Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA Before His Lordship: HON. JUSTICE O. A. SHOGBOLA JUDGE Date: 12TH FEBRUARY, 2015 Suit No. NICN/ABJ/148/2012 BETWEEN SULEIMAN AKANBI CLAIMANT AND UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC DEFENDANT REPRESENTATION M. I. Hanafi Esq with S. S. Umoru Esq for the Claimant. I. M. Yamah Esq for the Defendant. JUDGMENT By a complaint and statement of facts dated 16th May, 2012, and filed on the same date the claimant claims as follows:- 1. Declaration that the dismissal of the claimant from the defendant’s employment by a letter dated 28th of December, 2009 is wrongful and contrary to the collective agreement governing the conditions of service of the defendant applicable to the claimant. 2. The sum of N74,828,969.00 (Seventy-four Millions Eight Hundred and Twenty-eight Thousand Nine hundred and Sixty-nine Naira) Only being damages for loss of earning arising from the wrongful dismissal of the claimant from the employment of the defendant’s bank. 3. An Order directing the defendant to calculate and pay forthwith the gratuity and pension due and payable or that may be due and payable to the claimant by the defendant but for the wrongful dismissal of the claimant. 4. In the alternative to relief (3) above, an order granting the claimant the sum of N100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) Only as general damages for the claimant’s loss of gratuities and pension that would have accrued to the claimant from the defendant but for the wrongful determination of the claimant’s appointment. IN THE ALTERNMATIVE TO ALL THE RELIEFS SOUGHT ABOVE the claimant prays as follows:- 1. The sum of N200,000,000.00 (Two Hundred Million Naira) Only being damages for the wrongful dismissal of the claimant from the defendant’s employment on the 29th of December, 2009 pursuant to the defendant’s letter of 28th December, 2009. 2. Cost of the action. Accompanying the complaint and the statement of facts are the witnesses’ statement on Oath, list of witnesses and list of documents to be relied upon at the trial. In reaction to the claim the defendant entered a Memorandum of appearance, and filed statement of defence, list of witnesses, list of documents to be relied upon at the trial. The matter went on trial, the claimant testified in his case and tendered Exhibits, while for the defendant Mr. Abdukadir Dogondaji testified. The trial was concluded on the 11th of June, 2014 while parties were ordered to file and exchange their final written addresses fixed for adoption on 1st September, 2014. The final written addresses of parties were finally adopted on the 17th of November, 2014. In the defendant final written address the learned counsel to the defendant framed one issue for determination of the court to wit:- Whether the Plaintiff/claimant is entitled to any of the claims from the Honourable Court having admitted he was paid the salary for the month he was dismissed. In arguing this issue the learned counsel referred the court to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shena Securities V Afro Park (Nig) Ltd (2008) 4 – 5 SC (Pt. 11) 117 at 149 – 150 that damages recoverable usually in cases of wrongful dismissal/termination have well been pronounced upon by our courts in several decided cases. Such damages are said to be losses reasonably foreseeable by the parties at the time of the contract as inevitably arising if one breaks faith with the other. That the court will not award damages to include compensation for injured feelings or the loss that may have been sustained from the fact that the employee having been dismissed makes it more difficult for him to obtain fresh employment. Learned counsel cited the case of Ajolore V Kwara State College of Technology & Anor (1980) FWLR 418. The counsel also said, the court will not compel an unwilling employer to retain any worker, and similarly an employer is not bound to give any reason for terminating the appointment of a servant where such employment is not one with statutory flavour. Relying on the case of Olarenwaju V Afribank Plc (2001) 7 SC (111) at 1. The counsel further submitted that a claim for damages could only arise if there is a breach of any legal duty to the claimant. In the present case, the claimant has failed to prove that the defendant was in breach of any of its legal obligation arising from the contract of service to him. In the contract of service executed by the parties there is clause that gave the defendant a discretion to put an end to the then subsisting contract between the parties. The defendant has exercised that discretion and dismissed the plaintiff/claimant, the dismissal is not wrongful but lawful. That the claimant is estopped for instituting the suit especially as he admitted under cross examination that he was paid his salary for the month and before he was dismissed in the same month. He urged the court to dismiss this suit with the cost of N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) Only. The learned counsel for the claimant raised two issues for determination:- 1. Whether from the facts and circumstances of this case, the clearing of the clone cheque (Exhibit PW7) by the claimant constitutes such serious act of negligence under Article 4(iv) of the collective agreement governing the condition of service of the claimant as to justify his dismissal from the defendant’s employment. 2. If the answer to issue (1) above is in the negative, whether the claimant is not entitled to the damages claimed in this case. In respect of issue 1 the learned counsel submitted that the claimant was an employee of the defendant’s bank until the 29th of December, 2009 when he was summarily dismissed from its employment. It is the contention of the claimant that the defendant breached the terms of his contract of employment namely the collective agreement, the letter of employment, and the service agreement dated 21st March, 1990. In proof of this allegation, the claimant tendered this three (3) documents namely:- Exhibits PW5, PW1 and PW2. The counsel relied on the case of Odiase V Auchi Polytechnic (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt. 546), 477 at 488:- In cases of master and servant, the fist hurdle to be crossed is for court to examine what the terms or conditions of the service are in other to determine the contractual relationship between the employer and the employee. The claimant counsel referred to the last paragraph of Exhibit PW1 the letter of employment which provides:- Other condition of service will be as laid down in the contract of service and also the current collective agreement. That on the basis of the above provision of the letter of employment he submitted that the relevant collective agreement (Exhibit PW5) has the force of law and is binding on both parties. The learned counsel then referred to the provisions of Article 4(iv) of the collective agreement which reads:- An employee may be summarily dismissed for certain offences covered by the broad heading of gross misconduct. Such offences include:- i. Proven cases of theft, fraud, dishonesty, defalcations, irregular practices in respect of cash, vouchers, records, returns, customer’s account or foreign exchange. ii. Willful disobedience of a lawful order OR serious negligence. iii. Drunkenness or taking drugs other than for medical reasons rendering the employee unfit to carryout his or her duties. iv. Divulging confidential information in breach of declaration of secrecy or disloyalty. v. Conviction for a criminal offence. vi. Prolong and/or frequent absence from work without leave or reasonable cause. To the claimant’s counsel the claimant sought the confirmation of the cheque from the customer and the customer did not object to its payment and he did everything needed to be done before passing the cheque for payment. He then contended that at that stage the claimant has discharged the onus on him that the dismissal is wrongful and unjustified and that the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to justify the dismissal. The counsel submitted that the totality of the averment in the statement of defence is that the claimant negligently cleared a clone cheque. That from Article 4 referred to, it cannot be disputed that the issue of serious negligence is recognized as an act upon which the claimant may be dismissed by the defendant. That this was given judicial recognition in Savannah Bank of Nigeria Plc V Fakakin (2002) 1 NWLR (Pt. 749) 544 at 560. He however said that a community reading of the statement of defence shows that the alleged negligence of the claimant relates to the following issues:- 1. The alleged failure of the claimant to follow the process of using Acu Banker Machine to detect the clone cheque. 2. The alleged failure of the claimant to follow the sequence of the payment or serial number of the cheques in paying the clone cheque. 3. The alleged failure of the claimant to enquire from the account owner whether the cheque was issue by him. 4. The alleged failure of the claimant to detect the clone cheque with his ordinary eye. 5. The allegation that the clone cheque has none of the requisite symbol of normal cheques. 6. The allegation that the claimant has no right to sign the cheque under the rule of the defendant. 7. The allegation that the claimant is a close associates of the owner and that he knows his signature of the owner very well. On these allegations the learned counsel contended that he who alleges must prove. That the burden of prove of negligence lies squarely on the defendant to show that the claimant failed to take necessary precautionary steps in the clearance of the clone cheque. That the ground of negligence mentioned above will be considered with a view of finding out whether the defendant is justified in dismissing the claimant. In other words, whether the defendant has enough reason to dismiss the claimant. Relying on the case of Abomeli V Nigeria Railway Corporation (1995) I NWLR (Pt. 372) at 466. On failure to use Acu Banker Machine, the counsel submitted that the defendant asserts the existence of the Acu banker Machine in the claimant’s branch and the bank has a policy of confirming cheques with the Acu banker machine in the branch and there was no policy of confirming cheques with Acu banker machine the claiamnt contends that there was no Acu Banker Machine in the branch and there was no policy of confirming cheques with Acu Banker Machine. The counsel further argued that the only witness from the defendant confirmed that the claimant was not provided with Acu banker machine, and there was no Acu Banker Machine at the branch at the material time, but there are 8 mercury light for officers to use at the ground floor. The counsel further submitted that the defendant contending that the claimant ought to have used the mercury light to detect the clone cheque. Flowing from the evidence of the claimant that a cleared about One hundred cheques per day, it would not be possible for him to go down stairs to confirm each cheque with mercury light. Further that the evidence of mercury light was elicited during the cross-examination of the claimant’s sole witness, it was not pleaded and it goes to no issue. The allegation on failure to follow the sequence of payment on this the counsel for the claimant submitted that the defendant alleged that the claimant paid the clone cheque B with cheque number 00090125 on 23rd June, 2006 before cheque number 00090124 was presented on 30th June, 2009 and not by the serial number of the cheques. That the claimant ought not to pay the clone cheque before cheque number 124. The claimant counsel tendered the statement of account Exhibit D of the customer whose account is in dispute through the defence witness and the counsel was able to show that the issue of serial number of cheques or sequence of cheque is one which the defendant observed more in breach than in compliance. The defence agreed that the clearing of the cheque on the statement of account is not serial. Another allegation made against the claimant is that the claimant ought to enquire from the account owner whether the cheque was issued by him. To the counsel the allegation is vague and contrary to the rules relating to pleadings and such should be discountenance. Counsel contended that this is direct allegation against the customer Alhaji Dahiru and the absence of the man the evidence of the claimant will remain uncontroverted and challenged and the court is bound to believe. In the allegation that the clone cheque has none of the requisite symbols of a normal cheque and the claimant can detect it with his ordinary eye. The learned counsel concluded that the defendant alleges that the clone cheque has none of the requisite symbols of a normal cheque but failed woefully to particularize and mention the symbols on the defendant normal cheque in his statement of defence. The counsel further submitted that the claimant is still contending that the normal cheque and the clone cheque presented and admitted at the trial, i.e. Exhibits A – A 18 and Exhibit B, the clone cheque has the symbols of the normal cheques. That this include the horse, and the Union bank logo. That the position might be different if the defendant pleading is to the effect that the symbols on the clone cheque are not striking the same as the one on the normal cheques. The counsel further contended that the clone cheque could not have been detected by the ordinary eyes other wise any of the defendant’s officer at the clearing house would have detected the cheque as a clone cheque. That the test of tort of negligence is reasonableness. On the allegation that the claimant has no right to sign the cheque under the role of the defendant. On this the counsel submitted that this is a non-issue having regards to the evidence adduced at the trial by both parties. In that the DW1 testified that the claimant was the one in charge of authorizing the clearing of cooperate cheques. That in any event the defendant did not prove that any other person than the claimant is responsible for the clearing of cheques in the branch. Lastly on this first issue the allegation that the claimant is a close Associates of the owner and that he knows the signature of the customer very well. To the counsel this allegation was not proved of being a close associates of the customer and this is completely irrelevant when it comes to his official duties. That the issue is whether the claimant followed the rules laid down by the defendant or not. The counsel further submitted that the claimant is not expected to master the signature of any customer off head. But to compare the signature with the signature in the mandate card of the customers. The counsel argued the claimant in his evidence in chief and his further witness statement on Oath testified that he followed the sequence of payment of cheques in confirming the disputed cheque and comparing the signature in the disputed cheque with the customer’s signature and found it similar and regular before passing the cheque. The counsel further submitted that the claimant duties did not include going to the customer’s house to make enquiry as to whether he issued the cheque or not. That the failure of the defendant in producing the mandate card that the issue of whether the customer’s signature is different from his normal signature, remain in the realm of speculation which has no place in our advisory system of adjudication. On this issue NO. 1 the counsel for the claimant concluded that the defendant failed to prove on hard fact, any act of negligence not to talk of serious negligence for this the dismissal of the claimant is wrongful and unjustified. On issue 2 the claimant counsel submitted that if the answer to issue 1 above, is in the negative whether the claimant is not entitled to the damages claimed in this case? The counsel to the claimant went on to submit that since the dismissal from the defendant’s employment is wrongful and contrary to the collective agreement between the parties the claimant is entitled to damages in law. Relying on the case of Union bank of Nigeria Plc V Ogboh (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 380) 647 at 662. Submitting further the claimant counsel contended that the defendant counsel has confused the principle applicable to termination of employment with the principle applicable to dismissal from employment when the defence counsel argued that since the claimant has collected his salary for the month of December 2009 that he is not entitled to any damages. That having particularized the loss of earning in paragraph 22 of his statement of claim. In paragraph 23 the total sum the claimant would have earned yearly is put at N5,344,926.90 (Five Million Three Hundred and Forty-four Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty-six Naira Ninety kobo) Only and for the remaining fourteen years he would have earned N74,828,969.00 (Seventy-four Million Eight Hundred and Twenty-eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty-nine Naira) Only. The counsel contended the defendant did not cross-examine the claimant on this item and for this the defendant is deemed to have admitted the claims. In conclusion the counsel prayed the court to declare the dismissal of the claimant by the defendant wrongful and not in accordance with the terms of the claimant’s employment and to grant the reliefs. On point of law the defendant commenced stating that the claimant was negligent and did not exercise the standard of care that a reasonable and prudent person would have exercise in a similar situation or that his conduct falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk or harm. That the term negligent denotes culpable carelessness. He went further to submit that negligence is a question of fact and not law and each case must be decided in the light of the facts pleaded and proved. The defendant then asked whether the claimant in the instant case not owes the defendant the duty of care? This is a legal obligation he owes or due to another and that needs to be satisfied. The defendant’s counsel further asked whether the claimant is not in breach of this duty he owes the defendant, or whether or not a reasonable man placed in the claimant position would have acted as the claimant did. The counsel urged the court to take into account in determining whether the claimant has been negligent or not. That the likelihood of harm is a paramount fact that the claimant must constantly bear in mind. In this case the claimant did not confirm from the defendant’s customer before authorizing the payment of the cheque. Alhaji Dahiru from whom the claimant took authority to authorize payment is not the accountant of the customer. The customer of the defendant has its Accountant who is in charged of the finance of the defendant. In condemning the claimant’s action in paragraph 12 – 14 of his witness statement on Oath counsel said this is a belated action taking as medicine after death as the claimant has committed gross or serious negligence, by inflicted the loss of N3,254,000.00 (Three Million Two Hundred and Fifty-four Thousand Naira) Only. That remedy did not back the lost fund but turned permanent loss for the defendant. Further on points of law the counsel submitted that the claimant misconceived and wrongfully apply the law applicable to employment with statutory flavor to a simple contract of purely master and servant. That in the master and servant relationship, the master has unfettered right to terminate the employment, but in doing so he must comply with the procedure stipulated in their contract. The counsel for the defendant also alleged that the claimant engaged in irregular authorized payment of cash for the clone cheque. The claimant engaged in willful disobedience of lawful order by not going downstairs to confirm with 8 Acu banker machine and could not direct a junior staff to bring upstairs as stated by DW1. The reason given by the claimant is that he had so many cheques to clear on that date that he could not be expected to go downstairs to be confirming every cheque that comes in. That the DW1 tender under cross examination that if any body who was given a cheque that was doubtful he would go down to confirm it with the Acu banker Machine. The defendant argued that the claimant has not denied that he owes the defendant the duty of care and that the defendant suffered the loss of N3,254,000.00 (Three Million Two Hundred and Fifty-four Naira) Only. The counsel also argued the claimant did not give the particulars of the pension and the court cannot speculate the pension and gratuities to be paid to the claimant. Based on these facts the counsel to the defendant urged the court to dismiss the claimant case. Having considered all the circumstances of this case, the pleadings and evidence on record, the issue for determination or question for the court to answer is whether it will be right to say that the claimant was negligent? Before I proceed to consider this issue, it is pertinent to state briefly the facts of this case which are: The Claimant was an employee of the defendant until 29th of December 2009 when he was dismissed from the employment of the defendant. The claimant was dismissed on the fact that on the 25th of June 2009 the Union Bank CHEQUE NO. 00090125 dated 23rd of June 2009 belonging to DAHA Enterprises Limited the customer of the defendant for the sum of N3,254,000.00 (three million two hundred and fifty four thousand Naira) only drawn in favour of TUNDLAB Nig Enterprises was cleared for payment by the claimant. From the fact of this case, on the 3rd of July, 2009 the customer laid the complaints with the defendant that his account was wrongly debited to the tune of three million two hundred and fifty four thousand naira upon a cheque he did not issue. The claimant claimed that on the 29th of June 2009 a date within the clearing period of the cheque and within which the cheque could still have been returned or dishonoured, the Managing Director of the Daha Enterprises Limited, Alhaji Dahiru showed up in the Bank and the claimant approached him on the issue of the cheque drawn in favour of Tundlab Nigeria Enterprises and he did not object to his payment. According to the claimant, he took further step by approaching the payee bank GTB Plc with a view of stopping the payment of the cheque but it was too late in the day as the whole amount had been drawn out of the account. The claimant said he obtained all the details of the beneficiary of the cheque Tundlab Nigeria Limited from GTB Plc to the defendant who did nothing to trace and recover the money. Upon further investigation, the defendant discovered that the cheque in issue was a cloned one. Thereafter the claimant was issued a query on the 8th of October 2009 which he responded to on the 12th of October 2009. The claimant was dismissed from the service of the defendant, with effect from 29th of December 2009 for gross misconduct. Upon his dismissal by the defendant, the claimant appealed against his dismissal from the service of the defendant through a letter dated 6th of January 2010 and the defendant did not change the decision. I will now proceed to consider the issues raised above. (I) In this case the defendant’s contention is that the claimant, having acquired so much knowledge and experience from the defendant, owed the defendant a stronger duty of care which he breached by want on display of venil negligence, consequence upon which the claimant incurred a colossal loss of the sum of three million two hundred and fifty four thousand Naira only to the defendant. (ii) The claimant did not exercise and exert due diligence and standard of care of a reasonable banker or expected of the status of the claimant. (iii) The claimant is conduct of the entire transaction was bad and that the defendant cannot entrust the shareholder and customers’ fund to him and the only option the defendant has was to judiciously exercise his discretion in good faith to dismiss the plaintiff so as to avert further loss of money and reputation in the banking industry in Nigeria . (iv) That the claimant did not follow due process of using Acu Banker machine. (v) That there were eight cashiers and eight Acu Banker machines made available for every staff usage in the branch in which the claimant was a very senior officer rank could request for a junior staff to bring one up for him to check the genuineness of the cheque in issue. (vi) The claimant did not follow the sequence of payment of cheques and he knows the customer and his signature very well having regard to the mode he signed his cheques. (vii) the defendant has the policy (which is well known to the claimant) of confirming a third party cheque with Acu banker machine before authorizing payment. (viii) The defendant acted and dismissed the plaintiff perfectly in accordance with the terms of his contractual nexus with the claimant and urges the court to dismiss the suit with substantial cost. (ix) The defendant submitted that by virtue of the claimant’s training he ought to have enquire from the account owner whether the cheque was issued by him or not. (x) The defendant submitted that the claimant knows what a clone cheque is and how it looks like as an ordinary eyes can detect and differentiate a clown cheque from the original cheque. (xi) The defendant therefore averse the following particulars of negligence A clone cheque has none of the requisite symbol characterized of the defendant’s normal cheques and could be detected by ordinary eyes and (a) he averred that the claimant is not a cashier and have no right to be issuing cheque for and signing the cheque under the rule given by the defendant. (b) The claimant did not follow the sequence of payment by calling the account owner on the discrepancy on the withdrawal of payment. (c)The claimant is a close associate of the account owner and knows the signature of the customer with the defendant. What is negligence? “failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable and prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation; any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk or harm. It is settled law that negligence is a matter of fact and not law. The burden of proof lies on the defendant who alleges it and unless it is proved it does not shift. To succeed in an action for negligence, the defendant in the case must prove. (a) That the claimant owes him a duty of care; (b) That the duty of care was breached; (c) That the defendant suffered loss arising from the breach. See Agbonmagbe Bank Ltd. V. CFAO (1966)1ALLLLR 142 From the evidence and pleadings of the claimant, the claimant did not admit any item of negligence on his part in this case. The claimant submitted that at the time the disputed cheque was delivered to him there was no single Acu banker machine and it must have been purchased and delivered to the branch after the transaction. He also submitted that he followed the sequence of the payment of cheques by confirming the disputed cheque and also compare the signature of the disputed cheque with the customer’s signature and found it similar and regular before passing the cheque. The claimant contended that he could not detect with ordinary eye in the mist of several cheques he has to clear in a day which numbered about hundred. That being the schedule officer in Garki Area 3 Branch designated to confirm all inward clearing cheques. He further submitted that the telephone number of the claimant was not on the mandate form and that he informed the customer of the payment of the disputed cheque within the clearing days which he did not object to. The claimant also contended that the customer was not in the habit of presenting his cheques in serial form and no instruction from the customer not to honour cheque unless they are in serial form. The question left to be answered now is whether the defendant have been able to prove negligence against the claimant or not. My answer to this is in the negative. This is because the only witness of the defendant that the branch had no single Acu Banker Machine as the time of the incident. It is the duty of the employer to provide his employees necessary tools and appliances that will make them perform their duties efficiently and satisfactorily. The defendant made a heavy weather of the use of Acu Banker Machine as a necessary tool for detecting clone cheque, yet defendant did not provide single one for the whole branch for his officers to use. This has made the job of the claimant very difficult to do. It was also gathered that the 8 mercury lights were all placed down stairs, while the claimant’s office was in upstairs. For the claimant to perform efficiently and maximally the defendant must give him all the necessary tools to work with such as Acu Banker Machine. It is after the defendant has provided the tools that the claimant can be held negligent in the performance of his duties. The claimant been the only officer of the Bank charged with responsibility of clearing corporate cheques that usually carry heavy amount ought to be provided with the Acu Banker Machine which the defendant themselves recognized as a necessary tool. On the allegation that the claimant fail to clear cheques in sequence was totally debunked and faulted by the claimant in that the claimant was able to show through the defendant’s only witness that the customer of the bank did not usually present his cheques in sequence. The presentation of the Acu Banker Machine in court when the wrong had been committed is of no moment. The bank ought to have made it available for use of the claimant. Going through all the allegations made against the claimant by the defendant it is very clear that officers of the bank required this machine to enable perform very well. For instance, the cheque would have been detected as a cloned one if the machine was available at the clearing house, and the cheque would not have even gotten to the claimant in the first instance. In my view, the claimant cannot be held negligent, the use of naked eyes to detect symbols in cheques is out of it. The appropriate machine to use is the Acu Banker Machine to detect cloned or fake cheques in this era of technology. For these reasons, the letter of dismissal of the claimant dated 28th December, 2009 is hereby set aside. The court is however, mindful of the fact that in a master and servant employment relationship the court cannot force a willing employee on an unwilling employer. The employment relationship between the claimant and the defendant was no longer subsisting it came to an end on the 29th of December, 2009. The claimant cannot claim for 14 years salary he would have earned if he was still in the employment of the defendant. The claimant is claiming the sum of N74,828,969.00 (Seventy-four Million Eight Hundred and Twenty-eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty-nine Naira) Only as his pension and gratuity for 14 years he could have stay in the Bank. The claimant is not entitled to this sum because he has not worked or done any work for the defendant to be entitled to such. The claimant is only entitled to his gratuity and pension up to 29th December, 2009. On the claimant’s forth relief for an Order of this court granting him the sum of N100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) Only as general damages as wrongful determination of his appointment, and his alternative reliefs for an Order of this court granting him the N200,000,000.00 (Two Hundred Million Naira) Only for wrongful dismissal, I say that the court cannot grant such reliefs. It is settled law general damages are those damages which implies the breach and violation of a legal right. This is not granted as a matter of cause. The measure of damages is prima facie the amount the claimant would have earned had the employment continued according to contract. For these reasons, the claims of the claimant succeed in part. The dismissal of the claimant is set aside and he is entitled to his gratuity and pension up to 29th December, 2009. Judgment is entered accordingly. _______________________________ HON. JUSTICE O. A. SHOGBOLA JUDGE