Download PDF
The claimant had taken a complaint dated and filed on 20th February 2012 against the defendant praying for the following reliefs – i) A declaration that the claimant employment with the defendant was wrongfully terminated and that the claimant was coerced to resign her employment with the defendant on the 14th of December, 2011. ii) The payment of the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) being general damages for the wrongful termination of the claimant employment by the defendant. iii) The payment of the claimant outstanding emolument by the defendant. iv) The payment of the sum of N3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira) being the claimant legal cost in instituting this action against the defendant. v) Interest on all sum due to the claimant at the rate of 21% per annum from the 3rd November, 2011, till judgement is delivered and thereafter at the same rate or any other rate as this court deems fit till final liquidation of the judgement sum. Accompanying the complaint are the statement of facts, list of witnesses, list of documents and copies of the documents (Exhibits C1 – C9). The claimant latter on 14th November 2012 filed her witness statement on oath. The defendant entered appearance by filing the memorandum of appearance. It then filed its statement of defence, list of witnesses and witness statement on oath. The defendant did not file any list of document or frontload any document. The claimant reacted by filing a reply to the defendant’s statement of defence. At the trial, the claimant testified on her behalf as CW, while Kasoki Hart Olekanna, a legal practitioner and Legal Adviser of the defendant company, testified on behalf of the defendant as DW. At the conclusion of trial, parties were ordered to file and serve their respective written addresses. The defendant was the first to file and serve its written address, which is dated 28th May 2013 but filed on 3rd June 2013. The claimant’s written address is dated and filed on 6th August 2013. The defendant’s reply on points of law is dated 27th August 2013 but filed on 28th August 2013. The case of the claimant is that she is a former employee of the defendant by virtue of a letter of employment dated 6th June 2011 (Exhibit C1). That on 1st November 2011, she was informed by Mr. Bolaji Oladipo and Mr. Kadri Oladele about an email (Exhibit C2), wherein it was stated that she was spreading rumours of a sexual escapade between Mrs. Benny Okolieocha and her driver by name Mr. Oluyinka Fowokan. Subsequently, on 3rd November 2011, the claimant was served with a memo (Exhibit C3) with Exhibit C2 attached. The memo stated that the claimant was responsible for spreading the rumours of the relationships between the parties and requested the claimant to respond to the allegation of character assassination of Mrs. Benny Okolieocha. The claimant responded to the memo vide a letter dated 3rd November 2011 (Exhibit C4), wherein she denied the allegations. That the defendant then set up a committee of four (4) persons to investigate the matter. However, only Mr. Oluyinka Fowokan and herself were the persons the committee called. That she was coerced into resigning her appointment or was to be sacked by the committee. In her words – I was coerced into putting in my Letter of resignation on the 14th of December, 2011 based on the threat of the defendant to dismiss me from their employment. I place reliance on the said letter whereby I continue to maintain my innocence on the allegations labelled against me. The case of the defendant on the other hand is that the claimant was issued with a query or memo with an email attached. The defendant, however, denied that Mr. Bolaji Oladipo and Mr. Kadri Oladele did inform the claimant about the presence of the email before a panel and query were issued on the claimant. That the work of the panel was still in progress when the claimant tendered her resignation. To the defendant, neither it nor any of its officers threatened the claimant to resign. That the claimant in her resignation letter expressed profuse gratitude for the opportunity offered her to serve the defendant. That upon the claimant tendering her resignation letter, she was paid all that was due to her. The defendant consequently maintained that it did not breach the contract of employment of the claimant as she voluntarily resigned her appointed with the defendant. The defendant denied that it was responsible for the financial loss the claimant claimed to have suffered. Similarly, that the defendant was not responsible for her career disruption. The defendant then vehemently denied that it was not responsible for what the claimant termed ‘professional reputation damage’, ‘stress’, ‘trauma’, ‘depression’, ‘shame’ and ‘ridicule’. Finally, the defendant denied liability to all the claims of the claimant as contained in her statement of claim and urged the Court to dismiss the claimant’s claims. The defendant went on to frame two issues for determination, to wit – a) Whether the claimant’s contract of employment was wrongfully terminated. b) If indeed her contract of employment was wrongfully terminated, is she then entitled to the claims contained in her complaint? Regarding issue a) i.e. whether the claimant’s contract of employment was wrongfully terminated, the defendant referred the Court to Olarenwaju v. Afribank [2001] 7 SC (Pt III) 1 at 8 and CBN v. Igwillo [2007] All FWLR (Pt. 379) 1385 at 1401 B – C, where it was held that there are three types of contract of employment – 1. Master and Servant. 2. A servant who holds an office at the master’s pleasure. 3. Employment that is governed by statute. To the defendant, a perusal of Exhibit C1 will reveal that the contract between the claimant and the defendant falls into the first category, which is the master and servant type of contract. That the contract is a three-month renewable contract. That the claimant by Exhibit C1 was engaged on the 6th June 2011, which implies that the contract runs till 5th September 2011. Thereafter, it was supposed to be renewed. That there is nothing before the court to show renewal of the contract. There is evidence though that the claimant worked till 14th December 2011. The question then is whether the claimant was legally a staff of the defendant after the expiration of the first three months. The defendant went on that it is settled law that contracts of service are usually interpreted from the strict terms of the contract, referring the Court Ibama v. SPDC (Nig) Ltd [2005] All FWLR (Pt. 287) 832 at 843 and WAEC v. Oshiomebo [2007] All FWLR (Pt. 370) 1501 at 1512. That being so, its effect means that the contract of service between the claimant and the defendant was in fact terminated since 5th September 2011 as it was not renewed in accordance with the terms of Exhibit Cl. Therefore the issue of resignation or termination that came up subsequently is of no moment. That the claimant was working without a backing contract. It is, therefore, the submission of the defendant that the claimant’s contract of service was mutually terminated on the 5th September 2011. That the Supreme Court in the case of Ibama v. SPDC (Nig) Ltd (supra) at 844 B – D stressed the need for Courts to confine themselves to the plain words and meaning the contract of employment. The defendant continued that, assuming without conceding, that the claimant’s contract of service is deemed renewed, there is no evidence that the contract was terminated by the defendant. That Exhibit C5 is unambiguous and clear. The claimant resigned her appointment. There is no other inferences that can be drawn from Exhibit C5 than that the claimant resigned. That the claimant’s story of being coerced to resign is an afterthought. A thorough examination of her answers under cross-examination will reveal this preposition of afterthought. Asked whether she was restrained from going out of the premises of the defendant after being threatened to resign, she answered that she was not prevented from leaving the premises, yet she could not go out to inform her lawyer or the law enforcement agencies. She voluntarily sat down typed her letter of resignation and served same herself. It is, therefore, the submission of the defendant that the claimant resigned her appointment and not that it was terminated by the defendant. The defendant went on that contrary to the claim of termination, the claimant under cross-examination admitted that she was not served with any letter of termination. That the phrase termination came out of nowhere. The argument that she was still maintaining her innocence while resigning is not sufficient to convert her resignation to termination. That if one infers her plea of innocence as termination, what will her expression of gratitude to the management be interpreted? To the defendant, what is, therefore, important to this Court is the second line of the letter which reads thus: “l hereby tender my resignation letter with effect from December 14, 2011”. That a claimant who alleged wrongful termination must prove same. The onus of showing that he or she was wrongfully terminated can only be discharged if she can juxtapose her terms of employment as against her termination, referring the Court Kwara State Civil Service Commission v. Abiodun [2009] All FWLR (Pt. 493) 1315 at 1361 A – H, Imasuen v. University of Benin [2011] All FWLR (Pt. 572) 1791 at 1809 B – D, Ziideeh v. Rivers State Civil Service Commission [2007] All FWLR (Pt. 354) 243 at 258; and Momoh v. CBN [2007] All FWLR (Pt. 395) 420 at 442 E – F & G where the Court of Appeal held thus – It is time hallowed principle of law that a plaintiff as in the instant case in a contractual employment who alleges that his appointment was wrongfully terminated has a strict burden placed upon him to establish the following material facts: a) That he is an employee of the defendant; b) The terms and condition of his employment; and c) The way and manner by which he can be removed. The defendant then submitted that the claimant has not been able to discharge this onus. Consequently, her claim for wrongful termination must fail. On issue b) framed by the defendant is: if indeed the claimant’s contract of employment was wrongfully terminated whether she is then entitled to the claims contained in her complaint. The claimant’s claims against the defendant are for the sum 10 Million Naira as general damages for wrongful termination of her appointment, 3 Million Naira as cost of instituting this action against the defendant, interest on all sum and the payment of her outstanding emolument. To the defendant, a claimant who succeeds in proving wrongful termination “is entitled to the period in lieu of notice provided in her contract of employment”. That in the instant case, as earlier argued, the claimant’s contract was not renewed though she was still working. At best that her services belong to the class of the common law employer/employee relationships where in the absence of a written contract each party could abrogate the contract on a week’s or months’ notice or whatever the agreed period for payment of wages as stated in the case of Momoh v. CBN (supra) at 441. Given the submission of the defendant to the effect that the claimant left the defendant on 14th December 2011 with her employment contract not renewed, the defendant contended that persons under the common law who work without a written contract could be terminated with a week’s or month’s notice. Similarly, that they could terminate the contract with a week’s or month’s notice. That the implication of this is that the claimant is either paid a week’s salary in lieu of notice if she is terminated or she pays a week’s salary to the employer if she resigns with immediate effect. Either way, that the claim of 10 Million Naira cannot be substantiated because as she admitted under cross-examination, her salary was only N30,000 per month. Her claim for 10 Million Naira damages must, therefore, fail. The defendant went on that under cross-examination the claimant admitted that the invoice she exhibited which was for 4.5 Million Naira is not for this action. That there is, therefore, nothing to substantiate the claim of 3 Million Naira said to have been issued to the claimant by her lawyers as her bill for instituting this action. The defendant then submitted that the claim for solicitor’s fees must also fail. To the defendant, a claimant who seeks interest must prove why he or she is entitled to interest, referring to Abubakar v. Madibo [2008] All FWLR (Pt. 409) 751. Besides the pleading and the evidence claiming 21% interest, that there is no further evidence to justify the claim for interest. That the defendant having rebutted the claim for interest in its pleadings and testimony, the burden shifted to the claimant to prove the justification for interest. Having not discharged this burden, the claim for the interest whether for 21% or for any amount at all. therefore, fails. The defendant went on that there is no evidence as to whatever emolument the claimant seeks. No evidence of the amount of money she is entitled to as emolument neither was there proof of how that emolument was arrived at. That Exhibit C1 does not indicate any emolument attached to the contract in the event of resignation, termination or even dismissal. It is not the duty of the Court to fix any amount as it is not a Father Christmas. Moreover, that the defendant in evidence stated that the claimant was paid all her entitlement as soon as she resigned. That piece of evidence is unchallenged and should be accepted as true by the Court. Therefore, that the claim for emolument should equally fail. To the defendant, it is trite law that a claimant who seeks to a declaration of her right must show by preponderance of evidence that she is entitled. That there is no evidence that the claimant was coerced in resigning. All she stated was that she was threatened that her career will be spoilt if she does not resign. She claimed that one Jubril was present while the threat was being issued, yet she did not subpoena the said Jubril to corroborate her evidence. At any rate that she admitted she is just a WAEC holder. As such she has no career yet so there is none to be spoilt. That the claimant did not report the matter to the police particularly since she stated there was also a threat of assault. Assault being a criminal act must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. That the claimant has not been able to discharge this onus so her claim for declaration must fail. From the foregoing, the defendant submitted that the claimant has failed woefully to prove her case and claims. Though she resigned, she came around to say she was forced to do so. She on her own converted her resignation to termination. Her only evidence in support of the claim of force is that while resigning she continued to plead her innocence. The defendant then submitted that that piece of evidence even if it is accepted cannot change her resignation to termination. That assuming her claim for termination is accepted by this Court, then the claimant’s burden of proving wrongful termination has not been discharged. She has not convinced this Court that she is entitled to damages. The defendant, therefore, urged the Court to dismiss this action with substantial cost as it is an attempt at gold digging. The claimant in reaction framed two issues for the determination of the Court, namely – (i) Whether by the evidence before the Court due process of law was followed by the committee set up by the defendant to determine the guilt or otherwise of the claimant. (ii) Whether or not the claimant is entitled to her claims before the Court. Regarding issue (i), the claimant contended that by her averment in the statement of claim before the Court and the adopted written statement on oath, her claim is predicated on the circumstances surrounding her letter of resignation upon coercion by a member of the committee set up by the defendant to investigate the alleged spreading of the rumours of the sexual escapade of Mrs. Benny Okolieocha with her driver. That from the composition of the committee members to the steps taken and the persons invited by the committee, it can arguably be said that the committee was improperly constituted as members of the committee were also indicted in the email. To the claimant, from the composition of the members of the committee, it is very clear that Mr. Bolaji and Mr. Kadiri were equally referred to in the email which goes to show that they ought not to be part or members of the committee that investigated the claimant’s “alleged” improper conduct of spreading rumours of the sexual escapade of Mrs. Benny Okolieocha. The doctrine of fair hearing portends that one cannot be a judge in one’s own case. That in setting up the committee to investigate the sender of the e-mail, it is expected that anybody mentioned in the email as a perpetrator of the email, ought to be excluded from being a member of the committee to investigate the matter. That from the uncontroverted testimony of the claimant before the Court, Mr. Bolaji Oladipo (GM) and Mr. Kadiri Oladele were both friends to Mrs. Benny Okolieocha and were also part of the committee. That from Exhibit C2, it is stated that practically every member of staff of the defendant was aware of the said affair but it was only the claimant and Mr. Oluyinka Fowokan, Mrs. Benny Okolieocha’s driver that were queried and invited by the committee. Mrs. Benny Okolieocha was also never invited by the committee. To the claimant, it is on record that the defendant’s witness stated that the committee did not make a finding on the origin of the email because the claimant resigned. That this goes to show that the committee was set up merely to coerce the claimant to resign, and there was no need for an official finding because they had ensured that the claimant resigned having achieved their goal. It is, therefore, the submission of the claimant that the assertion of the defendant that the claimant voluntarily resigned her appointment holds no water. That it can be arguably said that there were copious elements of coercion and undue influence in the resignation of the claimant which call for the Court’s pronouncement on the surrounding circumstances leading to the resignation of the claimant. On the need to observe fair hearing, the claimant commended the case of Oged Ovunwo v. Woko [2011] 17 NWLR (Pt. 1277) at 451 – 766 to this Court and then submitted that the proper procedure and even the composition of panel depict bias from the onset. That where bias is noticed in the composition and/or conduct of a committee, the report or finding of the committee is bound to be set aside by the Court and in this case there was no report or finding of the committee since the premeditated idea. The claimant referred the Court to Abiola v. FRN [1995] 7 NWLR (Pt. 405) 215 and Agbiti v. Nigerian Navy [2011] 4 NWLR (Pt. 1236) at 1 –222 on the relevant consideration in determining real likelihood of bias. The claimant went on that from the circumstances of the case presented before the Court, it is very clear that those indicted in the email which necessitated the setting-up of a panel and the panel still had indicted person as the members, it is very clear that there could be in the mind of an average individual that there was going to be bias, urging the Court to so hold. That the committee never made a report of its findings nor filed it in this Court. That this further strengthens the claimant’s position that the committee was actually bias because immediately the claimant was coerced into resigning, the work of the committee ceased. That the committee never invited any other person apart from the claimant and the driver whereas Exhibit C2 clearly states that majority of the defendant’s staff were aware of the sexual escapade. Regarding issue (ii), the claimant contended that if issue (i) above is resolved in favour of the claimant, then the claimant is entitled to damages, referring to Cooperative & Commerce Bank (Nig.) Ltd v. Okonkwo [2002] FWL.R (Pt. 97) 637 C.A where on the issue of remedy for wrongful termination of employment, the Court of Appeal held as follows – Where an employment is terminated wrongfully, the remedy available to the employee is damages and not reinstatement. In the instance case, although the trial court rightly found that the respondent’s employment was terminated for unestablished allegations, [it] was wrong to have ordered reinstatement since the termination was merely wrongful, the employment not being statutory in nature. It is, therefore, the submission of the claimant that the claimant is entitled to damages as claimed. This is based on the fact that the claimant has been made to undergo emotional trauma, financial loss by the unjustified and unlawful manner of the defendant in coercing her to resign her appointment and aborting her young career. In conclusion, the claimant contended that from all the evidence before the Court, both circumstantial and real evidence, it is very clear that from the onset of setting up of the committee by the defendant to investigate the claimant, it is clear that a premeditated goal was set for the panel which was to ensure the forceful resignation of the claimant from the service of the defendant and which was achieved when the claimant was coerced into resigning. Finally, that there was bias both in the composition and the action of the committee and the defendant, urging the Court to so hold and grant the claim of the claimant. The defendant reacted on points of law. The claimant’s counsel had argued that since one Bolaji Oladipo and Kadiri Oladele were mentioned in Exhibit C2 they ought not to be members of the panel set up to investigate the source Exhibit C2; and that since they were made members of the panel the claimant’s right to fair hearing has been breached. In response, the defendant submitted that Exhibit C2 referred to everybody in the defendant company. It is stated in the Exhibit thus: “...THE HEAD OFFICE, THE DRIVERS, THE HCM DEPT, THE AUDIT, THE FINANCE, THE TECHNICAL EVEN MEMBERS OF YOUR MANAGEMENT ASK YOUR FRIEND LIKE KADIRI, TONY AND BOLAJI AND OTHERS...” are all aware of the relationship between Mrs. Benny and her driver. By the claimant’s counsel’s argument no member of the company should belong to the panel set up to investigate the source of Exhibit C2 because they were all referred to in the Email. That this argument is absurd and should be jettisoned. Moreover, that the panel was not constituted to investigate the claimant but the source of Exhibit C2, so the presence of Kadiri and Bolaji assuming they were the ones in the panel does not make it a breach of the claimant’s right to fair hearing. The defendant continued that assuming without conceding that the constitution of the panel breached the doctrine of fair hearing, then it is in evidence that the panel did not finished its job before the claimant resigned. Consequently, that the panel did not submit a report. Therefore, though there was a panel in existence, its work is not the direct effect of the claimant’s action, to wit: the resignation letter as contained in Exhibit C5. To the defendant, even at the risk of repetition, assuming that the claimant’s employment was wrongfully terminated, damages accruing to her can only be computed from her contract of employment (Okwusidi v. Ladoke Akintola University [2012] All FWLR (Pt. 632) 1774 at 1785 – 1787) and not from the fathom claims of financial loss, emotional trauma etc. that were unproved in evidence that the claimant is now relying on to justify her claim for the sum of 33 million Naira and interest. Finally, the defendant submitted that this case is a clear attempt at gold digging and same should be dismissed with substantial cost. I heard learned counsel in the matter and considered all the processes and submissions advanced. The issue before the Court is whether the claimant, by the act of the defendant, was compelled to resign her employment with the defendant. In other words, was the claimant constructively dismissed by the defendant even when it was the claimant who tendered a letter of resignation (Exhibit C5)? Globally, and in labour/employment law, constructive dismissal, also referred to as constructive discharge, occurs when an employee resigns because his/her employer’s behaviour has become intolerable or heinous or made life difficult that the employee has no choice but to resign. Given that the resignation was not truly voluntary, it is in effect a termination. In an alternative sense, constructive dismissal or constructive discharge is a situation where an employer creates such working conditions (or so changes the terms of employment) that the affected employee has little or no choice but to resign. Thus where an employer makes life extremely difficult for an employee, to attempt to have the employee resign, rather than outright firing the employee, the employer is trying to create a constructive discharge. The exact legal consequences differ from country to country, but generally a constructive dismissal leads to the employee’s obligations ending and the employee acquiring the right to seek legal compensation against the employer. The employee may resign over a single serious incident or over a pattern of incidents. Generally, the employee must have resigned soon after the incident. See generally Western Excavating v. Sharp [1978] 1 All ER 713 and Oladosu Ogunniyi’s Nigerian Labour and Employment Law in Perspective (Folio Publishers Limited: Ikeja), 2004, 2nd Edition, at pages 462 – 464. Before considering whether the claimant has made out a case of constructive dismissal, I need to clarify the legal charcter and status of the contract of employment of the claimant. The defendant had challenged the legality of the claimant’s employment after 5th September 2011. The argument of the defendant is that by Exhibit C1 the claimant was engaged on 6th June 2011 for three months implying that the contract ran till 5th September 2011. Thereafter, it was supposed to be renewed. To the defendant, there is nothing before the Court to show renewal of the contract although there is evidence that the claimant worked till 14th December 2011. The defendant then asked whether the claimant was legally a staff of the defendant after the expiration of the first three months. The defendant answered that on a strict interpretation of the Exhibit C1, the contract of service between the claimant and the defendant was in fact terminated since 5th September 2011 as it was not renewed in accordance with the terms of Exhibit Cl. To the defendant, the issue of resignation or termination that came up subsequently is of no moment as the claimant was working without a backing contract. In essence, it is the submission of the defendant that the claimant’s contract of service was mutually terminated on the 5th September 2011. A look at Exhibit C1 shows that the contract between the claimant and the defendant is for three months but is renewable. It is the argument of the defendant that after the first three months, the claimant’s contract was not renewed and so the contract came to end by 5th September 2011 as a result of lapse of time. However, in evidence, and even in its written address, the defendant agreed that the claimant worked beyond 5th September 2011, the date the defendant said the contract came to an end. It is trite in contract law that a contract for a fixed term that is renewable, even if not formally renewed, but is continued anyway, is deemed to continue on same terms and conditions as initially agreed by the parties. This is exactly the case in the instant contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant; and I so find and hold. It, therefore, does not lie with the defendant to challenge the legality of the claimant’s employment by arguing that the claimant worked beyond 5th September 2011 without a renewed contract of employment and so cannot raise issues as to resignation or termination as has presently been done by the claimant. I, therefore, find and hold that the claimant worked for the defendant on a valid contract of employment after 5th September 2011 i.e. up to 14th December 2011 on same terms and conditions as can be found in Exhibit C1. In other words, the contract of employment of the claimant up to 14th December 2011 when she tendered her letter of resignation (Exhibit C5) was valid and subsisting. By this holding, the second strand of the claimant’s contract ran from 6th September 2011 to 5th December 2011, while the third strand was to run from 6th December 2011 to 5th March 2012. But by 14th December 2011, the claimant tendered her resignation vide Exhibit C5 wherein she resigned her employment with immediate effect. All these contracts were on same terms and conditions as stipulated in Exhibit C1. Having found that there was a valid and subsisting contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant, was the claimant constructively dismissed by the defendant? This remains the question. The argument of the claimant is that she was coerced into resigning. The defendant had vide Exhibit C3 dated November 3, 2011 queried the claimant (the first as per paragraph 8 of DW’s sworn deposition) asking her to “give satisfactory explanations on the alleged character assassination of Mrs. Benny Okolieocha and also offer reasons why severe disciplinary measures should not be taken against” her. See also paragraphs 9 and 11 of DW’s sworn deposition. The claimant was given till the close of work on same November 3, 2011 to send in her response. By Exhibit C3, a formal complaint was made by Mrs. Benny Okolieocha, Assistant General Manager and hence one of the senior management members of the company, that she received an email which was aimed at tarnishing her image and that of her immediate family. The allegation was that the claimant was involved in the defamation of Mrs. Benny Okolieoch’s character and reputation she built over the years as the name of the claimant was conspicuously mentioned in the said email as perpetuator of the image smearing syndicate. Exhibit C2 is purportedly the email. It starts with the words, “You are a disgrace to womanhood” and then goes on to state that – We, the married women in this company are highly angered by your wholly sexual activities with your driver, as you have painted all of us bad, cheap, and unfaithful. It pains us to hear cleaners, drivers and all depts.. in the company discussing your sexual escapades with your driver all members of your Monday meeting are aware of this illicit affair, but for drivers and cleaners to make it object of discussion is so annoying.... The hotels both of you slept when you travelled outside Lagos is known to all...you leave head office for marketing only to end up in a hotel with your driver. Don’t ask how people know all these because your beloved driver is not only fucking you in the company, he is fucking a younger girl in finance ebele and he is downloading everything to her, and then coupled with your own carless behaviors. This your unholy affair has spread upcountry as most of them confirmed their suspicion about you and your driver at QPR. The headoffice, the drivers, the HCM dept, the audit, the finance, the technical even members of your management ask your friend like kadiri, Tony and Bolaji and others and non even tried to correct you. The fact you are giving your driver money to keep for yourself is known to all but most of those money are going to the younger lady in finance as she does it better than you who is considered as grandma. .................................................. BE WARNED Now this so-called email is undated. It has no email address on it to indicate that it is actually an email. Nowhere in Exhibit C2 is Mrs. Benny Okolieocha mentioned by name. The only thing linking Mrs. Benny Okolieocha to it is Exhibit C3 wherein it was stated that she laid a complaint alleging that she received it as an email and for which the claimant was queried. By Exhibit C3, the defendant concluded that the claimant had a hand in the issue of Exhibit C2 because her “name was conspicuously mentioned in the said email as the perpetuator of the image smearing syndicate”, hence the query. By paragraph 13 of DW’s sworn deposition, the defendant then set up a panel to unravel the person(s) behind the mysterious email. Under cross-examination, DW testified that the panel sat only once on 11th December 2011 and called two witnesses, the claimant and the driver. That other sittings of the panel were billed to hold on Monday 14th December 2011, but the claimant tendered her resignation on that day. That given the resignation of the claimant, the panel wound up; and so it as a fait accompli. A number of issues arise from all of this. The defendant acknowledged that the said email was mysterious. The first set of persons to face the panel were the claimant and the driver supposedly in issue. Why is this so? If the essence of setting up the panel was to unravel those behind the mysterious email, why the claimant and driver and not Mrs. Benny Okolieocha who was the recipient of the email? A reading of Exhibit C2 will show that virtually everyone in the company was said to be aware of its content. Why was the claimant the main suspect? In answer, the defendant argued as per paragraphs 14 and 15 of DW’s sworn deposition that as many persons as were required were invited by the panel (note that there was no evidence led of those so invited by the panel apart from the claimant and the driver); but because the claimant resigned on 14th December 2011, the panel immediately wound up; and even at this, the panel did not send in any report – one of case closed. Mrs. Benny Okolieocha was described in Exhibit C3 as Assistant General Manager and hence one of the senior management members of the company, while the claimant is merely a Financial Assistant in the company possessing only a WASC certificate, and for which by paragraph 4.13 of the defendant’s written address she has no career yet that can be spoilt. Is this the case of a David and Goliath and for which the panel did not see the necessity of calling in Mrs. Benny Okolieocha first for questioning? In Exhibit C2, the name referred to is “ebele”. The claimant’s name is actually “Ebere”, and the defendant knows this. Yet, the defendant was quick to ask her to answer to a mysterious email where she was also accused of the same infraction that Mrs. Benny Okolieocha was accused of. The defendant made no issue of the fact that the claimant was as accused of the same sexual escapades that Mrs. Benny Okolieocha was accused of. My take in all of this is that the defendant was quick to find a culprit to blame; and it had it in the claimant. The manner in which the panel was set up, its composition and the abrupt manner it wound-up when the claimant tendered her resignation letter attest to this conclusion. As soon as the claimant resigned, the panel concluded her guilty and closed shop. The DW said that the panel was set up to unravel those behind the mysterious email. Did the panel actually find out the actual persons behind the email? It really cannot be said because the panel did not file in any report of their work. DW under cross-examination testified that Kadiri and Bolaji named in Exhibit C2 were members of the panel set up to investigate the claimant. The membership of the panel included Bolaji Oladipo (Business Manager), Mr. Kadiri Oladele (Head of Technical Department), Mr. Benjamin Komolafe (Head Human Capital Management) and Mr. Jibril Balogun (a Senior Manager). If the panel was set up to unravel those behind the mysterious email, and both Kadiri and Bolaji were named as much as the claimant was named in Exhibit C2, how was the panel expected to find the culprit when those who were said to know of its content (note that Exhibit C2 stated as follows: “...the technical even members of your management ask your friend like kadiri, Tony and Bolaji and others and non even tried to correct you”) and should be facing the panel were instead members of the panel? The answer given by the defendant, which is not convincing to me, is that virtually all workers in the company were implicated in Exhibit C2 and so if the argument of the claimant is taken to extremes, there would be no one qualified to sit on the panel. In answer to the defendant, the claimant could as well have been a member of the panel. Since this was not the case, it could mean only that the panel wanted a fall-guy and they found her in the claimant. It was the testimony of the claimant under cross-examination that she was threatened by Mr. Benjamin Komolafe in the Boardroom of the company. That Mr. Jubril was there when she was threatened by Mr. Benjamin Komolafe. That the threat was one of assault. She went on that Mr. Benjamin Komolafe threatened her that if she did not resign he was going to spoil her character. When asked whether she reported the threat to the Police, she answered in the negative. The defendant made an issue of this arguing that there was no threat at all; and asking if there were one, why the claimant did not report the matter. The composition of the panel and the fact that even those that should be questioned were instead members of the panel provided a sort of gang-up against the claimant. She found the easy way which is to tender her resignation. Exhibit C5 is the letter of resignation. In it, the claimant maintained her innocence of the charge levelled against her. I believe the claimant that she was coerced into resigning. In law, by Oghahon v. Reg. Trustee CCGG [2001] FWLR (Pt. 80) 1496; [2002] NWLR (Pt. 749) 675, an undated letter is invalid except proved by oral/parole evidence the date left out. I indicated earlier that Exhibit C2 is undated. The defendant had no business acting on it let alone setting up a panel based on information contained therein. It was simply because Mrs. Benny Okolieocha was an Assistant General Manager and hence one of the senior management members of the company and the claimant a Financial Assistant and so a nonentity that the panel was set up in the first place. This interplay of power in the relationship of a boss and a subordinate is what played out in the instant case. For how else can one explain what should have been the private issue of Mrs. Benny Okolieocha (like I pointed out earlier note that she was not even named in Exhibit C2; and even if in fact the Exhibit was targeted at her, was that not her private affair?). So when the claimant cries out that she was coerced into resigning, I believe her evidence. I, therefore, find and hold that the claimant was coerced by the defendant to resign from her employment. I note that in law, an employee who is being investigated may resign his employment and the employer is duty bound to accept the resignation. See Ejitagha v. PHMB [1995] 2 NWLR (Pt. 376) 189 CA and Adefemi v. Abegunde [2004] 15 NWLR (Pt. 895) 1 CA. I also note that this means that there was no compulsion on the part of the defendant in the instant case to continue with the investigation of the claimant but only if the claimant was truly being investigated for infractions against the defendant. Instead what was being investigated according to DW was to unravel those behind the mysterious Exhibit C2. How this even became an official issue as distinct from a private issue of Mrs. Benny Okolieocha is not discernible. Exhibit C3 says that the defendant received a complaint from Mrs. Benny Okolieocha. Where an employee in a company is defamed (that is what Mrs. Benny Okolieocha complained of) is it a problem of the company or the defamed staff? Is the company permitted to use its instrumentality to go after assumed erring staff? All of this reinforces my stance that the defendant was simply exerting its power against the claimant just so that a member of management of the company, Mrs. Benny Okolieocha, can be assuaged. I, therefore, have no hesitation whatsoever in returning a finding and holding that the claimant was coerced by the defendant into tendering her resignation letter; and as such, I also find and hold that thereby the claimant was constructively dismissed by the defendant. In consequence, the claimant is entitled to relief i), which is for a declaration that the claimant’s employment with the defendant was wrongfully terminated and that the claimant was coerced to resign her employment with the defendant on 14th December 2011”. Having found in favour of the claimant in terms of constructive dismissal, the next issue is what measure of damages she is entitled to. By College of Education, Ekiadolor v. Osayande [2010] 6 NWLR (Pt. 1191) 423 where a contract of service is for a fixed term, the employee cannot be removed during the period of the term contracted, except for misconduct or where the employee dies. In the instant case there is no misconduct found against the claimant. In fact, by paragraph 8 of DW’s sworn deposition, before the instant case the claimant was never issued with any query in writing. I found earlier that the third strand of the claimant’s employment contract was to run from 6th December 2011 to 5th March 2012 but was truncated by her constructive dismissal on 14th December 2011. This means that the claimant is entitled to the full payment of her three-month contract for the period, 6th December 2011 to 5th March 2012. Exhibit C1 states the claimant’s monthly salary to be N30,000. This sum multiplied by 3 months comes to N90,000. The measure of damages the claimant is entitled to is, therefore, N90,000 only as outstanding salary as per relief iii). The claimant in relief ii) prayed for the payment of the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) being general damages for the wrongful termination of the claimant employment by the defendant. In paragraph 17 of her sworn deposition, the claimant averred that by the wrongful termination of her employment by the defendant, she suffered financial loss, career disruption, professional reputation damage, stress, trauma and depression, shame and ridicule from members of staff of the defendant. Under cross-examination, she reiterated this but acknowledged that she did not have any Doctor’s report as to her depression. The claimant went on to acknowledge that she has an action in defamation against the instant defendant before a Lagos High Court. By Agbo v. CBN [1996] 10 NWLR (Pt. 478) 370 CA, an employee cannot rely on wrongful termination of appointment as cause of action to clear his name for his future, among other purposes. His recourse in an appropriate case may be in an action for defamation. In any event, even if she were to be so entitled, there is no evidence before the Court in proof of all she said she suffered. To this extent, the claimant did not make out a case for relief ii). The claimant may well be advised to pursue her claim in defamation against the instant defendant pending before the Lagos High Court. The claimant in relief iv) prayed for “the payment of the sum of N3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira) being the claimant legal cost in instituting this action against the defendant” and tendered an invoice in the sum of N4,500,000 in support. Under cross-examination the claimant testified that the legal cost stipulated in the invoice attached to Exhibit C8 is not one in respect of the instant case. This means that the claimant did not make out a case for relief iv). The claim for it according fails and is hereby dismissed. Relief v) is for interest on all sums due to the claimant at the rate of 21% per annum from 3rd November 2011 till judgement is delivered and thereafter at the same rate or any other rate as this Court deems fit till final liquidation of the judgement sum. This Court does not grant pre-judgment interest. See Kurt Severinsen v. Emerging Markets Telecommunication Services Limited [2012] 27 NLLR (Pt. 78) 374. For this reason, the claimant is not entitled to relief v). Relief v) is accordingly dismissed. For the avoidance of doubt, the claimant is partially successful in her claims and only in resoect of reliefs i) and iii). It is, therefore, declared and ordered as follows – 1. The claimant’s employment was wrongfully terminated and that she was coerced to resign her employment with the defendant on 14th December 2011. 2. The defendant shall pay to the claimant within 30 days of this judgment the sum of N90,000 only being her outstanding emolument for the period 6th December 2011 to 5th March 2012. Judgment is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip