Download PDF
The claimant commenced this Suit by filing a General Form of Complaint dated and filed on 5th November, 2012 wherein he prays for the sum of N50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) as general damages. Filed along with the Complaint is the Statement of Facts, List of Witness, Statement of Witness on Oath and List of Documents to be relied upon at trial dated 5th November, 2012. The defendant on its part filed a Statement of Defence, List of Witness, Witness Statement on Oath and List of Documents to be relied upon at trial. The claimant’s case is that he was employed by the Chartered Bank Limited and rose to the position of Zonal Coordinator, Western Zone and that his last place of posting was Chartered Bank Limited Dugbe Branch, Ibadan. That sometime in the year 2003 it came to the knowledge of the management of Chartered Bank Ltd that he was about to be nominated as a Commissioner in Oyo State but that he was reluctant to take up the appointment since he was not prepared to sacrifice his flourishing banking career. That the matter was discussed at the bank’s management meeting whereat it was decided that he should be encouraged by granting him a leave of absence to enable him to take up the appointment as a Commissioner since the bank will benefit immensely from such appointment. He pleaded that by a letter dated 24th July, 2003 he applied to the defendant for leave of absence for a period of two years in the first instance upon his appointment as Commissioner of Finance, Oyo State by the then Governor, Senator Rashidi Ladoja. He pleaded the acknowledgment copy of the said letter. That by a letter dated 11th August, 2003 Chartered Bank Plc granted his application for leave of absence for an initial period of two years with the option to apply for re-absorption. That by letter dated 12th April, 2005 Chartered Bank Ltd again approved his request for the restoration of his pay in recognition of his commitment as a good ambassador to the bank even as a Commissioner in Oyo State. He pleaded further that later in 2005 the defendant by its letter dated 13th December, 2005 informed him that it would with effect from 1st January, 2006 stop payment of salaries to him for the remainder of his leave of absence. That on the 15th May, 2006 he informed the defendant of his desire to resume from leave of absence due to the uncertainty surrounding the political situation in Oyo State. That there was no response to the said letter and by another letter dated 1st June, 2007 he reiterated his readiness to resume work. The claimant pleaded that by a letter dated 12th June, 2007 the defendant gave him the option of resigning his appointment or waiting till after the conclusion of the then ongoing merger discussions between IBTC Chartered Bank Plc and Stanbic Bank Ltd before he could be re-absorbed. That by a letter dated 2nd June, 2007 he opted for the latter option and elected to wait till after the completion of the merger discussions to be re-absorbed rather than resigning his appointment. He added that upon the completion of the merger between IBTC Chartered Bank and Stanbic Bank Ltd he by a letter dated 29th October, 2007 enquired about when he will be re-absorbed. That by letters dated 31st March, and 18th June, 2008 he reminded the defendant of his request for re-absorption but the defendant failed to respond. That his application for re-absorption was left in limbo for more than two years by the defendant and that he had no choice than to tender his letter of resignation with effect from 31st January, 2009. He pleaded a letter of resignation dated 26th January, 2010. That the defendant failed to either accept his resignation or pay him his terminal benefits hence he instructed his Solicitors, Messrs Citipoint (Legal Practitioners) to take up the matter. The claimant also stated that on 8th June, 2009 his Solicitors demanded from the defendant the payment of his terminal entitlements in gratuity, pension, NSITF and other contributions and benefit. That by a letter dated 6th July, 2009 the defendant acknowledged the receipt of his Solicitors letter of 8th June, 2009 and promised to give a formal response to his demand for payment of his terminal benefits within two weeks. The claimant pleaded that on 31st August, 2009 his Solicitors again wrote to the defendant reminding it of his outstanding terminal benefits. That the defendant failed to respond to his Solicitors letters until the 13th September, 2009 when the defendant wrote claiming that a review of her records showed that the terminal benefit cheque for the sum of N2,651,067.50 had purportedly been issued in his favour since 26th October, 2007. That he found the defendant’s contention not only incredible but also an afterthought but since he was determined to put the matter to an amicable end he instructed his Solicitors who by its letter dated 30th September, 2009 requesting for the breakdown of the sum of N2,651,067.50 purportedly as his terminal benefit. That the defendant did not deem it fit to respond to his Solicitors letter until it received another letter from his Solicitors dated 10th November, 2009. That the defendant by its letter dated 16th November, 2009 tried unsuccessfully to rationalize its action of gross deceit and willful breach of contract of his employment. He added that his Solicitors wrote letter of 30th November, 2009 and requested the defendant to give further details of the basis for calculating his purported benefits of N2,651,067.50 as it was clear from the defendant’s letter of 16th November, 2009 that the defendant was trying to manipulate the fact to justify its unjustifiable mistreatment to him. The claimant pleaded that the defendant deliberately deceived him when applied to it for re-absorption but was given the option of waiting until the completion of the merger arrangement embarked upon by the defendant only for it to now purportedly claim that he had resigned his employment since 1st December, 2005 when in actual fact he resigned his appointment effective 31st January, 2009. That he was deemed to be in the employment of the defendant until he tendered his resignation with effect from 31st March, 2009. That he was kept in communicado by the defendant for a very long time until he was forced to tender his resignation letter. He averred that by the time he tendered his resignation there has been a serious crisis in the banking sector thereby making it impossible to secure any job in other bank thus putting his banking career in a total jeopardy. That he has suffered untold hardship and deprivation as a result of the defendant’s deceit and acts of willful breach of the agreement between him and the defendant. He thereafter repeated his claim. The defendant responded by admitting paragraphs 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 12 of the Statement of Facts. It pleaded that the claimant after his appointment as a Commissioner in Oyo State notified the defendant of his appointment via a letter dated 24th July, 2003. That it issued the letter dated 12th April, 2005 after several correspondences were received from and on behalf of the claimant appealing for the reinstatement of his salary and medical benefits. That in its letter of 12th June, 2007 it clearly informed the claimant that there was no suitable vacancy in the defendant for him but he may on his own volition elect to wait until after the merger. That in the said letter of 12th June, 2007 it made it expressly clear that the issue of re-absorption of the claimant is subject to the availability of vacancy within the defendant. The defendant stated that it received a letter from the claimant dated 18/6/2008 but vehemently deny receiving from the claimant a letter dated 31st March, 2008. That the claimant’s re-absorption was not left in limbo since the claimant was advised earlier to resign his appointment with the defendant as far back as 2007 because there was no suitably vacancy and in the event that he elects to wait, his re-absorption was subject to availability of suitable vacancy. That the claimant tendered his letter of resignation on the 26th January, 2009 and the defendant could not re-absorb him when no suitable vacancy was available. That on receipt of the claimant’s letter of resignation on 26/1/2009 the defendant had to conduct a comprehensive review of the claimant’s employment status vis-à-vis the claimant’s leave of absence and the already effected stoppage of his remuneration package with effect from 1/1/2006 as well as the need to enable it compute and effect payment of the claimant’s terminal benefits. The defendant admitted paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Statement of Facts only to the extent that it received and issued correspondences referred in those paragraphs and nothing more. The defendant denies the averments in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Statement of Facts and states that it neither acted in gross deceit, willful breach of the claimant’s contract of employment nor did it unjustifiably mistreat the claimant in any manner whatsoever. It denies the receipt of the claimant’s Solicitors letter dated 30/11/2009 and states that it only received a letter from the claimant’s Solicitors dated 10/11/2009. The defendant denies paragraphs 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the Statement of Facts and states that the defendant’s letter dated 11/7/2003 expressly made it clear that the claimant had been granted “leave of absence” with the option to apply for re-absorption. That there was no obligation in the defendant to re-absorb the claimant into its employment on expiration of the claimant’s leave of absence which the claimant willfully embarked upon as the issue of re-absorption of the claimant was subject to availability of suitable vacancy upon the claimant’s application. That the claimant was not forced to resign from employment which employment was put on hold from the date of the claimant proceeded on his leave of absence fully accepting the terms and conditions attached to the leave of absence. That the claimant was never kept in communicado as there was communication between the parties. That the claimant’s letter of resignation specifically stated that the claimant resigned his employment with effect from 31st January, 2009 and not 31st March, 2009. The defendant continued that the claimant’s appointment technically ended since 2005 when his salaries and other emoluments were stopped by the defendant and conclusively ended when the claimant tendered his resignation. That the claimant’s re-absorption which was subject to availability of suitable vacancy was solely at the discretion of the defendant. That the defendant never put the claimant’s banking career in jeopardy. That upon advising the claimant in June, 2007 that no suitable vacancy existed for his re-absorption, the claimant rather than look elsewhere for employment sat back and elected of his own freewill to wait indefinitely pending when a suitable vacancy would be available. The defendant pleaded that the suggestion in its letter of 12/06/2007 does not and cannot be said to constitute an agreement between the claimant and the defendant to re-absorb the claimant. The claimant is not entitled to damages or to the sum being claimed therein as the defendant did not and has not breached any agreement between the claimant and the defendant in relation to the claimant’s employment with the defendant. It finally urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s suit in its entirety with substantial cost. Trial in this suit commenced on 29th April, 2013. The claimant gave his evidence-in-chief as CW1. He adopted his statement on oath as well as the documents attached thereto as his evidence in this suit. The documents were admitted and marked Exhibits A1 – A19. The statements on oath are in all fours with the statement of facts and will not be repeated. Under cross-examination, the CW1 admitted that he left the defendant sometime in 2003 and in 2007 made application for absorption. That after the request for absorption was made there was no response prompting him to make several visits to the Human Resources Department of the defendant. That the defendant wrote a letter to him that the defendant was undergoing some merger process and was asked to pick an option to resign or wait until the merger process was completed. That he thereafter wrote to the defendant choosing to wait until the merger process is completed. That to his knowledge his absorption was not subject to any condition. CW1 admitted that according to the letter his re-absorption was subject to availability of vacancy in the defendant bank. That he does not know of any document before the court to show an obligation on the defendant to re-absorb him. He stated that he was not offered his terminal benefits. That he asked his lawyers to demand for his terminal benefits. That he was on leave of absence for four years and that he was paid at certain periods of his leave of absence between 2004 to 2005 which was later stopped. That during his leave of absence he was no longer working for the defendant but he was being paid. That his option to wait after the merger process was purely on his own volition. There was no re-examination. The claimant closed his case. The defendant opened its defence by calling one Adeniyi Adebayo to testify on its behalf as DW1. He equally adopted his written statement on oath made on 25/1/2013 as his evidence-in-chief. The said statement on oath is in all fours with the statement of defence and will not be repeated. During cross-examination, DW1 stated that the claimant was granted leave of absence by the Defunct Chartered Bank Plc and the claimant wrote to be reabsorbed but did not know the response at the time. That he did not know exactly what was done at that time. That the claimant after one year wrote to be reabsorbed but the claimant was given option to wait if there is a suitable vacancy but he elected to wait. DW1 stated that the claimant wrote after the merger for re-absorption. He added that the defendant did not put the claimant in limbo over his re-absorption for about three years. That the defendant did not jeopardize the claimant’s banking career and that the defendant did write to the claimant. He continued that the claimant’s counsel wrote to the defendant and the defendant responded to the letter. That the cheque for the claimant’s payment was dated 2007. There was no re-examination. The defendant closed its case. Thereafter the parties were ordered to file their respective Final Written Addresses in accordance with Order 19 Rule 13 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007 starting with the defendant. The defendant’s Final Written Address is dated and filed on 19/11/2013, while that of the claimant is dated 20th January, 2014. Learned Counsel for the defendant formulated lone issue for determination, that is: “Whether the content of the defendant’s letter dated 12th June, 2007 can be construed as a binding agreement between the claimant and the defendant and whether the defendant’s conduct can be said to be in breach of the alleged contract.” Learned Counsel submitted that it is trite that he who asserts has the burden of proving those assertions and proof must be by credible evidence. He relied on the case of Sokwo v. Kpongbo [2008] 7 NWLR (pt. 1086) p. 342. That it behooves on the claimant in this suit to bring credible evidence which the court can rely on. He referred to the claimant’s documents listed as Exhibits A6, A8 and A10 and submitted that the said documents are worthless as evidential value being that the said letters are unsigned and cannot be shown to have been sent to or received by the defendant. On the propriety of unsigned documents counsel referred to the case of Faro Bottling Company v. Osugi [2002] 1 NWLR (pt. 748) p. 311, A.G Kwara State v. Alao [2002] 9 NWLR (pt. 671) p. 84. He submitted that the claimant blindly misconstrued the purport of the defendant’s letter dated 12th June, 2007 as contained in paragraph 10 of the statement of facts. That the law is that documents speak for themselves. He contended that from the said letter it is clear that the options given to the claimant were to resign his appointment or to contact the bank after the merger should there be availability of suitable vacancy. That the defendant never suggested to the claimant to wait indefinitely, as the claimant testified under cross-examination that he waited at his own volition neither did the defendant make any promise of re-absorption to the claimant. That the re-absorption of the claimant was at all material times made subject to availability of suitable vacancy and it was clearly stated to the claimant. He referred to paragraph 4 of Exhibit A10 and paragraph 2 of Exhibit A11 to show that the defendant had constant correspondence with the claimant contrary to the contention of the claimant. That the claimant had been advised severally by letter and through the phone on the non availability of suitable vacancy within defendant. He submitted that the allegation by the claimant that the defendant left the issue of the claimant’s re-absorption in limbo is completely false as there was constant communication between him and the defendant all through the material period. On the allegation of the claimant that the defendant held on to the claimant’s cheque for his entitlements for a long time he argued that the issue has been resolved by the defendant’s letter dated 16th November, 2009 (Exhibit A18) wherein the defendant clearly explained the circumstances surrounding the claimant’s cheque and that the document speaks for itself and urged the court to hold that the circumstances of the claimant’s cheque cannot amount to a breach of agreement. That the only agreement between the claimant and the defendant was that upon the claimant’s exit he would be entitled to his entitlements and same was satisfied by the defendant and the issue of delay in receiving the cheque, if any, was occasioned by the claimant’s own actions. On the claim for general damages in the sum of N50,000,000.00 Learned Counsel submitted that the claimant has failed to bring material before the court to show the terms of his contract of employment which was allegedly breach. He submitted that this is fatal to the claimant’s case and relied on the case of Amodu v. Amode [1009] 5 NWLR (pt. 150) p. 35 (incorrect citation). Learned Counsel argued that from the reliefs of the claimant which is general damages, the court cannot grant any other form of relief where same is not sought. That the purport of general damages are those damages that the law will presume to be the direct natural or probable consequence of the act complained of. That from the facts of the case, the defendant has proved that it is guilty of any acts that could warrant the grant of general damages. He urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s claim same being frivolous, gold digging and bereft of any proof. Learned Counsel for the claimant raised two issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether there was a subsisting contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant until the 31st January, 2009 when the claimant was forced to tender his letter of resignation; 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to damages as claimed in his Complaint and Statement of Facts. Arguing issue one, Learned Counsel submitted that a contract is an agreement between two or more parties which creates reciprocal legal obligations to do a particular thing and for a contract to be formed, there must be a mutuality of purpose and intention. He relied on the case of Orient Bank (Nig) Plc v. Bilante Int. Ltd [1992] 8 NWLR 37 at 76 (incomplete citation). That the right to terminate a contract of employment by parties is either provided for in the contract or read into the contract if omitted. He relied on the case of Ladipo v. Chevron Nig. Ltd [2005] All FWLR (pt. 260) p. 133. That where one party absolutely refused to perform his part of the contract he puts it in the power of the other party to sue for a breach of contract as in this case. Counsel reiterated the facts leading to the resignation of the claimant and referred the court to the Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Edition by Bryan Garner at page 910 where Leave of Absence is defined as a worker’s temporary absence from employment or duty with the intention to return. He added that salary and seniority are typically unaffected by a leave of absence. That a leave of absence can be defined as the time allowed away from work generally requested by an employee to cover unusual circumstances occurring in employee’s life. That the most important component of a leave of absence is that the employee’s employment continues during the leave of absence. That the fact that the claimant’s remuneration was suspended with effect from 1st January, 2006 did not affect the status of the claimant as an employee of the defendant. He urged the court to hold that the claimant’s employment subsists with the defendant’s bank until the 29th January, 2009 when out of frustration the claimant was forced to tender his resignation. On issue two, Learned Counsel argued that the claimant was deemed in the employment of the defendant until he tendered his resignation with effect from 31st March, 2009. That the claimant established that he was kept in communicado by the defendant for a very long time until he was forced to tender his letter of resignation. That the claimant also gave uncontroverted evidence that by the time he tendered his resignation there has been a serious crisis in the banking sector thereby making it impossible for him to secure any other job in other bank thus putting his career in total jeopardy. That the defendant’s letter of 12th June, 2007 which stated that the claimant could only be re-absorbed should vacancy become available is in total breach of the claimant’s contract of employment. That it is not stated in the Exhibit A2 granting leave of absence to the claimant that his re-absorption is subject to availability of vacancy as all that was expected of the claimant was to apply for re-absorption. Learned Counsel further submitted that the claim of the defendant that a cheque had since been issued in favour of the claimant as far back as October, 2007 is a blatant lie and highly unbecoming of a good corporate citizen. That the lie of the defendant became obvious when it wrote a letter dated 16th November, 2009. He highlighted the said lies as follows: (i) That it was never a condition that the claimant’s re-absorption would be based on availability of vacancy at the bank’s sole discretion contrary to the assertion of the defendant in paragraph 1 of the said letter. (ii) That the claimant applied for re-absorption on 15th May, 2006 and not on 1st June, 2007 as asserted in paragraph 4 of letter 16/11/09. (iii) That the defendant never formally declined the claimant’s application for re-absorption on the ground that there was no suitable vacancy but he was asked to wait till conclusion of the merger discussions. (iv) That the claimant was deemed to be in the employment of the defendant until the 29th January, 2009 when he tendered his resignation and not until the 31st December, 2005 as contained in 5 of the letter of 16/11/09. (v) That the attention of the claimant was never brought to the existence of a cheque for the payment of his terminal benefit until after 13th September, 2009. (vi) That the claimant’s lawyer wrote a letter dated 30/9/09 demanding a breakdown of the sum of N2,651,067.50 as the claimant’s terminal benefits but the defendant did not accede to this request contrary to the assertion contained in paragraph 5 of letter of 16/11/09 that a schedule containing the breakdown was attached to it. Counsel submitted that from the evidence available that the defendant deliberately put the claimant through hardship and deprivation not withstanding his long period of productive service to the defendant since 1993. He submitted that the defendant had an undisclosed ulterior motive in all his dealings with the claimant. That the assertion of the defendant that the claimant had exited the bank since he was granted leave of absence has no legal basis. That the defendant misconstrued the essence of a leave of absence as an employee granted leave of absence is deemed to continue in his employment during his leave of absence. On the claim for damages, Learned Counsel submitted that it is the law that the object of award of damages for breach of contract is to put the claimant in the position he would have been if the contract had been satisfactorily performed. He relied on the case of Agbanelo v. UBN [2000] 4 SC (pt. 1) p. 234. He added that the claimant was reluctant to take up the appointment as a commission but was encouraged by the defendant to take up the appointment because of the strategic importance of that position to the growth of the defendant. He further submitted that damages accrue from a wrongful act or conduct of a defendant and that damages are a form of financial reward for a claimant who has suffered a wrong caused or precipitated by the defendant. That the claimant gave evidence that he suffered untold hardship and deprivation as a result of the defendant deceit and willful breach which put his banking career in total jeopardy. Counsel further submitted that the damages being claimed by the claimant flow naturally from the breach of the defendant. That the claimant had placed evidence before the court that his annual remuneration as at 29th January, 2009 was N5,746,926.00. That the claimant also contested the amount offered to him as terminal benefits. That it is not out of place for the claimant to claim the sum of N50,000,000.00 as general damages and he urged the court to so hold. I have carefully considered the processes filed by the parties, the submissions of the parties and the authorities relied upon in support. In my view, the issue for determination is whether the claimant is entitled to damages as claimed in this suit. The claimant in this suit was a staff of Chartered Bank Limited and rose to the position of Zonal Coordinator, Western Zone and worked last at Dugbe Branch, Ibadan. The claimant was appointed a Commissioner in Oyo State sometime in 2003. Consequently he applied to the then Chartered Bank in a letter dated 24th July, 2003 for a leave of absence for initial period of two years to enable him serve the Oyo State Government while his employment with Chartered Bank subsisted. In a letter dated 11th August, 2003 the said Chartered Bank Plc approved the Claimant’s application for leave of absence with an option to re-apply for re-absorption should the appointment end before the expiration of the leave of absence. The leave of absence was later renewed for another two years. The claimant’s remuneration which was hitherto suspended because of the leave of absence was restored for a while and subsequently stopped by the defendant due to merger talks between the Chartered Bank, IBTC and Regent Bank. At the end of his tenure as a Commissioner, the claimant applied to the defendant for re-absorption but the defendant refused to re-absorb the claimant on the ground that there was no suitable vacancy for him presently and advised him to contact the defendant after its merger discussions or elect to resign his appointment effective 11th August, 2003. The claimant’s further request for re-absorption after the merger was concluded but the defendant refused to reabsorb him hence he resigned his appointment with the Defendant in a letter dated 26th January, 2009 effective from 31st January, 2009. This was after he wrote several letters and reminders to the defendant to no avail. To do justice to this case it is important to reproduce the letter dated 11th August, 2003 approving the claimant’s Leave of Absence. August 11, 2003 Mr. Waheed A. Akanbi c/o Chartered Bank Plc Iwo Road Branch Ibadan Dear Mr. Akanbi, We refer to your application for leave of absence consequent on your appointment to serve as a Commissioner in Oyo State Government and hereby convey management approval of your application with immediate effect. This approval is in line with pages 174, 175 & 176 of HRM Policies and Procedure which deals with leave of absence. You have been granted an initial two years leave of absence with the option to re-apply for re-absorption should you appointment end before the expiration of the leave of absence. That your status including your salary and benefits shall be suspended during the period of the leave of absence. That you repay your outstanding loan within three months from effective date of leave of absence. That you retain the bank’s official car Mitsubishi CZ 872 AAA and Laptop (PC) throughout the duration of leave of absence. We wish you good luck on your appointment. Yours faithfully, Biola Orojo Phyll Osueze Senior Manager Assistant General Manager Human Resources Management Management Services Division According to Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Edition, Leave of Absence is defined as a worker’s temporary absence from employment or duty with the intention to return. Salary and seniority are typically unaffected by a leave of absence. Leave of absence is a type of leave whereby an employee is allowed to absent himself for a period of time without pay but the employment subsists for the period of the leave. Leave of absence does not envisage the end of service. In the circumstances of this case, the claimant was granted leave of absence to enable him serve as a Commissioner in Oyo State with an option for re-absorption in the event that the appointment ended before the expiration of his leave of absence. The claimant was allowed to retain his official car Mitsubishi CZ 872 AAA and Laptop (PC) throughout the duration of leave. The claimant’s full remuneration which was hitherto suspended by virtue of the leave of absence was restored and paid to him within a period of time during the leave period but was subsequently stopped. When the claimant applied for re-absorption he was refused on the ground that no suitable vacancy existed at that time. The defendant in paragraph 6 of its Statement of Defence stated that it made it clear to the claimant in its letter of 12th June, 2007 that the issue of re-absorption of the claimant is subject to the availability of vacancy within the defendant. I have read thoroughly the said letter but the only information contained therein is that there was no suitable vacancy for the claimant at the moment with an advice to contact the bank after the merger talks or resignation with effect from August 11, 2003. Leave of absence granted to the claimant did not state that re-absorption of the claimant is subject to availability of vacancy within the defendant. Leave of absence envisages that the employee is still in the employment of the employer even though he is absent at the moment. In other words, the employee assumes office upon the expiration of the leave of absence as soon as the said employee informs his employer of his or her intention to resume work. The employment of the employee on leave of absence continues during the said period of the leave of absence. I therefore agree with the submission of the claimant that his employment continued during the leave of absence. I hold that the employment of the claimant subsisted with the defendant until the 31st of January, 2009 when he voluntarily resigned. The intention of the parties to a written agreement is to be gathered from the wordings of the agreement to which they set their hands. This evinces the state of law because the literal rule is the primary rule of construction. See Baba v. N.C.A.T.C [1991] 5 NWLR (pt. 192) p.388, Food, Beverage and Tobacco Senior Staff Association FOBTOB v. Association of Food, Beverage and Tobacco Employers (AFBBTE) & Anor [1978 – 2006] Digest of National Industrial Courts (DJNIC) p. 492 at p. 493. It follows that the defendant’s refusal to re-absorb the claimant into its service is a breach of the agreement it had with the claimant. More so, the defendant’s action kept the claimant’s hope alive when his full remuneration package was restored in a letter dated 12th April, 2005 in addition to allowing him retain his official car Mitsubishi CZ 872 AAA and Laptop throughout the duration of leave of absence. The defendant has shown that by restoring the claimant’s salary for sometime is an indication that the claimant’s leave of absence was with pay up to a particular point as the defendant so desired and this in effect means an affirmation that the claimant was still a staff of the defendant while on leave of absence. It is clear from the foregoing that the understanding of the parties in this case ab initio was to re-absorb the claimant at the end of his appointment as Commissioner but the defendant reneged on that understanding. The defendant had an opportunity to refuse the claimant’s application for leave of absence if it knew it will not re-absorb him in the long run. The claimant proceeded on the leave of absence hoping that his employment will be intact. It is also my view that if the claimant knew he will not be re-absorbed by the defendant he would either take up the appointment as a Commissioner in Oyo State without any hope of coming back to the defendant bank or he could have rejected the appointment and continued working for the defendant till retirement or would have chose to resign. The nature of leave of absence is that it is not open to the employer to refuse to re-absorb the employee at the expiration of the leave period granted. Once the employee informs the employer that he is resuming his service, his remuneration begins to run from that date. In the instant case, the claimant by his letter dated 15th May, 2006 applied to be re-absorbed by the defendant which application was refused by the defendant. The claimant’s remuneration began to run on 15th May, 2006 when the claimant applied to be re-absorbed by the defendant and terminated on 31st January, 2009 when the claimant resigned his appointment, a period of 32 months and two weeks. This is so because the claimant indicated his interest to be reabsorbed on 15th May, 2006 which is two weeks to the end of that month. In granting leave of absence by an employer to the employee, there is an obligation to re-absorb such an employee on completion of the period of the said leave of absence or on the employee expressing intention to resume. Re-absorption is therefore automatic and not at the discretion of the employer having granted the leave of absence which the employer had the discretion to refuse when requested. The legal status of an employee on leave of absence is that the said employment is only put on hold during the period of the leave of absence. Leave of absence is not a constructive resignation and is not also a case of an employee walking away from his employment. It is equally not a case of an employee staying away from his employment as the defendant in this case would want the court to believe. I therefore disagree with the submission of the defendant that the defendant had no obligation to reabsorb the claimant. It is my view and I find and hold that the defendant had the obligation to reabsorb the claimant from the date he notified it of his intention to resume from the leave of absence, and I so hold. I also find and hold that at all material time the claimant was on leave of absence, he remained a staff of the defendant and there was no break in the status of his employment as the claimant only suspended his service with the defendant when he went on leave of absence. In the case of Kasimu v. N.N.P.C. [2008] 3 NWLR (pt. 1075) p. 569 which is in all fours with the instant case. In that case the appellant who was a staff of the respondent from 1st July, 1988 was appointed on national assignment as Managing Director of Nigerian Industrial Development Bank (NIDB) on 20th May, 1991. The appellant applied to the Respondent for leave of absence to enable him serve as MD of NIDB and his application was granted. The appellant’s tenure ended as MD of NIDB in 2001 after which he notified the respondent of his intention to return to its service upon completion of his leave of absence. The respondent did not reply and did not re-absorb the appellant. Then by a letter of 18th September, 2001 the appellant retired from the services of the respondent. The respondent responded that the appellant is not entitled to terminal benefits and referred him to N.I.D.B. At this point, the appellant sued the respondent for payment of his terminal benefits from 1988 to 2001 when he retired. The Court of Appeal held that after the completion of the appellant’s leave of absence his employment continued and the appellant was entitled to return to the respondent. That the appellant was entitled to retire from the respondent and to be paid his retirement benefits and entitlements including pension from the respondent for the period of his employment from 1988 to 2001 when he retired. I therefore order that the claimant being entitled to return to the defendant after the cessation of his assignment, it is declared that he is entitled to resume and if he so wish resign or retire from the defendant. The claimant is therefore entitled to be paid his entitlements and terminal benefits including pensions if any from the period he was with the defendant. From the conduct of the defendant in this scenario, it is clear that it intends and has shown its intention to determine the employment relationship with the claimant. In that wise I therefore hold that the claimant’s employment with the defendant is determined on the date the claimant indicated his intention to resign from the defendant which is 31st January, 2009. I therefore find and hold that the claimant’s employment with the defendant was determined on 31st January, 2009. In view of my finding above, I hold that this is therefore an appropriate case where this court can award damages in favour of the claimant. I hereby award in favour of the claimant as damages his salary from 15th May, 2006 to 31st January, 2009, which is thirty two months and two weeks salary for the failure of the defendant to re-absorb him at the expiration of his appointment as Commissioner in Oyo State. According to the defendant’s letter dated 12th April, 2005 when it restored the claimant’s full remuneration, the claimant’s remuneration per annum is N5,746,926.00 which if divided by 12 months will amount to N478,910.00 per month. The claimant is therefore entitled to the sum of N15,564,591.25 (Fifteen Million, Five Hundred and Sixty Four Thousand, Five Hundred and Ninety One Naira, Twenty Five Kobo) representing his salary from 15th May, 2006 to 31st January, 2009 as damages. The defendant is hereby ordered to pay the claimant the sum of N15,564,591.25 (Fifteen Million, Five Hundred and Sixty Four Thousand, Five Hundred and Ninety One Naira, Twenty Five Kobo). The defendant is also to pay N100,000.00 cost to the claimant. The said order is to be complied with within 30 days from the date of this Judgment and failing which the said Judgment will attract 10% interest monthly until it is finally liquidated. Judgment is entered accordingly. …………………………………… Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu Fishim Presiding Judge