into evidence, therefore deemed abandoned. He referred the court to the cases of F.C.D.A v. Naibi (1990) 2 NSCC Vol. 21 p. 292, Yaktor v. Governor of Plateau State (supra), Jolayemi v. Alaoye (2004) 12 NWLR (pt.887) p.322, Adekunle v. Rockview Hotel Ltd (2004) 1 NWLR (pt.853) 161; Bassey v. Pamol Nigeria Ltd (2009) 6 NWLR (pt.1136) p. 36. Learned Counsel submitted that it is not the duty of the Defendant but that of the Claimant to prove her case, citing Sections 135(1) and 137(1) of Evidence Act and the cases of Umeojiakor v. Ezenamu (1990) 1 NWLR (pt. 126) p. 253, Durosaro v. Ayorinde (2005) 8 NWLR (pt. 927) p. 407. Learned Counsel went further to submit that where parties are in agreement on the terms of the contract the function of the court is to give effect to the terms without much ado. He cited the case of Yadis Nigeria Limited v. G.N.I.C Limited (2007) 14 NWLR (pt.1055) p. 585, Union Bank of Nigeria limited v. B.U Umeh & Sons Limited (1996) 1 NWLR (pt.426) p. 565. On the Claimant’s claim for breach of fair hearing and fair trail, Learned Counsel for the Defendant submitted that the Defendant acted lawfully within the ambit of the Conditions of Service Manual and as the terms of the contract of employment did not specify any exact mode of notice, the Defendant owed the Claimant no obligation to give such formal letter of suspension as alleged. He submitted further that the allegation of breach of fair hearing by the Claimant is without merit and frivolous. That with regards to notice to formal disciplinary hearing and the content thereof the Defendant complied with the terms of employment. He submitted that facts admitted need not be proved and referred to the cases of Agbanelo v. UBN (2000) 7 NWLR (pt. 666) p. 534, Edekpolor & Co. Ltd v. Ohehen (1994) 7 NWLR (pt. 358) p.511 and Jolasun v. Bamgboye (2010) 18 NWLR (pt.1225) p. 285. Learned Counsel argued that the notice to the formal disciplinary hearing did not only state the time, date and venue of the hearing but went further to detail alleged acts of misconducts leveled against the Claimant and the punishment for each of them. That it is not in doubt that the Claimant attended and presented her case before the formal disciplinary hearing but elected not to be represented by fellow employee of her choice even though she was entitled to do so nor call any witness to give evidence in her defence notwithstanding being at liberty to do so nor did she deem it important to challenge the evidence the Defendant confronted her. He submitted that a party who fails to utilize opportunities at his disposal cannot be heard to complain of denial of fair hearing of fair trial and referred the court to case of S & D Construction Co. Ltd v. Ayoku (2011) 13 NWLR (pt. 1265) p. 487. That the Claimant did not elicit a shred of evidence to substantiate the claim of breach of fair hearing, citing Sections 131, 132, and 133 of Evidence Act, 2011, Idoniboye-obe v. NNPC (2003) 2 NWLR (pt. 805) p. 589, University of Calabar v. Essien (1996) 10 NWLR (pt.477) p.225. Learned Counsel submitted that from the plethora of judicial authorities above all that the law requires form an employer is to give the employee against whom allegation of misconduct is leveled an opportunity to state his case and that the Defendant did not fail to do in the present case. He cited the case of Borishade v. N.B.N Ltd (2007) 1 NWLR (pt. 1015) p. 217. On the claim of the Claimant that the Defendant lacked the capacity or competence to dismiss her for misconduct bordering on criminality Learned Counsel referred the court to the cases of Olanrewaju v. Afribank Plc. (2001) 13 NWLR (pt. 731) p. 691, Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc (2011) 12 NWLR (pt. 1262) p. 624, Union Bank of Nigeria v. Chinyere (2010) 10 NWLR (pt.1203) p. 453, Eigbe v. N.U.T (2008) 5 NWLR (pt.1081) p. 604. He submitted that on the authority of the cases cited above that the Defendant is competent to indict the Claimant in-house for misconduct bordering on criminality without the need to prosecute same before the court of law and to dismiss her as was done in this case. On the reliefs seeking award of general and special damages, Learned Counsel submitted that it is settled law that general damages are awarded on the basis of the direct natural or the probable consequences of the acts complained of and the burden to prove same lies on the complainant to prove that he is entitled to them. He cited the case of Dauda v. Lagos Building Investment Co. Ltd (2011) 5 NWLR (pt. 1241) p. 411. He submitted that in the absence of cogent and compelling material evidence no damage can be awarded as court is not a Father Christmas. He referred the court to the case of Okoko v. Dakolo (2006) 14 NWLR (pt. 1000) p. 61. He further submitted that the Claimant failed to discharge the onus of proving her right to general damages. Learned Counsel submitted that the court is even stricter in awarding special damages as they are not awarded by the court as of course and to be entitled special damages must not only be pleaded with particularity, it must be proved with precision. He cited to the cases of I.H.A.B.U.H.M.B v. Anyip (2011) 12 NWLR (1260) p.1, Ajagbe v. Idowu (2011) 17 NWLR (pt. 1276) p. 422, Tanko v. Mai-Waka (2010) 1 NWLR (pt. 1176) p. 468. He submitted that the Claimant is not entitled to award of general and special damages as there was no evidence produced to merit such award. He finally urged the court to dismiss this suit in its entirety with substantial costs. Learned Counsel for the Claimant raised two issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether given the facts and circumstances of this case the dismissal of the Claimant by the Respondent is not unfair and unlawful and in conflict with paragraph 12.8 and paragraph 12.12.4.1 of the Respondent's Condition of Service Manual and Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Matrix. 2. Whether given the facts and circumstances of this case the dismissal of the Claimant by the Respondent is not unfair and unlawful and in conflict with section 36(1) of the Constitution of Nigeria. Learned Counsel chose to argue the two issues together. On the issuance of a query, Learned Counsel posed a question as to whether there was a query which was served on the Claimant before her purported dismissal from employment. He answered the said question in the negative and submitted that no evidence was tendered before this Court indicating that the Claimant was queried before her unlawful dismissal in accordance with 12.8 and paragraph 12.12.4.1 of Exhibit CW1-8. He pointed out that the defendant strenuously argued to convince this Court that they notified the Claimant of the allegations against her from 14th February 2011 when she was verbally suspended to 21st April 2011 when she was served with a catalogue of criminal offenses against her after work hours on 21st April 2011. That the Defendant also argued that because the Claimant attended an interview/chat session organized on 11th January 2011 and on 12th February 2011 to ascertain how the Claimant conceived and managed the South-East Champions League for which the Defendant awarded the Claimant Exhibit CM1-23 the Individual First Price Award in February 2011, the Claimant should therefore be aware of criminal allegations against her. Learned Counsel referred the court paragraph 12.8 and 12.12.4.1 of Exhibit CM 1-8 provides as follows: ... In each case the employee is given a written query asking for a written explanation of the employees’ position of the case in question.... ... Any offence that will result in disciplinary measures must first be preceded by a written query to the employee. Such a query must be responded to within 24 hours in writing... He submitted that the Defendant cannot exculpate themselves by this position as it is not for them to assume that because the Claimant attended the Chat/Interview Sessions of 11th January 2011 and 12th February 2011 she must therefore be aware of the criminal allegations against her. He further submitted that paragraph 12.12.4.1 of Exhibit CM 1-8 is a mandatory provision requiring strict compliance by the Defendant. He submitted that the implication of the phrase 'must be preceded by a written query' connotes that a written query to the employee is a mandatory condition to her dismissal in the absence of which there cannot be any valid dismissal. That where an employer fails to comply with condition precedent for termination of employment, such as fair hearing, he forfeits his right to dismiss and any alleged dismissal is a nullity. He referred the court to NEPA v. Ango (2001) 15 NWLR Part 737 at page 627. He also referred to the cases of Katto v• Central Bank of Nigeria (1999) 5 S.C Part 11 21 at 25, Idoniboye v. NNPC (2003) 2 NWLR Part 805589 @ 630 paragraph AAB. Yadis Nigeria Limited v. G.N.I.C Limited (2007) 14 NWLR PART 1055 @ 585, Union Bank of Nigeria Limited v. B. U. Umeh & Sons Limited (1996) 1 NWLR Part 426 @ 565 cited by the Defendant’s Counsel in his final address and agrees with the Defendant that the function of the Court is to give effect to the terms of a contract without more. He therefore urge this Court to give effect to the terms of the contract between the Defendant and the Claimant and hold that the procedure adopted by the Defendant is unfair being that there is no procedural equality. He cited the case of Kenum v. Tekan (2001) 14 NWLR Part 732 at page 12. On issuance of a formal suspension letter, Learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant’s case is that she was not aware of the reasons for her suspension from 14th February 2011 when she was sent away from the Defendant’s premises to the closing hours of 21st April 2011 when she was served a letter of invitation to the disciplinary hearing of the Defendant which said letter catalogued various criminal allegations against her. That the Defendant however alleged that it issued a letter of suspension dated 14th February 2011 which said letter stated the basis of the Claimant's suspension but failed to tender evidence before this Court that such letter was indeed served on the Claimant. He submitted that the Defendant alleged that because the Claimant was invited to an interview/chat session with the Defendant on 12th January 2011 and 11th February 2011 to ascertain how the Claimant conceived and managed the South-East Champions league for which the Defendant awarded her Exhibit CM 1-23, and wherein she was requested by the Defendant to write down her responses- Exhibit CWl-22, the Claimant should be aware of criminal allegations against her. He submitted that on the contrary the Claimant led evidence and tendered documents to the effect that as at 27th April 2011 the purported letter of suspension stating the basis of the suspension was not received. He urged the court to look at Exhibits CWl-15, CWl-16, CWl-17, CW1118, CWl-19, CWl-20 and Exhibit CWl-21 tendered by CW-1 vide her additional statement on oath and oral/documentary testimony of DW1 to ascertain which witness is a witness of truth in this instance. Learned Counsel argued that Exhibits CWl-15, CWl-16, CWl-17, CWl-18, CWl-19, CWl-20 and Exhibit CWl-21 tendered by CW-1 vide her additional statement on oath are relevant facts in issue in this suit as they address the issue as to whether or not the Claimant had notice of the allegation against her before 21st April 2011. He referred to the case of Elias v. Disu (1962) 1 All NLR 214 where it was held that “it is the relevancy of the evidence that is important and not how the evidence was obtained”. He also cited Section 1 paragraph (a) and (b) of the Evidence Act. On the issue of unlawful dismissal, Learned Counsel pointed out that the cardinal question is whether the Claimant was offered ample opportunity to prepare and defend the allegation against her and not whether she was interviewed or questioned before her suspension. This is because the Defendant argued that it informed the Claimant of the reasons for her suspension vide a letter dated 14'h February 2011 a letter that was not served on the Claimant. That the Defendant also argued on the other hand that because the Claimant attended an interview/chat session of the Defendant on the 12th January 2011 and 11th February 2011 the Claimant ought to be aware of the allegations against her and therefore the mandatory requirement of a written query as stipulated in Exhibit CW1-8 should be overlooked. He submitted that the position of the Defendant cannot avail them from liability as the Defendant violated section 36(1) of the constitution when they dismissed the Claimant without offering her ample opportunity to prepare and defend the allegations of crime against her. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Defendant having violated the mandatory requirement of a written query in compliance with Exhibit CWl-8 (terms of employment of the Claimant) specifying what allegation against the Clamant for her written response as prescribed in paragraph 12.12.4.1 of Exhibit CW 1-8, the Defendant cannot be heard to say that it dismissed the Claimant as there is no dismissal and urged the court to so hold. He further submitted that the Defendant violated the provisions of paragraph 12.15.1.2 of Exhibit CW 1-8 which provides that: … notice of a disciplinary enquiry must be given to the employee at least twenty-four hours prior to the disciplinary interview… He pointed out that there is uncontested evidence before this court that the notice of the disciplinary hearing was served on the Claimant on Thursday 21st April 2011 after close of work and that it is also not contested that 22nd April 2011 being the next day was Good Friday, while Sunday and Monday 24th and 25th April 2011 were Easter Holidays. It is equally uncontested that Tuesday 26th April 2011 was a Federal Public Holiday slated for the 2011 Gubernatorial Elections in Nigeria. He pointed out that the Claimant was served notice of disciplinary hearing at about 20:00 hours on 21st April 2011 while the next working day was Wednesday 27th April 2011. That the 24 hours would have expired at about 20:00 hours on 27th April 2011 while the hearing was scheduled at 10:30 hours on 28th April 2011. Learned Counsel argued that the Claimant's case is that the Defendant did not disclose to her the allegations against her from 14th February 2011 when she was suspended from work until close of work hours on 21st April 2011 when she was served with a catalogue of criminal allegations against her. That at the time she became aware of the criminal allegations she could not prepare her defence or access vital information relevant for her defence or assemble witnesses in defence of the criminal allegations because of the long holidays at the time. He referred the court to the case of Jubrin v. N.E.P.A 12004) 2 NWLR Part 856 at page 210, N.E.P.A. v. Ango (2001) 15 NWLR Part 737 at page 627, Arinze v. F.B.N. limited (2004) 12 NWLR Part 888 at page 663, Aroyewu v. C.O.P. (2004) 16 NWLR Part 899 at page 414. On reliefs sought by the Claimant, Learned Counsel urged the court to discountenance the position of the Defendant that the Claimant is not deserving of her claim of general damages in the sum of N200,000,000.00 arguing that the Clamant has a duty to prove general damages. He referred the Court to the decision of the court in U.T.C. (Nig.) Pic v. Phillips (2012) 6 NWLR Part 1295 at page 136 where it was held that ... general damages are such that the law will presume to be the direct, natural and probable result of the acts complained of which need not be strictly proved unlike special damages. All that the court needs do is to exercise such discretion judicially and judiciously since there is no parameter or yardstick for the court to use in the award of general damages except what the reasonable man would expect. Stated differently, general damages are claims made at large and the quantum need not be pleaded or proved. It does not depend on any calculation made and a figure arrived at from any specific items, rather it is considered by what the reasonable man would see as adequate loss or inconvenience flowing naturally from the act of the Defendant... As regards Respondent's argument on proof of special damages, he submitted that the Claimant's claim for special damages was specially pleaded, claimed and proved before this Court with exactitude, without space for speculation, estimation or fraction. He referred the Court to the case of O.M.T. Co Ltd Imafidon (2012) 12 NWLR Part 1290 at page 332. Learned Counsel concluded by urging the court to grant the Claimant's Claims having proved that the Defendant in dismissing the Claimant failed to comply with the terms of employment of the claimant and the rules of natural justice as enshrined in the section 36(1) of the 1999 constitution of Nigeria. In his Reply on Points of Law, Learned Counsel to the Defendant submitted that contrary to the erroneous and belaboured arguments of the Claimant’s Counsel in Paragraphs 6.9 of her Final Written Address, that the case of Kenum v. Tekam relied upon by the Claimant is inapposite and of no relevance to the present case as the said case bothered on dispute as to ownership of a large tract of land between the parties, whilst the issue for determination therein was whether the trial judge was partisan having allegedly had foreknowledge of a decision in an earlier case between different parties in respect of a different parcel of land subsumed in subject matter of litigation. Equally, in reaction to the contention of the Claimant in paragraph 6.12 of her Final Written Address to press home the admissibility of Exhibits CW1-15 to CW1-21, which are computer generated documents, he submitted that the argument is misconceived. He stated that the Defendant’s submission and position did not dwell on how Exhibits CW1-15 to CW1-21 were obtained but on whether computer-generated documents are admissible without fulfilling the conditions for their admissibility as provided by Section 84 (4) of the Evidence Act 2011. Therefore, the case of Elias v. Disu cited and relied on by the Claimant is of no relevance to the present instance as the issue for determination therein was whether one of the plaintiffs can be a competent witness for the defence in the sale and conveyance of family property which requires the consent of all family members. He submitted that there is nowhere in the entire case of Elias v. Disu that either relevancy of evidence, or how evidence was obtained was in issue. That a piece of evidence even if relevant to the fact of a case would still not be admissible unless upon fulfillment of the requirements for its admissibility as specifically prescribed by the relevant provisions for the admissibility of documentary evidence. He referred to Section 84 (4) of the Evidence Act, 2011 which provision governs admissibility of computer generated evidence; Ogu v. Manid Technology & Multipurpose Co-operative Society Limited [2011] 8 NWLR (Pt. 1249) 345 @ 371, para G-H, Brossette Manufacturing Nigeria Limited v. M/S Ola Ilemobola Limited [2007] 14 NWLR (Pt. 1053) 109 @ 151 para A-E, Goodwill & Trust Investment Limited v. Witt & Bush [2011] 8 NWLR (Pt. 1250) 500 @ 528-529 paras H-F. Learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant's alleged ignorance of the allegations against her and reliance on the case of Jubrin v. N. E. P .A. [2004] 2 NWLR (Pt. 856) 210 at Paragraph 6.18 cannot stand. That the said case not only buttressed the unshakeable stance of the Defendant, but also reinforces the justification for the Claimant’s dismissal. For the avoidance of doubt, the Court of Appeal held in that case at Page 229 as follows: “The circumstances of this case however are unique. The actions of the appellant justified his summary dismissal by the respondent. Even though the respondent had opted to investigate him through an ad-hoc committee and then did not allow him to face or cross-examine his accusers, he had admitted to the allegation of being absent from his duty post for two years without justification thus justifying the report of the committee recommending his dismissal. For the committee could have equally found him guilty on his admission without recourse to call the other witnesses. The allegation of the appellant that he was not accorded fair hearing by the ad-hoc committee can therefore not stand”. He submitted that even though, the Defendant concurs with the decision stated in the foregoing paragraph, it is the submission of the Defendant that the Claimant in this case was given every opportunity to cross-examine his accusers and the Claimant was aware of the investigations being carried out against her. In reaction to the reliance on the case of N.E.P.A. v. Ango [2001] 15 NWLR (Pt. 737) 627 cited at Paragraph 6.19 of the Claimant's Written Address, he submitted that the case is inconsistent with the present instance and as such inapposite and of no relevance whatsoever to the case before this Court. That unlike the termination of the contract of employment complained of in NEPA v. Ango which is an employment with statutory flavour, protected by statute and which can only be validly terminated by strict adherence to the requirement or conditions stated in that statute, the contract in issue in the present case is a contract of employment premised on a master-servant relationship. Secondly, unlike in the instant case where the Claimant was present during the disciplinary hearing that led to the termination of employment, the Respondent in NEPA v. Ango was for most part of the proceedings asked to stay outside the venue of disciplinary hearing and thus not allowed to take part in the proceedings. More so, damaging evidence were given by several witnesses against the Respondent in NEPA v. Ango in the absence of the same Respondent who was never accorded opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Lastly, in that case, the ad- hoc committee made its findings behind the Respondents without giving him opportunity to react to such damaging allegations or to confront the makers of the said allegations. Learned Counsel submitted that with regard to the case of Arinze v. F .B.N. limited [2004] 12 NWLR (Pt. 888) 663, cited and relied upon by the Claimant at Paragraph 6.20 of her Written Address, the case further fortifies the position of the Defendant herein that fair hearing entails being given opportunity to respond or react to an allegation leveled against a party. In reaction to the Claimant's submission at Paragraph 7.1 of the Written Address and reliance on the case of U.T.C. (Nig.) Plc v. Phillips to press home his case for general damages, Learned Counsel submitted that for any party to be entitled to the award of general damages, such a party must show cogent and compellable evidence on which such award would be predicated and must also prove that he is entitled to be awarded same. He referred to the case of Okoko v. Dakolo [2006] 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 401 @ 434 Para C-D, Iwueke v. I.B.C. [2005] 17 NWLR (Pt. 995) 447 @ 474 para D. With regards to the Claimant’s argument at Paragraph 7.2 of her Written Address in respect to her claim for the award of special damages and the need to specifically claim and strictly prove same, Counsel referred the court to the cases of: Ajagbe v. Idowu [2011] 17 NWLR (Pt. 1276) 422 @ 446 Para CCD; Momodu v. University of Benin [1997] 7 NWLR (Pt. 512) 325 @ 350; Khawam v. Akinkugbe [2001] 13 NWLR (Pt. 729) 70 @ 85; Oceanic Bank International (Nig.) limited v. Chitex Industries limited [2000] 6 NWLR (Pt. 661) 464 @ 478. Finally, Learned Counsel submitted that the relief for the award of either general or special damages, or any form of damages at all would definitely fail where the claim upon which the award is predicated fails or where the wrong alleged was not established by evidence. He cited the case of Smithkline Beecham limited. v. Farmex limited [2010] 1 NWLR (Pt. 1175) 285 @ 306 Para B-D. I have carefully considered the processes filed, argument of counsel for both parties and authorities cited in this suit. In my view, the issues to be determined by the court is “whether the suspension and eventual dismissal of the claimant was in accordance with the claimant’s terms of employment” and “whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit”. The claimant herein was initially employed by the defendant as a Trade Marketer by a letter dated 4th March, 2002 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Regional Sales Manager by virtue of a letter dated 4th September, 2007. The claimant was suspended from service by the defendant on the 14th of February, 2011. The claimant’s employment was terminated by a letter dated 28th April, 2011 dismissing her from the services of the defendant company. The claimant’s case is that her suspension by the defendant is in flagrant disregard of the defendant’s condition of service manual and her contract of employment and that her dismissal as a Regional Sales Manager of the defendant is unlawful. The claimant also picked hole on the disciplinary hearing conducted by the defendant claiming that she was not given fair hearing and her appeal to the decision of the disciplinary panel was not considered. In paragraph 10 of the statement of facts the claimant stated that on 14th February, 2011 she received a phone call from the Human Resources of the defendant suspending her from the services of the defendant. Section 12.10 of the defendant’s condition of service manual which governs the claimant’s employment provides as follows: Suspension 12.10.1 “The company may, at its discretion, suspend an employee on full pay without an inquiry, pending the institution and outcome of a formal hearing to dismiss an employee with notice or without notice. Such suspension shall not exceed 30 days in the first instance, after which it could be extended by another 30 days. However, if the case has not been disposed within 60 days, the employee shall then proceed on indefinite suspension”. 12.10.2 “An employee, who is so suspended, has to surrender all company property in her/his possession (such suspension include, but are not limited to, cell phones, computers, printers, company credit cards, company cars e.t.c.)”. 12.10.3 “An employee who is so suspended may not re-enter the company premises unless the express prior approval of Human Resources has been obtained”. The issue to be resolved here is whether the suspension of the claimant is in accordance with the defendant’s condition of service manual and the letter of employment. I have earlier noted that the claimant admitted receiving a phone call from the defendant’s Human Resources Office suspending her from service and that she should submit to the defendant’s security the defendant’s property in her possession. During cross-examination the claimant also admitted that she was suspended by the defendant on 14th February, 2011 after she made two written statements to the Business Fraud Unit of the defendant. Part of the e-mails relied upon by the claimant is the one dated 21st April, 2011 wherein the defendant confirmed that soft copy of the letter of suspension was scanned to the claimant even though the claimant complained it was not legible enough. From the evidence before the court, I am of the view that the defendant complied with the terms of the employment when it suspended the claimant from its services. In any event, the defendant’s condition of service manual does not insist on a written letter of suspension. The claimant’s suspension followed her two written responses dated 11th January and 11th February, 2011 respectively to the defendant’s questions. The claimant also contended that she was not given fair hearing before, during and after the disciplinary hearing. However, it is in evidence that by a letter dated 21st April, 2011 the claimant was invited to a formal disciplinary hearing following allegations of misconducts against her which was slated to hold on 28th of April, 2011. The court agrees with the claimant that 22nd April and 25th April, 2011 were Easter public holidays but those days do not prevent the claimant from preparing for her defence or calling witnesses before the disciplinary hearing which held on 28th April, 2011 which was not a holiday. It is also in evidence that the claimant appeared before the defendant disciplinary hearing where she presented her case. The claimant also appealed the decision of the disciplinary panel by her letter dated 28th April, 2011 the same date the disciplinary proceedings was conducted, an appeal which was considered and dismissed by the defendant. In pursuance of the disciplinary hearing, the claimant was found culpable for gross misconduct and was consequently dismissed by the defendant’s letter dated 28th April, 2011. The claimant’s claim for breach of fair hearing is unsubstantiated as the proceedings leading to the claimant’s dismissal cannot be faulted because the claimant was afforded an opportunity to defend herself before the disciplinary panel. By the conditions of service of any organization properly so called, an employer ought to be able to discipline erring employees and that was precisely what the defendant did in the instant case. The Supreme 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 query before he was dismissed from his employment”. In the above cited case, Onnoghen J.SC held at page 641 para E – F that, “Appellant was given the opportunity of defending himself against the allegations leveled against him and he utilized same. He was therefore given fair hearing. So, I hold the considered view that his dismissal in the circumstance cannot be set aside simply because he was not subject to criminal prosecution prior to the dismissal”. It is my humble view that andi ateram partem is a maxim denoting basic fairness. It is a canon of natural justice that has its roots in the old testament of the Bible. It simply means hear the other side. I therefore have no doubt that the claimant in this case was given adequate opportunity to defend herself against the allegation leveled against her. Her allegation of breach of fair hearing is misplaced and misconceived. The claimant’s contention that the defendant violated paragraph 12.15.1.2 of the defendant’s conditions of service manual by not giving her 24 hours notice to disciplinary hearing is equally untenable as the claimant has more than 24 hours to prepare for her defence the two days Easter holidays notwithstanding. Consequently, the claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought in this case. This is so because it is trite that an employee who was dismissed for gross misconduct is not entitled to his salary or any other entitlements. He is also not entitled to damages for breach of contract and living wages. See Suleiman v. Master Stroke Packages Ltd Suit No. NIC/LA/08/2011 delivered on 13th February, 2012. In view of the foregoing, I hold that the claimant’s claim fails and so this case is hereby dismissed. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. …………………………………… Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu Fishim Presiding Judge