Download PDF
The reason for which the claimant caused this complaint to be filed against the defendant in this case on the 9th October, 2009 at the High Court of Lagos State, but later transferred to this Court on the 14th June, 2013, is that he was employed and resumed work with the defunct Global bank PLC on the 3rd of January, 2000. He was promoted to the position of Assistant Manager on 1st of September, 2004. As a result of the consolidation exercise in the banking industry in 2005, the defunct Global bank PLC merged with the now defunct Intercontinental bank PLC and acquired the assets and liabilities of the defunct Intercontinental bank. On the 31st of August 2005, the claimant allegedly acting on the advice of the defendant withdrew from its service with immediate effect as directed and upon resignation, the defendant bank allegedly paid the claimant one month salary in lieu of notice. The claimant claimed that his annual emoluments as at the time of withdrawal from the employ of the defunct Intercontinental Bank PLC acquired by the defendant are summed up to N 2, 521,560.00. That by the Guidelines and incentive on consolidation in Nigerian Banking Industry Standards in which the Central Bank of Nigeria directed in order to ameliorate the effect of possible job losses or redundancies, any staff exiting as a result of the consolidation should be compensated by the consolidated entity in line with industry standards in which the industry standards is 2 years salary/Allowance for employees that have worked for up to 5 years and the claimants claims he has worked from January 3, 2000 to August 2005, a period of more than 5 years with the defendant and he is entitled to be paid the sum of N 5,043120.00 by the defendant. The claimant through his solicitors wrote a letter of demand to the defendant requesting to pay the claimant his entitlement but they failed, refused and/ or neglected to pay the claimant his entitlements despite repeated demands. The claimant tendered in support of his case documents which were admitted and marked as Exhibits PNI, PNA, PNB, PNC, PND, PNE, PNF and PNG. He therefore want this Court to make the following declaration and Order. (a) A declaration that the claimant is entitle to severance package of two years consolidated salaries and allowances from the Defendant in line with the banking ‘Industry Standards’. (b) An order directing the defendant to pay the claimant the sum of N5,043,120.00 being the value of the claimant’s consolidated salaries and allowances for the period of two years. The Defendant vide its pleadings confirmed that the claimant was employed by the defunct Global Bank PLC, he was promoted to the position of an Assistant Manager on 1st of September, 2004, confirmed that in 2005, the defunct Global bank PLC merged with the now defunct Intercontinental bank PLC and acquired the assets and liabilities of the defunct Intercontinental bank. The defendant denies that the claimant lost his job as a result of the consolidation exercise and was not advised by the defendant to withdraw from its service but that the claimant voluntarily resigned his appointment on 31st August, 2005 to enable him answer the clarion call of his people to serve. That no staff was relieved of his/her job on account of the merger but were all employed in the new Intercontinental Banks (as at then) except for certain staff who voluntarily resigned from the service of the defendant and at no time did it issue a directive to the claimant to resign with immediate effect and further states that the claimant was erroneously paid one month salary in lieu of notice for the month of September, 2005, if he was paid at all. The defendant also denies that the schedule of Indebtedness/ Entitlement being relied upon by the claimant is a false document and the Guidelines and Incentives on Consolidation in Nigeria banking industry is not applicable to the claimant because he was neither declared redundant nor lost his job as a result of the merger. The defendant further avers that subsequent to the resignation of the claimant, the defendant via its letter dated September 7, 2006 informed the claimant of his entitlement/indebtedness to the bank and that the claimant does not have any outstanding entitlement but rather had a net indebtedness of N711,298.02 at the point of exit which he had settled with an intercontinental Bank draft No No.00046001 and dated 20th December 2006 and via a covering letter dated same date. It went on that the claimant voluntarily resigned even before the merger as evident from the claimant’s complimentary card as a Governorship Aspirant in Imo State attached to a letter written to the Chief Executive of the swallowed Global Bank. The Defendant further avers the claimant has no cause of action but has brought this action in bad faith with intent to bring the defendant into disrepute and cause distrust between the defendant and its customers and the claim is frivolous, gold digging, an abuse of court process, fraudulent, unmeritorious and should be dismissed with substantial cost. The defendant tendered in support of his case these documents which were admitted and marked as Exhibits OBO1, OBO2, OBO3, OBO4, OBO5, OBO6 and OBO7. The claimant on the 20th day of September, 2013 filed a reply stating that the following persons were asked to withdraw their services by the defendant on the 31st of August, 2005 namely Mr. Ismail Longe, Mr. Lawrence Iyabi, Mr.Patrick Njoku (the Claimant herein), Wunmi Rachael, Nike Ojo and Tobi Fadimu. The Claimant further averred that he was given the Schedule of Indebtedness/Entitlement exhibited by one Adeyemo Christy. The payment of the sum of N711, 298.02 was to enable him pay for his shares and to obtain his certificates from the defendant. The defendant filed a Written Address as arguments in support of its case wherein a sole question for determination was framed thus- Whether in view of the circumstances of the case the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in his statement of facts. It was submitted that for the claimant to succeed in his action he must establish that the defendant has not paid his entitlement in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment as contained in his letter of employment, his letter of promotion and defendant’s Staff Handbook. It went on to state that in order to appreciate and effectively determine the claims of the claimant the Court has to look at the documents that governs the relationship between the parties. It was submitted that in a master/ servant relationship the document that created the relationship between the parties is the contract of employment and parties are bound by the terms therein and in the present case, the letter of employment is the document creating the master and servant relationship between the parties and the terms are quite clear and unambiguous. The Defendant stated that the law is settled that there are now three (3) categories of contract of employment to wit: (a) Those regarded as purely master/servant (b) Where a servant is said to hold office at the pleasure of the employer, (c) Where the employment is regulated or governed by statute He referred to the case of CBN V IGWILLO [2007] 23 WRN 1AT PG 20 lines 25-30 Continuing, the defendant stated that from the case the contract of employment between the parties herein is regarded as purely master/servant and that sometime in 2005 the claimant via his letter of withdrawal voluntarily resigned from his employment with the defendant to enable him answer the clarion call of his people and from the documentary evidence available to the court, the claimant was formerly employed by Global Bank who during the consolidation exercise in 2005 was merged with International Bank Plc which has now been taken over by Access Bank Plc. It was the further submission of the defendant that from the available documentary evidence, subsequent to the resignation of the claimant, the defendant via its letter dated September, 7 2006 informed the claimant of his entitlement as computed by the defendant who is in a better position to know the actual figures the claimant is entitled to and the deductions made in respect of the indebtedness of the Claimant to the Defendant was admitted by the Defendant by his payment of the said sum via his letter and cheque to the defendant. That the claimant has failed to give any credible and cogent evidence to support the allegations as contained in his pleadings that from the documentary evidence before the court the claimant via his letter dated 31/08/2005 withdrew his services from the defendant. The letter was addressed to Global Bank Plc contrary to the claimant allegations that he was compelled to withdraw his services from Intercontinental Bank Plc since Global Bank Plc was yet to be merged with Intercontinental Bank as same came into being sometime in October, 2005 whilst the claimant withdrew his services in August, 2005 and submitted that the reason for his withdrawal of his service is clearly stated in his letter of withdrawal. It was also contended by the defendant that documentary evidence being permanent in form is more reliable than oral evidence as it is used to test credibility of oral evidence. He cited the case of FASHANU V ADEKOYA [1974] 6 SC 83 and submitted that the documentary evidence herein makes the defendant’s case more credible and it urged the Court to so hold. He went on that it is trite law that document speaks for itself and parties are not allowed to change same by parole evidence citing Section132 (1) of the Evidence Act. That by virtue of Section 132 (1) of the Evidence Act, oral evidence cannot be admitted to contradict, add to or vary a contract or document unless such evidence falls within any of the matter that may be proved by virtue of the proviso thereto. Continuing, the defendant submitted that the law is settled that in civil cases, the burden of establishing a case is as disclosed in the pleadings. The general burden of proof is on a party who would fail if upon the pleading filed no evidence is led thereon on either side. That the burden of proof is fixed on the claimant who seeks the relief to prove that he is entitled in law and in fact to such relief he claims. He cited Sections135-137 of the Evidence Act 2011. It was the position of the defendant that if the claimant fails to lead evidence in proof of his claim on the standard required by law, the court must find that he has failed to prove his case. In the instant case, the claimant is claiming declaratory relief to wit; declaration that the claimant is entitled to severance package of consolidated salaries and allowance from the defendant in line with the banking industry standards. To establish this claim the claimant is relying on the CBN Directives on job losses and redundancies as a result of the consolidation exercise geared towards bank’s meeting the approved capital base of N25Billion by December 2005. It was submitted that it is quite clear from the letter of withdrawal by the claimant that he retired voluntarily to heed the clarion call of his people and the defendant has given the claimant all its entitlement via a letter dated September 7, 2006 wherein all allowances he is entitled to pursuant to the terms of the defendant Staff Handbook/letter of employment/letter of promotion has been calculated and deductions made in respect of his total outstanding with the defendant but if indeed the claimant is entitled to any other entitlement or allowances apart from the ones noted aforementioned the onus is on him to prove by producing his last payslips which shows the amount he was earning before his voluntarily withdrawal. It was contended that the claimant claim for the sum N 5,043,120 of the claimant’s consolidated salaries and allowances for the period of two years and interest on N5,043,120 at the rate of 21% per annum from the 1st day of September, 2005 till final determination of this case clearly shows that the claimant has discarded the Staff Handbook and his letter of offer of employment which are the main documents that govern the contract of employment between the parties. It was submitted that the document provides for one month notice in writing by either parties to terminate the employment relationship and S.4.0 of the Staff Handbook states the different minimum notices required of the categories of the staff employed by the defendant by S.4.8 of the Staff Handbook provides that the terminal benefit depends on the circumstances of an employee’s disengagement and S.4.9 states the earnings to be considered. Further, it was submitted that the defendant by its letter dated September 7, 2006 gave a comprehensive computation of the claimant’s entitlement. It was also the defence position that a close look at Document No 5, i.e. claimant schedule of Indebtedness/ Entitlement gave a breakdown of how the defendant came to the total amount due and payable to the claimant. That allowances are usually paid in a lump sum at the beginning of the year and if the staff leaves before the end of the year, same is prorated and deducted from the staff entitlements as is the general practice in the corporate world. The claimant has failed to justify how he is entitled to the annual emolument at the time of withdrawal since he produced no payslip or any official documents to show that the listed emoluments are what he was earning whilst in the employment of the defendant. defendant submitted that it is trite that parties are bound by their pleadings citing the case of AFROTECH TECHNICAL SERVICES (NIG) LTD V MIA & SONS LTD &ANOR [2001] 1 M.J.S.C 90 PARA E Counsel urged the court to discountenance the reliance placed by the claimant on document No.4, because the said document is not signed and the claimant did not claim the defendant prepared same and addressed it to him or deliver same to him. Therefore, the document is false, of no probative value and prepared solely to advance the course of the claimant since the document is unsigned by any of the names mentioned and hence totally useless for the purpose for which it was tendered and it is a worthless document which does not have any efficacy in law. He relied on the case of OMEGA BANK PLC V OBC LTD [2004] 4 WRN 1; ALI V AMBROSINI 7 WACA 148. The defendant contended that for claimant to be entitled to 2 years consolidation salaries and allowances, he has to establish that his appointment was terminated pursuant to the consolidated exercise. That he cannot rely on the CBN Directives on job losses and redundancies as a result of the consolidation exercise geared towards Banks meeting the approved capital base of N25 Billion by December 2005. It was further contended that on claimant’s relief on issue of interest, it is the law that interest can only be claimed as of right and where there is a power conferred by statue as held in REUBEN EKWUNIFE V WAYNE (W.A) LTD [1989] (PT. 122) PG 422, where the Supreme Court held as follows : “Interest may be awarded in a case in two distinct circumstances namely; (a) Where it is claimed as of right such as is contemplated by the agreement between the parties or under mercantile custom or under a principle of equity such as breach of fiduciary relationship (b) Where there is a power conferred by statue to do so in exercise of the courts discretion.” On the principles guiding award of interest, counsel cited the case of HENKEL CHEM LTD V AG FERRERO &CO [2003] 4 NWLR (PT. 810) AT 306 where it was held that “ The mere fact that a sum of money is substantial is not enough to justify an award of interest on debt. The general principle is that interest is not payable or recoverable at common law on ordinary debt in the absence of the following situations: a. Contract, express or implied, or b. Some mercantile usage, or c. Provision by statute.” It was submitted that in this case prejudgment claim for interest is not a term of contract express or implied between the parties in respect of the amount being claimed by the claimant and there is not scintilla of evidence of any mercantile usage in respect of the sum being claimed as interest rate to entitle the claimant to make such a claim as of right and the claimant did not plead any such fact and no evidence there on to justify same in other to be entitled. It was the finally conclusion of the defendant that the claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought as the totality of the evidence adduced does not justify the claimant’s claim, claimant failed woefully to establish his claim that his termination from employment was as a result of the banking consolidation exercise which would then entitle him to the sum being claimed as consolidated salaries and allowances and urged the court to discountenance the claimant’s claim and dismiss it as being frivolous and lacking merit. The claimant on his own part also framed a sole issue for the determination of the Court as follows- Whether the Claimant lost his employment as a result of the consolidated exercise of the defendant and hence entitled to compensation in line with the 'industry standard' as directed by the Central Bank of Nigeria. It is submitted that for the claimant's action to succeed, he must establish that he lost his employment as a result of the consolidation exercise of the defendant in 2005. It is the complain of the claimant that the Court wrongly admitted exhibit PN1 which is a photocopy in evidence. It was the argument of the claimant that contents of documents can be proved either by primary or secondary evidence. e.i. by producing the original copy of the document itself for the Court's inspection or in the cases described by Section 88 of the Evidence Act. It was submitted that exhibit PN1 does not fall under the category of documents envisage by Section 88 and should be inadmissible. Cited in support of his assertion is the case of BROSSETTE MANUFACTURING NIG.LTD V M/S OLA ILEMOBOLA LTD & 3 ORS [2007] 5 S.C. 84 @ 125. Where it was held that if a Court admitted an inadmissible document, it should expunge it from its records or discountenance with same and be regarded as if it was tendered or admitted. The claimant went on that the document should be expunged from the Court's record, irrespective of whether or not it was opposed. He commended the case of ABUBAKAR & ANOR V JOSEPH & ANOR [2008] 5-6 S.C.(PT 11) 146 @ 193. The claimant reminded the Court of the provision of Section 12 of NICA 2006 which enjoins the Court to comply with the provisions of the Evidence Act, but went on to posit that the Court can depart from enforcing the Evidence Act in the interest of justice, it is however, contended that the rules of this Court did not depart from the provision of the Evidence Act with respect to admission of primary evidence. He urged the Court to expunge exhibit PN1 from its record. The claimant stressed that he is entitle to compensation as directed by CBN as industry standard, this according to him was corroborated by the defence witness in paragraph 14 of his sworn deposition, but denied that the claimant was entitled to same. To the claimant the pertinent question that must be answered is whether or not the claimant lost his job as a result of the consolidation exercise of the defendant. The claimant argued that the defendant has something to hide by its refusal/ failure to produce the original copy of exhibit PN1 even after he gave the defendant the notice to produce same. The claimant contended that it was the defendant that directed him to withdraw his services through one Mrs. Abiola Ogunbiyi, Head of Human Resources on the 31st of August 2005 and it was as a result of this that the defendant paid the claimant one month salary in lieu of notice. Reference was made to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the claimant additional sworn deposition. He alleged that this piece of evidence was never contradicted by the Defendant, rather its witness alluded under cross examination that under the contract of employment, an employee who resigns his employment must give the Defendant one month notice or a month salary in lieu of notice. DW also admitted that it is not the practice of the defendant to pay employee who resigns with immediate effect one month salary in lieu of notice. It was further contended that the testimony of DW corroborated the argument of the claimant that he was asked to withdraw his services by the defendant and that there is no credible evidence to show that the claimant voluntarily resigned from the services of the Defendant, he urged the Court to so hold. The claimant went on that the defendant admitted that industry standard is two years salary/allowances. It was further posited that the law is common that facts admitted need no further proof. He continued that allowances calculated for him fall short of his entitlements as capture in exhibit OBO 4. such as transport, utility, domestic, security, education and dressing allowance. To the claimant his entitlements by exhibit OBO 2 i.e. the letter evidencing his contract of employment with the Defendant as stated therein are Housing, transport, furniture, utility, dressing, entertainment, medical, cola and lunch allowances. To the claimant the document that captured his entitlement is exhibit PNB which was given to the claimant by one Adeyemo Christy who co authored it, he thus urged the Court to compare exhibit OBO 4 and PNB and determine which of the two documents best protects his interest. He further urged the Court to consider exhibit PNH which according to him itemised at paragraph 4.9 page 29 list terminal benefit that he is entitle to as base pay to date, allowances to date, earned leave allowance unpaid, profit sharing pro rata, payment in lieu of earned leave, payment in lieu of notice of termination, redundancy benefit and under repayment. Finally, it was submitted that the claimant has established that he lost his job as a result of the consolidation of the defendant as a member of the intercontinental bank family. Reference was made to exhibits PNE and PNG where the CEO of the defendant acknowledged that the claimant was a member of the bank and one Lawrence Ige stated that all the legacy banks were offered employment in the consolidated bank with effect from 1st November 2005. He urged the Court to reverse the act of impunity and enter judgment in his favour. It is observed that the defendant did not file a reply to the claimant's submissions above. I have carefully read through all the processes before me and have heard both witnesses who testified before me. It is in the considered view of the Court that the main issue requiring the Court's evaluation and eventual verdict is whether or not the claimant voluntarily resigned his employment from the defendant's bank, alternatively put, was the claimant advised by the defendant to resign and if so was he paid his requisite entitlements. It is observed that learned defence counsel does not know how the exhibits tendered either by him or by the claimant in this case were marked. That is an indication that counsel is not up to date with the Court's proceedings and thus lackadaisical in handling this case. He would have at best applied for a CTC of the record of Court to enable him abreast himself with the numbers given to each exhibit in this case. That in the humble view of the Court is not a good legal practise. It is also noteworthy that there are instances in his address where he would refer to the defendant instead of the claimant, e.g. paragraph 4.8 of his written address. There is no magic wand in adjudication, rather that diligence, hard work and Professionalism should be the watch word of a lawyer. Before going into the merit of the case, there is a need to determine either way the admissibility or otherwise of exhibit PN1 i.e. the letter captioned '' withdrawal from service' and exhibit PNB i.e. the schedule of indebtedness/entitlement tendered by the claimant. The contention of the defendant is that exhibit PNB is an unsigned document and thus should go to no issue as according to the defendant it was prepared to advance the claimant's course. The claimant as could be gleaned from his written address did not react to the defendant's assertion, rather he posited that it was given to him by one Adeyemo Christy who is also a co author of the document. The claimant did not give reasons why Christy Adeyemo who co authored the document did not sign same. A spectacle examination of this document reveals that it is neither dated nor signed although claimant name is on same like Exhibit OBO 4 which was tendered by the defendant. Whilst exhibit OBO 4 was signed by the said Christy Adeyemo and one Olusegun Akiboh whose names appeared on same as authorised officers, Exhibit PNB was not signed by either of the two same names stated thereon and the claimant did not give any reason for that or reacted to same in his address. It is the law as this Court has equally held in an unreported case of MR USHAKANG JEROME A. VS LEADERS 7 CO.LTD (THISDAY NEWSPAPERS) SUIT NO NICN/LA/128/2013 delivered on 8th April, 2014, that unsigned document is worthless piece of paper and thus has no probative value. I do not intend to hold a different view with regards to exhibit PNB. See also AIKI V IDOWU [2006] 9 NWLR (PT 984) 47 @ 65 parags G. I find and hold that exhibit PNB is unreliable, weightless piece of paper and thus discountenanced and expunged from the record of this Court. With regards to exhibit PN1 which is captioned ''withdrawal from services' dated 31st August, 2005. It was contended by the claimant that the said exhibit was wrongfully admitted in evidence for being a photocopy and should thus be expunged from the Court's record. It is on record that during trial on 7th November 2013 when the claimant testified, the defendant whilst cross examining him tendered exhibit PN1, same was admitted without any objection by the claimant. Now, for the claimant to wake up from his slumber in his final written submission that the said document is a photocopy and should therefore be expunged from its record is unfounded in law. Issues have been joined by both parties in their pleadings and there is no objection by the claimant as regards the authenticity of exhibit PN1. Final written submission cannot take the place of oral evidence. Be that as it may, I have carefully examined exhibit PN1 and it is clear on its face in the humble view of the Court that Exhibit PN1 is not a photocopy, it is original copy of the letter written by the Claimant. Therefore, the arguments of the Claimant in that regard is discountenanced with. Consequently, exhibit PN1 being an original of a letter written by the claimant withdrawing his services from the Defendant's bank still forms part of the record of this Court. The pertinent issue before the Court as stated above in this judgment is whether or not the claimant voluntarily resigned his employment from the defendant's bank, alternatively put, was the claimant advised by the defendant to resign and if so was he paid his requisite entitlements. It was the submission of the defendant on this question that sometime in 2005 the claimant voluntarily resigned from his employment to enable him answer the clarion call of his people. According to the defendant, the claimant addressed the letter to the Managing Director of Global Bank and not the Intercontinental bank as claimed by him. It was further posited by the defendant that oral evidence cannot contradict, alter, add to or vary a document or contract, reliance is placed on Section 132(1) of the Evidence Act 2011. On the other hand, the claimant contended that he was advised to resign his appointment by the then intercontinental bank family and not by Global bank and thus posited that he is entitle to his entitlement as provide by industry standards prescribed by the CBN. The contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant is evinced by exhibits OBO 2 and PNH i.e. the staff handbook of global bank one of the legacy banks his letter of employment. Both parties are in agreement that the claimant was employed on 30th December 1999, the only disputed area is that while the claimant posited that he was advised to resign, the defendant contended that he voluntarily resigned vide exhibit PN1. The defendant denied in paragraph 10 of its statement of defence that it advised the claimant to resign and averred that the payment of one month salary to the claimant in lieu of notice if any was done in error. It is interesting to note that the claimant did not deny writing exhibit PN1 , rather his contention in his final address is that it is a photocopy and that has been held not to be so. It is clear in exhibit OBO 2 and exhibit PNH i.e. Global bank Hand book under the heading 'Termination' that after confirmation of employment, appointment of an employee may be terminated by either the defendant or the claimant by giving either party one month notice or one month basic salary in lieu of notice. Exhibit PN1 was dated 31st of August, 2005. The content of exhibit PN1 is reproduced hereunder for purposes of clarity and for avoidance of doubts. '' 38 Ajose street Mende Maryland Lagos 31-8-05 The Managing Director Global Bank Plc Plot 2 E- 4E Ligali Ayorinde st. Victoria Island Lagos Dear Sir, Withdrawal from Service The above captioned subject matter refers. Please, be informed that I have withdrawn from the services of Global Bank Plc with effect from August 31st 2005. I am very grateful for the opportunity given to me to serve the bank. My withdrawal will enable me answer the clarion call of my people to come and serve them. Kind regards. SIGNED Njoku Patrick.'' The defendant replied the claimant letter reproduced above vide exhibit PNE thus. ''Mr. Patrick Njoku 140 Wetheral Road. Owerri Dear Mr. Njoku, RE: GUBERNATORIAL CAMPAIGN Thank you for your letter informing me of your intention to contest for the governorship of Imo State in the forthcoming election in 2007. I am truly pleased that a member of the intercontinental Bank family has volunteered himself for service at such an important level for our fatherland. As you proceed with this laudable quest, our prayer is that Almighty God grants you success at the Polls. Yours sincerely SIGNED ERASTUS B.O AKINBGOLA''. The letters above evince that the claimant voluntarily resigned his employment and same was accepted by the defendant. The law is settled that there is absolute power to resign and no discretion to refuse to accept the notice. It also a settled principle of law that the resignation of an employee can be effective whether or not it has been approved. See the case of ADEFEMI V ABEGUNDE [2004] 15 NWLR , 1 @ P 28. It thus flows from both letters and the decision of the Court in ABEGUNDE'S case that immediately the claimant tendered his letter i.e. exhibit PN1, same is deemed accepted by the bank, whether or not they replied. In other words exhibit PNE which is a reply to exhibit PN1 amounts to nothing. It is thus safe to conclude that the voluntary termination of appointment of the claimant vide exhibit PN1was effectively determined his employment on 31st August 2005. There is however, a knotty issue that requires evaluation , that is the averment of the claimant in his pleadings that he was given a month salary in lieu of one month notice by the defendant. The defendant on its own denied this in paragraphs 10 of its statement of defence and 8 of its answer to interrogatories that the claimant was erroneously paid the one month salary in lieu of notice. DW also confirmed this under cross examination that the bank do not pay salary in lieu of notice to its employee who retires voluntarily. I have gone through all the exhibits on record and it is apparent from same that the claimant actually and infact voluntarily retired from the services of the defendant. These documents amplified my position, i.e. exhibits PNF, OBO7, OBO1 they are demand letter dated 21st September 2009 written by the claimant counsel to the defendant, Claimant's complimentary card with '' PDP'' logo and the letter written by his counsel on 15th December 2008. The claimant was referred to in both letters by his solicitor as an employee of the bank who 'resigned from your employment with effect from August 31st 2005. All these corroborate the claimant's withdrawal letter dated 31st August 2005 i.e. exhibit PN1. It is of note that the claimant has never denied writing exhibit PN1. He alleged that he was advised to resign. There is no evidence before the Court in proof of that. It is elementary that he who asserts must prove. I found that the claimant has failed to prove that he was advised to resign his appointment. There is also nothing or no circumstances to show that he was constructively dismissed. He did not exhibit his last payslip. He averred in paragraph 4 of his additional sworn deposition that the defendant asked him to withdraw his services from the defendant through one Mrs Abiola Ogunbiyi on 31st August 2005. The said Mrs Ogunbiyi was never called as a witness in prove of his assertion, the other staff the claimant alleged were equally advised to resign, no one of them was equally invited to corroborate his claim. Parties are bound by their pleadings, there is nothing on record in prove of his claims. Facts in form of documents and untainted circumstantial evidence not mere assertion are raw materials which aids Courts in arriving at a just decision. Courts do not speculate on possibilities, no they act on actualities. It is therefore difficult for the Court to believe the claimant's claim that he was advised to resign and was paid one month salary in lieu of notice in September 2005 after his resignation. It is also difficult to believe that the defendant being a bank would pay the claimant one month salary in lieu of notice without a covering letter. It is not the practice in the banking institutions to so do. Exhibit OBO 4 which is the claimant's schedule of indebtedness/entitlement reveals that the effective date of his resignation is 31/8/2005 and a critical examination of same shows that it was the claimant that paid the one month basic salary in lieu of notice and not the defendant as claimed . I therefore hold the considered view that the claimant was not advised to resign, rather he voluntarily resigned his appointment vide exhibit PN1, notwithstanding the vagaries of reasons given by the claimant. What is more, if the claimant voluntarily resigned his appointment, what are his entitlement and much more was he paid same by the defendant? He stated that he is entitle to compensation in accordance with industry standards, which according to him is 2 years salary/allowance for employees that have worked up to 5 years and that is the sum of N5,043,120.00 by the defendant. Further to that he is asking for N1,000,000.00 as cost of action. It is contended by the defendant that for the claimant to be entitle to the above claims by relying on the 2 years consolidated salary, he has to establish that his appointment was terminated pursuant to the consolidated exercise. He can then rely on the CBN directives. It was submitted that since the claimant resigned voluntarily, he is not entitle to any salary under the alleged CBN Directive and also not entitle to pre or post judgment interests. The claimant on his own part posited that he was supposed to have been paid in line with paragraph 4.8 of the staff hand book i.e. exhibit PNH. Which provides that these earnings should be paid to him. i.e. Base pay to date, allowances to date, earned leave allowance unpaid, profit sharing pro rata, payment in lieu of earned leave, payment in lieu of notice of termination, redundancy benefit and underpayment repayment. It is noteworthy that the claimant did not specify the amount he is entitle to under each heading. In other words he did not show how he arrived at the sum of N5,043,120.00 he is claiming. In considering the claims of the claimant, I have perused the CBN guidelines on consolidation, particularly paragraph 9.2 under which the claimant hinges his claim for 2 years on, it is observed that the document did not specify the said 2 years or any amount, except that it prescribed compensation to those who might lose their jobs under the consolidation entity in line with industry standards, but not below the terms of their sustaining employment. There is nothing on record in prove of what the industry standard is. It has been held that the claimant voluntarily resigned his employment, hence this vague industry standards does not apply to him. The hand book of the defendant which forms one of the terms of the contract of employment between the parties, enumerated terminal benefits in its paragraph 4.9 and deductions in its paragraph 4.10 . ''4.9 EARNINGS Base pay to date allowance to date Earned leave allowance unpaid profit sharing pro rata payment in lieu of earned leave payment in lieu of notice of termination Redundancy benefit underpayment repayment ''4.10 Deductions Upfront payment unearned Outstanding loans, advances and pre payments Payment in lieu of notice of termination Unearned leave allowance paid Purchased unearned leave Overpayment repayment'' Now, a perusal of exhibit OBO 4 i.e. the schedule of indebtedness/entitlement of the Claimant, it is obvious that the allowances of the claimant enumerated above were deducted from his entitlement and he still had a shortfall of N711,298.01which he paid vide a cheque he issued to the defendant dated 20th December, 2006 i.e. Exhibit OBO 6. It became obvious on exhibit OBO4 that the sum of N33,333.33 being basic salary in lieu of notice was actually part of the N711,298.01 refunded by the claimant to the defendant and not the other way round as alleged by the claimant. What could be deduced from all the above is that the claimant's has been paid his entitlement under his term of employment and not owed any compensation, salary/allowance by the defendant. It is therefore, found that the claimant's claims fail in its entirety. Consequently, the Claimant's case is dismissed. I award the cost of N20,000.00 to the Defendant. Judgment is accordingly entered. HON. JUSTICE OYEWUMI OYEBIOLA O. JUDGE