Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE OYEWUMI. OYEBIOLA .O DATED 17th OF FEBRUARY, 2015 SUIT NO: NICN/LA/439/2013 BTWEEN: SYLVESTER AZUKA EGWUATU - CLAIMANT AND DIAMOND BANK PLC - DEFENDANT REPRESENTION- Dan Okoye for the claimant Eyitayo Ogunnubi with him is Tope Fadahunsi for the defendant JUDGMENT It is the case of the claimant that he was employed as a Banking officer by the defendant's bank in October 2005. His appointment was confirmed after six months of working with the defendant. He averred that on April 29, 2008 he was promoted to Senior Banking Officer Grade with effect from May 1st, 2008. Claimant traversed that he was a Business Development Manager of the defendant bank BBA2 Branch Lagos from October, 2008 to June 1st 2012. That whilst he was that position, he increased the balance sheet and the profit of the Branch as the bank was operating at a loss. Claimant stated that on or about the 1st of June, 2012, the management instructed him to tender his resignation letter on the understanding that his terminal benefits will be paid to him and this he wrote by hand on the same day. On the 9th of June, 2012 he received his letter of resignation from the defendant Bank. Continuing he stated further that his last basic salary was N109,856.78 (One Hundred and Nine Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifty-Six Naira, Seventy Eight kobo) and the defendant credited the sum of N2, 577,826.59(Two million Five Hundred and Seventy Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Twenty and Six Naira, Fifty Nine Kobo) as his terminal benefits. That upon forced retirement from the defendant’s bank, the sum of N18,780,684.86 (Eighteen Million, Seven Hundred and Eighty Thousand, Six Hundred and Eighty Four Naira, Eighty six Kobo) was debited from his account by the defendant representing loans he officially gave to customers. Claimant averred that the loans were officially applied for by the customers and same were duly processed and approved by the bank. That he did not guarantee the said loans and some of the customers have repaid the loans. Claimant averred that pursuant to his forced resignation by the defendant, the sum of N1,099,163.26 (One Million Ninety–Nine Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Three Naira Twenty Six kobo) was deducted from his salary as penalty for loans officially approved by the Management to the customers. He went on that he did not receive any money out of the sum of N2, 577,826.59(Two million Five Hundred and Seventy Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Twenty and Six Naira, Fifty Nine Kobo) as his terminal benefit. Claimant averred that he has paid the sum of N499,745.32 leaving a sum of N545,394.28 in respect of the HCM share staff loan compulsorily given to him for the purchase of shares while in the employment of the defendant. That his share certificates are still in the possession of the defendant and his gratuity has not been paid to him after working for seven years with the defendant. Claimant continued that he instructed his lawyer to make a formal demand to the defendant vide a letter dated 27th July, 2012 but same was not replied to by the defendant. A reminder was written by claimant’s solicitors vide a letter dated 10th September, 2012 but defendant refused to reply same. That his salary account was further debited with the sum of N3,078,360 from June, 2012 to 31st of May, 2013 and the defendant has willfully refused to pay his outstanding salary, entitlements and refund monies deducted from his salary account. It is premised on these facts that claimant on the 14th of August, 2013, filed against the defendant the following reliefs; a. The sum of N4,945,734.63 (Four Million Nine Hundred and Forty Five Thousand, Seven Hundred and Thirty Four Naira, Sixth Three Kobo) as payment for the claimant’s unpaid entitlement, other emoluments and money unlawfully deducted from the salary and other entitlements of the claimant whilst in the employment of the defendant. PARTICULARS OF ENTITLEMENT Terminal benefits as determined by the defendant = N 2,577,826.59 Gratuity Gratuity is calculated by multiplying the last salary earned by the number of years of service N109,856.78 * 7 = N768,999.46 Money unlawfully deducted from the claimant’s salary and other entitlements as penalty for approved loans officially given to customers of the defendant but not repaid by the said customers as at 31/05/2012 = N 1,099,163 Money deducted from the claimant’s salary and other entitlement as repayment for the purchase of the defendant’s shares = N499,745.32 Total entitlement =N 4,945, 734.63 b. A DECLARATION that the decision of the defendant to compel the claimant to pay for loans officially applied for, approved and disbursed to the following customers of the defendant; Filthon Unity Int’l Ltd; Hero Dennis Investment Ltd and Ahijo Global Link Nigeria Ltd is illegal, unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. c. AN ORDER directing the defendant to reverse all unlawful debit entries in the claimant’s salary account number 0003876847 (old account number 0162030024963) with regards to the approved loans given to the following companies; Filthon Unity Int’l Ltd.; Hero Dennis Investment Ltd and Ahijo Global Link Nigeria Ltd and officially disbursed to them. d. GENERAL DAMAGES The sum of N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) as General Damages for the claimant’s unpaid salary, entitlements and unlawful deductions from his salary and terminal benefits. e. Interest on the above sum of the rate of 20% per annum from 2012 until judgment and thereafter at the rate of 10% per annum until the debt is fully liquidated. f. Cost of this action. During trial, the claimant testified for himself as CW and tendered documents which were admitted and marked as Exhibits SA1-SA9 The defendant on the other hand traversed that the clamant as its Business Development Manager initiated several loans facilities which are yet to be repaid and most of these resulted into loss on the part of the defendant. That the claimant voluntarily resigned his appointment from the services of the defendant on the 1st of June, 2012 and on the 9th of June 2012, the defendant informed the claimant of his benefits as well as his outstanding indebtedness to the defendant. Upon such information, the sum of N2, 577,826 was credited to the claimant’s account and the sum of N21, 253,547.94 which represents the claimant’s indebtedness, personal commercial loans, share loans and disciplinary loans were debited from his account. Defendant in response to claimant’s paragraph 14 and 15 of his claim stated that the claimant was the initiator of the loan facility granted to Filthon Unity International Limited; Hero Denis Investment Limited and Ahijo Global Link Nigeria as he processed and got approval for the said loan. That the claimant is in the know of the Policy of the defendant that an initiator of an overdraft must recover same within 30 days failing which will attract penalties against the initiator and the regional manager of the defendant. The claimant was unable to recover the said loan granted to the customers as stated in the policy. That only Hero Denis Investment Limited has fully repaid its debt and the sum of N9,222,262.02 initially debited from the claimant’s account was credited back to him on the 25th of June, 2012. The defendant averred that the claimant bought 60,000 units of Diamond Bank shares on the 30th June 2010 and 93,697 units of Diamond Bank shares on January 14, 2011 with a loan obtained from the bank and such loan has not been fully liquidated by the claimant. That the claimant is duly aware and as stated in its Long service Gratuity Award, 2008 that the defendant does not pay gratuity and in response to paragraph 26 of the claimant’s claim defendant stated that claimant’s account is charged with debit interest as a result of the outstanding indebtedness in the claimant’s account. The defendant stated that the claimant’s has no claim against it as his claims are frivolous and lacks merit and urged the court to dismiss same with cost in favour of the defendant. During trial, the Defendant testified through its Senior Banking Manager and tendered documents which were admitted and marked as Exhibits PM1-PM4. The claimant on the 11th of December, 2013 filed a reply to defendant statement of defence wherein he submitted that his resignation was forced and humiliating as the management of the defendant on or about June, 2012 instructed him to tender a letter of resignation with the understanding that his terminal benefits will be paid to him. That in calculating his terminal benefits, the sum of N109,856.78 representing his one month salary in lieu of notice was included. Claimant denies that he was the initiator of the temporary loan facility granted Filthon Unity International Limited; Hero Denis Investment Limited and Ahijo Global Link Nigeria. That he was not aware of any policy of the defendant stating that the initiator of an overdraft facility must recover same within the maximum period of 30 days failing which will attract penalties against the initiator and the regional manager of the defendant and also not aware that the defendant bank does not pay gratuity and he has been paid gratuity. Claimant averred that the sum of N115,786.62 deducted by the defendant from his salary has not been credited to his account. Claimant further averred that the HCM share staff loan was forced on him. That the letters written by solicitors to the defendant were practically ignored by the defendant bank. That he is indebted to the bank. Claimant urge the court to hold that the case of the defendant is baseless, misconceived and same should be dismissed by the court with cost. The defendant on the 1st of July, 2014 filed its written address wherein he raised two issues for the court’s determination; 1. Whether the defendant was right to have terminated the employment or appointment of the claimant in line with the contract of employment between both parties. 2. If the above question is in the affirmative whether the claimant is entitled to gratuity and damages in the circumstances. On issue one, counsel stated that the defence acted in accordance with the contract of employment and the claimant is not alleging that his employment was wrongfully terminated. He cited the case of KATTO V CBN [2001] FWLR (PT.53) 188 AT 201. Counsel urged the court not to travel outside the contract of employment of the parties in deciding this suit. Counsel also stated that the claimant upon his retirement from the services of the defendant was duly paid his one month salary in lieu of notice. Counsel argued that the defendant can terminate the contract of service between it and the claimant in accordance with the contract of employment and having paid the claimant his salary in lieu of notice, he cannot claim that his resignation was inappropriate. He cited the case of GARUBA V KWARA INVESTMENT CO LTD [2005] ALL FWLR (PT. 252) 469 AT 481 PARAGRAPH F-G. Counsel submitted that the claimant was duly paid his terminal benefit thus his contract of employment was so terminated in accordance with the contract of employment. Counsel urged the court to so hold and also hold that the claimant’s claims against it is misconceived. On issue two, counsel submitted that claimant would only be entitled to damages where such a claimant is able to establish wrongful termination of his employment. He cited in support the case of GARUBA V KWARA INVESTMENT CO LTD supra. He stated that the award of general damages should be awarded on the basis of legal evidence adduced to establish a fact and not out of sympathy. BRIG. GEN ADEKUNLE (RTD) V. ROCKVIEW HOTEL LTD [2004] FWLR (PT. 188) 1037 AT 1049. Counsel urged the Court to discountenance the claim of N20 million Naira as general damages by the claimant. Counsel contended that Exhibit PM2 was written to the claimant by the defendant stating his terminal benefits in the sum of N2,557,826.59 as well as his indebtedness in the sum of N18,675,721.35 which claimant is yet to pay. Counsel submitted that it is not in dispute that the claimant took loan facilities from the defendant and that he purchased 60,000 unit of Diamond Bank shares on the 30th June, 2010 and another 93,677 units of Diamond bank shares in line with Exhibit SA1 which he is yet to pay having benefited from the dividend thereon. Counsel submitted that Clause 14 of Exhibit PM4 provides thus; “The initiator of a temporary overdraft (TOD) must recover the overdraft within maximum tenor of 30days.Where this not achieved, a grace period of 30days shall be given to the initiator to recover that entire amount outstanding on the TOD. At the expiration of the grace period, the initiator and the Regional manager shall be sanctioned in the ration 60:40 on the outstanding balance on the expired TOD. The corresponding amount of the debits shall be warehoused in a TOD suspense account. Reversal of any amount sanctioned on TOD shall only be made based on recoveries made.” That the claimant was the branch manager (Business Development Manager) at the relevant time. The claimant confirmed during trial that he made recommendation and got approval of the TOD granted to Filthon Unity Int’l; Hero Denis Investment Limited and Ahijo Global Link and likewise aware of Exhibit PM4 and thus conceded to the act of the defendant debiting his account to liquidate the debt owed by the said companies. Counsel submitted that the claimant is not qualified to claim gratuity or pension since his appointment was mutually terminated and the only evidence of the claimant in respect of any benefits is Exhibit SA1 which does not include any gratuity which is given willingly by an employer as a reward for loyalty and excellence performance and not under obligation. He cited in support the case of OJEH V CAC [2010] ALL FWLR (PT. 542) 1723 PARAGRAPH A. The defendant urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s claims as lacking in merit. The claimant on the 15th of October, 2014 filed his written address wherein it framed four issues for the court’s determination. 1. Whether the defendant can legally and justifiably deduct sums of money being loans officially approved and disbursed to customers of the Bank from the claimant’s salary and terminal benefits. 2. Whether the defendant can legally and justifiably grant salary advance /loans to the claimant for the purchase of its shares and deduct same en bloc from the claimant’s terminal benefits. 3. Whether it is fair, just and equitable for the defendant to force the claimant to resign his appointment and refuse to pay his gratuity after working with the defendant for seven years. 4. Whether the claimant is entitled to damages in the circumstances. On issue one, counsel submitted that it is not in contention that the defendant deducted the sum of N1,099,163.26 from the claimant’s salary as penalty for loans officially approved by the management of the bank to its customers. The defendant also admitted that it debited the salary account of the claimant in the sum of N18,780,684.86 as disciplinary. TOD counsel cited Section 5(1) of the Labour Act, Cap L1 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria; FIDELITY BANK PLC V MONYE &2 ORS [2012] VOL 2-3 MJSC PP 182 Continuing counsel submitted that claimant never initiated the loan transaction as the procedure of obtaining a loan is stated in Exhibit PM4 which was not signed by the claimant and not a product of a collective agreement by the management and staff of the defendant. That by Exhibit PM4, the claimant’s role as the Business Manager is to “ensure that customer provides relevant documentation for TOD request.” That a careful perusal of Exhibit PM4, it is dated September 16, 2013 whilst the claimant left the employment of the defendant on June 01 2012, thus it can be deduced that Exhibit PM4 was prepared in the course of this suit. Counsel submitted that under cross examination, DW1stated that the Regional Manager was debited with 40% of the loan amount in line with clause 14 of PM4. However, it is evident from the Approval form that Filthon unity int’l ltd that the customer took a loan of N5m and according to Exhibit PM2 the claimant’s salary account was debited with the sum of N4, 663,691.42 which translates to 93.3% as against 60% as stated in exhibit PM4. He also stated that the sum of N119,581.84 had earlier been deducted from the claimant’s salary account and this further deduction translate to 95.67% of the amount. Counsel submitted that DW1 in paragraph 7 of his witness statement on oath stated that the claimant voluntarily resigned his appointment from the defendant on the 1st of June, 2012 and under cross examination he stated that the claimant “was advised to resign if he cannot improve because his performance was not good” thus the credibility of the defendant is in doubt as it was conspicuously impeached during cross examination. He cited in support the case of ADEPODU AYANWALE &ORS V BABALOLA ATANDA [1988] 1 NWLR (PT. 68) PG.22 and SECTION 233 (C) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, 2011. Claimant’s counsel finally submitted that claimant was neither queried nor found guilty of connivance with the defaulting customers by the defendant. That the act of debiting the claimant salary account and his terminal benefit is unjust and morally reprehensible. He urged the court to so hold and find the defendant liable in damages. On issue two, counsel stated that claimant was compulsorily given loans for the purchase of shares of the defendant. He cited Section 4(1) of the Labour Act which provides that; “No employer may make a worker an advance of wages in excess of one month wages”. Counsel submitted that the loan granted by the defendant to the claimant is higher than claimant’s one month salary. Continuing, counsel submitted that in January 14, 2011 the defendant foisted upon the claimant a further loan to the claimant when he had not fully repaid the loan and in breach of Sections 4(3), (4) and 5(9) of the Labour Act. Therefore the deduction of the loans foisted upon the claimant by the defendant is a clear violation of the law. He urged the court to so find. On issue three, counsel submitted that by provisions of the PENSION REFORM ACT, CAP 4 LAWS OF THE FEDERATION OF NIGERIA, 2004 employers are inclined to pay gratuity to its employee who had worked for over five years and same is obtainable in the banking industry. That the failure of defendant to pay claimant its gratuity after his forced resignation is unfair. On issue four counsel submitted that from the pleadings and evidence of CW1 and DW1, the defendant breached the provisions of Sections 5(1) and (7) and 4 (1) – (4) of the Labour Act and consequently liable in damages. That the illegal deduction made from the salary account of the claimant resulted in the huge debit balance thus the defendant ought to be liable in damages. Counsel also submitted that claimant is entitled to the sum of N20,000,000.00 as damages as he was forcefully asked to resign and was sent away without a kobo. That he is also entitled to the interest accruable on all illegal deductions made from his salary account and his terminal benefits. He cited the case of EKWUNIFE V WAYNE (W/A) LTD [1989] 5 NWLR (PT. 122)422 AT P. 445, PARA C. Counsel urged the court to grant in claimant’s favour all reliefs sought. The defendant on the 22nd day of October, 2014, filed his reply on points of law in response to claimant’s submission in his written address. Defence counsel in response to issue one of the claimant’s written submission, submitted that it is misconceived as the Section 5 (1) of the Labour Act deals with deduction from the monthly wages of a worker as punishment for an infraction or otherwise in the course of the worker's employment and does not apply to deductions from terminal benefits of an employee whose relationship with the company has ceased for debts owing to the company while in its employment. That it is also trite law that where the provisions are clear and unambiguous, effect must be given to them in their plain and ordinary meaning without the court resorting to any aid internal or external. He cited the case of BRONIK MOTORS V. WEMA BANK (1983) 1 SCNLR 296; AWOLOWO V. SHAGARI (1979) 3 SC 45 Continuing counsel submitted that the sum of N2,577,826, 59 deducted from the claimant's terminal benefit are in relation to the personal loans obtained by the Claimant from unearned rent to HCM staff share loan as reflected in Exhibit PM2 and not penalty or fine for loans obtained by third parties termed as Disciplinary TOD. Thus Paragraph 6.4 of the claimant's final address is thus misleading as the sum of N18,7.80,684.86 does not represent "Disciplinary TOD" as claimed by the Claimant but also includes personal loans obtained by the claimant and an employer is entitled to deduct from an employee's final entitlements any and all moneys owing to the Employer and is not a contravention of section 5 (1) of the Labour Act. Counsel stated that claimant in his address is in one breath asking this Court to treat Exhibit PM4 as inadmissible while also seeking to rely on the same document. Counsel submitted that this amounts to an approbation and reprobation and urged the Court to discountenance the argument Claimant's counsel and same as blowing hot and cold. He cited the case of UDE V NWARA (1993) 2 NWLR (PT. 278) 638 @ 662 PARA G-H. Counsel submitted further that the date on the face of Exhibit PM4 was the date the document was printed out of a computer and not the date when it was "manufactured" as alleged by the claimant who under cross-examination did not deny the existence of policies in Exhibit PM4 as it is trite law that relevancy is the basis for admissibility Section 7 (a) of the Evidence Act, 2011 states that facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact is relevant. Therefore, clause 14 of Exhibit PM4 is relevant for proper determination of this case and he urge the court to so hold. Defence counsel maintains that the only evidence available to this court in respect of how the claimant was disengaged from the Defendant's employment is Exhibit PM1 and contended that Exhibit PM1 does not constitute a "forced resignation" but assuming the Defendant truly advised the claimant to resign his appointment as emphasized by the claimant's in his final submission, the Defendant still acted within the purview of the law. He cited the case of UNION BANK OF NIGERIA V. NWACHUKWU [2000] FWLR (PT.6) 986@994 PARAGRAPH G Counsel urged the court to discountenance the argument of the Claimant that the Defendant forced the claimant to resign In response to claimant’s issue two in his written submission defence counsel submitted that Section 4 (1) of the Labour Act (Supra) cited by counsel is inapplicable and irrelevant as the said section clearly deals with and applies to salary advance and not grant of loans. Counsel urged the court to discountenance the argument of the Claimant as the Claimant has benefited from the various loans availed to him and the share certificates are in the custody of the Claimant and the Claimant is yet to pay up his outstanding debt to the Defendant On claimant’s issue, three defence counsel stated that claimant's Counsel has submitted in his final address that notwithstanding the provisions of the Pension Act, Cap 4 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, that it is the convention for employers to pay gratuity to employees who had worked for the employee. He submitted that convention cannot override or supersede the law as narrowly submitted by the claimant counsel. Defence counsel cited the Court of Appeal in the case of OJEH V. CAC (2010) ALL FWLR (PT.542) 1723 @ 738 PARAGRAPH F that "The Pension Act, Cap.4 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 introduces the act as one to consolidate all enactments dealing with pensions, benefits and gratuity. The Act is restricted to officers that have validly retired. Sections 1 and 3 deal with computation of pension and gratuity to any person on retirement. Section 4 provided for statutory age of retirement, section 5 and 6 deals with claims of dead and officers killed in the course of duty. In the entire provisions in the Pension Act, there is no reference to an officer whose appointment was terminated.” Counsel submitted that anything outside the parties' agreement or the Pension Act in respect of gratuity is not relevant or applicable including convention as canvassed by the Claimant. On issue 4 of the claimant’s final address, defendant emphasized that the claimant’s case is not that of wrongful termination or dismissal of employment as the Claimant did not make such a claim against the Defendant because the Defendant terminated the contract in accordance with clause 3 of Exhibit SA1 hence he is not entitled to remedy in damages as damages is only available for an employee who was wrongly terminated or dismissed and the measure of such damages is always the salaries for the length of time during which the notice of termination could have been given in accordance with the contract of employment. He cited in support the case of UNION BANK OF NIGERIA V. NWACHUKWU (SUPRA) @ 995 PARAGRAPH F-G. Counsel urged the court to dismiss this suit in its entirety. I have carefully gone through the processes filed by parties and equally reviewed the evidence adduced by parties, it is in the calm view of the court that the issues begging for the verdict of this court is whether the claimant has substantiated his case to be entitled to reliefs sought. It is the contention of the claimant that he was employed as a Banking officer by the defendant bank in October 2005 and his appointment was confirmed after six months of working with the defendant. That he was a Business Development Manager of the defendant bank BBA2 Branch Lagos from October, 2008 to June 1st 2012 until on or about the 1st of June, 2012, the management instructed him to tender his resignation letter on the understanding that his terminal benefits will be paid to him and this he wrote by hand on the same day. On the 9th of June, 2012 he received his letter of resignation from the defendant Bank. The defendant on other hand averred that the claimant voluntarily resigned his appointment from the services of the defendant on the 1st of June, 2012 and on the 9th of June 2012, the defendant informed the claimant of his benefits as well as his outstanding indebtedness to the defendant. Upon such information, the sum of N2, 577,826 was credited to the claimant’s account. It is the kernel of the claimant's claim that the defendant had failed or refused to pay all his terminal benefits and had also wrongfully deducted credit facilities granted its customers from his terminal benefits. It is a basic principle of law, which also has a statutory backing in Sections 131 (1) and (2) of the Evidence, 2011 Act, that he who asserts must prove same. See R. EMMANUEL OSAROBO ISOKPAN V EQUITORIAL TRUST BANK LIMITED [2012] 29 NLLR (PT 84) 483 The claimant averred that he was instructed by the defendant’s bank management to resign on the 1st of June, 2012, Exhibit SA4 is the letter written by the claimant to the defendant is hereunder reproduced thus- FROM: AZUKA EGWUATU TO : HEAD CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SUBJECT: DISENGAGEMENT FROM THE BANK DATE: JUNE 01, 2012 I wish to inform the management of the bank of my intention to disengage from the bank with effect from today (01/06/2012). May I use this opportunity to express the fact that working in Diamond Bank was a worthwhile experience. Enclosed herewith are the following items of the Bank. Lapel pin ID Card Police report and affidavit on loss of blackberry phone Regards, Azuka Egwuatu. The above letter is to the effect that the claimant voluntarily resigned his appointment from the defendant's bank. However, DW in his evidence under cross examination confirmed the position of the claimant to the effect that he was advised to resign. In his evidence DW stated that the defendant gave the claimant one month salary in lieu of notice because the defendant advised the claimant to resign, because of his poor performance. This position is also corroborated by exhibit PM1, that is the letter dated 9th June 2012 from the defendant to the claimant showing his terminal benefits, the sum of N109,856.78 was paid to the claimant as a month salary in lieu of notice. The import of this is that the defendant constructively dismissed the claimant from its employment. I find on the preponderance of evidence that the claimant never resigned voluntarily as expressed in exhibit SA4, rather he was forced to resign as corroborated by DW in his evidence. Claimant is therefore entitle to damages. I so find and hold. Also claimant contended that upon forced retirement from the defendant’s bank, the sum of N2, 577,826 was credited to his account as terminal benefits and the sum of N18,780,684.86 (Eighteen Million, Seven Hundred and Eighty Thousand, Six Hundred and Eighty Four Naira, Eighty six Kobo) was debited from his account by the defendant representing loans officially given to customers in which he averred that the loans were officially applied for by the customers and same were duly processed and approved by the bank. That he did not guarantee the said loans and some of the customers have repaid the loans. Also the sum of N1,099,163.26 (One Million Ninety–Nine Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Three Naira Twenty Six kobo) was deducted from his salary as penalty for loans officially approved by the Management to the customers. The defence contended otherwise that claimant as its Business development manager initiated several loans facilities which are yet to be repaid and most of these resulted into loss on the part of the defendant and the claimant is in the know of the Policy of the defendant that an initiator of an overdraft must recover same within 30 days failing which will attract penalties against the initiator and the regional manager of the defendant. The claimant was unable to recover the said loan granted to the customers as stated in the policy. That only Hero Denis Investment Limited has fully repaid its debt and the sum of N9,222,262.02 initially debited from the claimant’s account was credited back to him on the 25th of June, 2012. By Exhibits PM4, the role of the Business Manager is to ensure that customer provides relevant documentation for TOD request. That with regards to procedures of applying for a TOD by a customer, clause V (v) of PM4 provides that “a Business manager reviews the online form and updates relevant fields. This automatically triggers an alert to the Regional Manager to approve the request.” It is a basic principle of law that when a document is clear as to its content thereon, the ordinary, clear and precise meaning of such document should be adhered to. It is clear by exhibit PM4 that the claimant as the business Manager of the defendant’s bank is neither the initiator nor the personnel who approves the loan facility to customers. The procedure for obtaining TOD facility as evinced by exhibit PM4, is that a customer writes a formal application requesting for the TOD facility from the bank; the account officer reviews and verifies the customers application and signature, the Account officer logs into the DB TOD application via the bank's internet and initiates the TOD request. The account officer completes the form online, before forwarding it to the Business Manager. The Business Manager only reviews it and forwards it to the Regional Manager who approves or declines it. A credit verification staff reviews the request to ensure that terms and conditions applicable to the facility are adhered to, On satisfactory review, Credit verification staff updates relevant fields and an alert is forwarded to Credit Disbursement Team. See clause V, vi, vii, viii of exhibit PM4. It is so apparent from the above procedure that the claimant is neither the initiator nor the approving officer of the TOD's; The defendant asserted that the claimant was the initiator of the TOD'S, it however, failed to substantiate this assertion with any document. The law is that facts pleaded without prove go to no issue. It is thus consequent upon this that I find that the defendant under any guise whatsoever, wrongfully deducted the sum of N18,780,684.86 (Eighteen Million, Seven Hundred and Eighty Thousand, Six Hundred and Eighty Four Naira, Eighty six Kobo) from the claimant's terminal benefits as the loan facility granted to customers and the sum of N1,099,163.26 (One Million Ninety–Nine Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Three Naira Twenty Six kobo) as penalty and same should be refunded back to the claimant forthwith. I so find and hold. It is claimant's counsel’s contention that the claimant is entitled to gratuity in the sum of N768,999.46. He went ahead and averred that gratuity is calculated by his monthly earnings (N 109,856.78) multiplied by 7years for which he worked with the defendant. There is no evidence in court's record representing the basis for claimant’s calculation of his gratuity and the law forbids courts to speculate thus it is based on this reason I find and hold that claimant has failed to prove that he is entitled to the sum of N768,999.46 thus his claim fail. The claimant is claiming also the sum of N2,577,826.59 which was calculated and approved by the defendant as his terminal benefit but was deducted to offset the TOD allegedly approved by the claimant. As decided above in this judgment, the deductions of the TOD facilities granted by the defendant to its customers from the claimant terminal benefit was wrongful, consequently, the sum of N2,577,826.59 approved by the defendant as claimant's terminal benefit shall be paid to the claimant immediately. It is in the light of the above and for the avoidance of doubt, I make these declarations and orders; 1. It is declared that claimant was forced to resign from the employment of the defendant. 2. It is also declared that the claimant is entitled to his terminal benefits having been forced to resign by the defendant and damages. 3. It is ordered that the defendant shall pay the claimant's entitlement calculated by the defendant in the sum of N2,577,826.59 and any other benefit he is entitle to. 4. It is declared that the sum of N18,780,684.86 and N1,099,163.26 interest deducted from the claimant’s account is wrongful 5. It is ordered that the sum of N18,780,684.86 and the sum of N1,099,163.26 interest deducted shall be refunded by the defendant to the claimant. 6. The sum of N250,000.00 is awarded as damages to the claimant for withholding his terminal benefit. 7. I award the cost of N100,000.00 to the claimant. 8. All sums awarded in this judgment shall be paid within 30 days of this judgment failing which 21% interest per annum shall be paid on same by the defendant. Judgment is accordingly entered. HON. JUSTICE OYEWUMI OYEBIOLA .O JUDGE