Color

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT KADUNA

ON WEDNESDAY 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE S.O. ADENIYI

 

SUIT NO: NICN/KD/28/2021

 

BETWEEN

BAMGBOJE OLASUNKANMI ……………………….…… CLAIMANT

AND

KEYSTONE BANK LTD ……………………………………  DEFENDANT

(formerly Bank PHB, Platinum Habib Bank Plc)

J U D G E M E N T

The Claimant is a former employee of the Defendant and was until his dismissal, the Resident Internal Control Officer of its Kaduna South Branch. In summary, his case is that, the dismissal of his appointment by the Defendant is invalid, null and void, having not been given fair hearing. His further grievance against the Defendant is that, without being convicted by any Court of law on allegations bothering on unauthorized debiting of a customer’s account and unethical behaviour, the Defendant submitted his name to the Central Bank of Nigeria for blacklisting and he has subsequently been unemployable in the banking and related industry or sector. The Claimant alleged that he has not been able to access his salary account that was blocked by the Defendant when he was placed on suspension since January 2016 and has thereby suffered untold hardship as a result of the actions of the Defendant.

2. Being aggrieved, the Claimant instituted the instant action; vide Complaint and Statement of Facts filed in this Court on 29/07/2021, whereby he claimed against the Defendant, reliefs set out as follows:

i.          A Declaration that the dismissal of the Claimant on the 3rd August, 2016 by the Defendant is invalid, illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect as the same was ultra wires the powers of the Defendant and in breach of the rules of natural justice as the Defendant assumed the role and power of a Court to find the Claimant guilty of a criminal offence that he was never tried and/or convicted for by a Court of law nor was the action of the Disciplinary Committee before whom he was made to appear in Lagos in line with his contract of employment or in accordance with the Defendant’s Sanction Grid aforementioned.

ii.         A Declaration that the Claimant remains an employee of the Defendant until he is validly subsequently disengaged.

iii.       A Declaration that the “blocking” or “freezing” of the Claimant's salary account is unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void.

iv.        An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to withdraw the purported letter of dismissal dated 3rd August, 2016 to the Claimant.

v.         An Order of this Honourable Court reinstating the Claimant into

the service of the Defendant and directing the payment of his full salaries, entitlements, allowances, rights, emoluments and

            privileges from January 2016 till date.

vi.        A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to an Exit Certificate on the valid determination of his employment with the Defendant subsequently.

vii.      An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to issue the Claimant with a letter of apology (to be copied to the Central Bank of Nigeria and published in 3 widely circulating National Dailies) “on his ill-treatment in flagrant abuse of his Constitutional rights”.

viii.     An Order of this Honourable Court for the release (forthwith) of the Claimant’s “blocked/frozen” Account Number - 1160047972 with the Defendant.

ix.        An Order of this Honourable Court compelling the Defendant to calculate and “release” to the Claimant his withheld salaries (from January 2016 when he was suspended to 3rd August, 2016, when he received a mail of the purported letter of his dismissal) being the sum of N1,724,386.07 (One Million, Seven Hundred and Twenty-Four Thousand, Three Hundred and Eight- Six Naira, Seven Kobo).

x.         Damages in the sum of N20,663,278.62 (Twenty Million, Six Hundred and Sixty-Three Thousand, Two Hundred and Seventy- Eight Naira, Sixty-Two Kobo) being the conservative amount the Claimant would have earned as wages and emoluments as at January 2021 had he been allowed to continue with his employment according to his contract of employment with the Defendant and from February 2021, the monthly sum of N478,737.99 until the determination of this matter.

xi.        The sum of N50 Million for defamation of the Claimant’s character.

xii.       Legal cost of prosecuting this action being the sum of N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only.

xiii.     10% interest on the entire judgment sum awarded by this Court with effect from the date of such judgment until the final liquidation thereof.

xiv.      The cost of this action as assessed.

2. The Defendant disputed the case of the Claimant in the Statement of Defence deemed filed on 09/11/2021. The gist of the Defendant’s defence is that, the Claimant, as Resident Internal Control Officer, without due authorization and in total disregard of the Bank’s Policy on withdrawal from customer’s account, collected the sum of N250,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) from the Bank’s Teller without ticket and also authorized the debiting of a customer’s account without proper instrument and thereby abused his office. The Defendant contends that the Claimant is not entitled to his claims and maintained that, based on its sanctions grid for misconduct, he was given opportunity to be heard and that the dismissal of his appointment was properly conducted. The Claimant’s Reply to the Statement of Defence was deemed filed on 03/02/2022.

4. At the plenary trial, the Claimant testified in person by adopting his Statements on Oath as his evidence-in-chief; and tendered eighteen (18) sets of documents as exhibits. He was thereafter, cross-examined by the Defendant’s learned counsel.

The Defendant, in turn called one Sunday Ajao, the Internal Control Officer, as the sole witness. In like manner, he adopted his Witness Deposition on Oath and tendered no exhibit.

Thereafter, parties, through their respective learned counsel filed and exchanged their written final addresses as prescribed by the provisions of Order 45 of the Rules of this Court.

5. In the final address deemed filed on 23/02/2024, learned counsel for the Defendant, Godwin Udondiah Esq., formulated a sole issue as having arisen for determination in this suit, that is:

“Whether the Claimant from the state of pleadings before this Honourable Court and the evidence led thereon is entitled to his claims?”

Learned counsel for the Claimant, A. A. Manta Esq., adopted the issue formulated by learned Defendant’s counsel, in his final address deemed filed on 17/04/2024.

The Defendant’s Reply on Points of Law was deemed filed on 13/06/2024.

6. I have painstakingly examined the totality of the pleadings filed by both parties in contention; the reliefs claimed, the totality of the admissible and relevant evidence adduced at the trial; and the totality of the written addresses and oral summations of learned gentlemen for the two parties; my view is that, the issue as formulated by learned Defendant’s counsel adequately covers the field of dispute in this suit. As such, the Court hereby adopts same in determining this suit. In adopting the issue, I shall make specific reference to the arguments as I deem necessary in the course of this judgment.

7. As a starting point, I should restate the universal evidential principle that the burden of proof in any case is on the person who desires a Court to give judgement as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which that person asserts or who will fail if no evidence were given on either side. See Section 133 of the Evidence Act 2011. I am also not unmindful that declaratory reliefs are only granted as products of credible and cogent evidence proffered at the instance of the Claimant. See Col. Nicholas Ayanru (Rtd.) Vs Mandilas Ltd [2007] 4 SCNJ 388; Nweke Vs Okorie [2015] LPELR 40650.

7. As disclosed in the Statement of Facts, the Claimant averred that he was employed by the Defendant, formerly known as Bank PHB Plc; that thereafter, he proceeded on induction course; that he resumed at the Defendant’s training school as Executive Trainee and that upon completion on 21/01/2008, he was deployed to the Internal Control Group North, Risk Management and Control Division and subsequently became an Executive Assistant. The Claimant testified that at the changes in the name and organizational structure, the then Bank PHB Plc  was renamed to Keystone Bank Ltd by the Central Bank of Nigeria and on 05/08/2021, he was offered an employment as Executive Trainee in the Internal Control Department.

8. In his testimony, the Claimant narrated that one Adeyinka Aromolaran, his business associate, in a telephone conversation, requested him to process a bank transaction on his behalf; that subsequently the said Adeyinka Aromolaran sent an SMS on 12/08/2015, to both himself (the Claimant) and to his Account Officer, one Popoola Ayotunde, to release the sum of N250,000.00 to the Claimant and that after the SMS was shown to both the Service Manager (Head of Operations), one Aminu Lawal and to one Tolulope Alao, the Service Officer (Cash Officer), the Claimant collected the money. According to the Claimant, this process was in line with the Defendant’s Policy on Execution of Customer’s instruction communicated by e-mail, telephone or by Account Officer. The Claimant testified that in line with the said Bank Policy, the Service Officer placed a call to the Account holder/customer that is, Adeyinka Aromolaran, to confirm the transaction before it was processed; that the ticket prepared by the Teller for the transaction was subsequently regularized/ratified by the said Account holder/customer and that he (the Claimant) got a call from the Account holder to confirm that he had received the debit notification of the transaction.

9. According to the Claimant, the relationship between himself and the said Account holder/customer turned sour in December 2015 and as a result the Account holder threatened and made his life unbearable and his action prompted him to instruct his solicitors to write a warning letter to the said customer. The Claimant further testified that on 06/01/2016, while he was on leave, a query was issued on him by the Zonal Internal Control Manager and that attached with the query is a copy of the solicitors’ of Adeyinka Aromolaran, stating that their client was ignorant of the transaction of the sum of N250,000.00 debited from his account. CW1 testified that in January, 2016, he received series of queries from the Investigation Unit of the Defendant; that he was placed on indefinite suspension in February 2016; that his salary account has since been blocked. 

10. The testimony of the Claimant is further that, in line with the Defendant’s Bank PHB Disciplinary Policy and Sanction Grid, as officer below the Executive Associate Grade (Manager), instead of being made to face the Internal Bank/Regional Disciplinary Committee, he was invited to face the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee at the Head Office in Lagos on 19/05/2016. The Claimant alleged that he was not given fair hearing in his defence; that the Disciplinary Committee disregarded the explanations he offered in relation to the allegations of debiting a customer’s account; that the Disciplinary Committee were pre-determined to find him guilty and thereby unjustifiably concluded that he stole funds or customers’ money and was subsequently dismissed on 03/08/2016, by letter of dismissal that was sent via email.

11. The Claimant further alleged that he was never charged or convicted before a Court of law; that as stated in the dismissal letter, his name was submitted by the Defendant to the Central Bank of Nigeria for blacklisting without subjecting him to any criminal trial; that due to the blacklisting/publication, his image has been tarred with stigma and that he has not been able to secure another job with any financial or allied institution. The Claimant also testified that at the time of his dismissal, his monthly salary was N478,737.99; that since January 2016, he has not been able to have access to the funds in his account with the Defendant and that he has been subjected to untold hardship by the actions of the Defendant. He testified further that he instructed his solicitors to institute this action due to the failure of the Defendant to yield to the various demand made on his behalf by his solicitors.

12. The following documents were tendered and admitted in further support of the Claimant’s case:

a.      Letters of offer of employment of Bank PHB dated 08/11/2007 and 17/01/2008 and Induction Certification of Bank PHB - Exhibit C1, Exhibit C1B and Exhibit C1A respectively.

b.      Letter of Employment of Keystone Bank Ltd dated 05/08/2011 - Exhibit C2.

c.      Policy on Execution of Customer’s Instruction communicated by E-mail, Telephone or by an Account Officer – Exhibit C3.

d.      Bank PHB Disciplinary Policy and Sanction Grid – Exhibit C4. 

e.      Statements made by Bamgboje Olasunkanmi and Adeyinka Aromolaran at the Police Station – Exhibits C5 and C5A. 

f.        Undertaking made by Bamgboje Olasunkanmi – Exhibit C6.

g.      Letters dated 29/12/2015 by Claimant’s solicitors to the Honourable Commissioner of Police and Mr. Adeyinka Aromolaran – Exhibits C7 and C7A.

h.      Letter of Dismissal – Exhibit C8.

i.        Letter dated 01/09/2016 by Claimant’s solicitor to Divisional Head, Human Capital Management of Keystone Bank Ltd – Exhibit C9.

j.        Claimant’s solicitors bill of charges and receipt – Exhibits C10 and C10A.

k.      Petition dated 02/05/2012 by Regional Manager Control to the Director State Security Service, Kaduna – Exhibit C11.

l.        Print out of text message of one Yinka Leadway – Exhibit C12.

m.   Keystone Bank savings withdrawal slip of Adeyinka Aromolaran – Exhibit C13.

13. The testimony of DW1, as the sole witness of the Defendant is that without due authorization and in total disregard of the Bank’s policy on withdrawal from customer’s account, the Claimant abused his office as Resident Internal Control Officer by authorizing the debiting of customer’s account without proper instrument and collected the sum of N250,000.00 from the Bank’s Teller without ticket.

14. DW1 further testified that a customer of the Bank, one Adeyinka Aromolaran, made a complaint denying that he sent any message to his account officer for debiting the sum of N250,000.00 on his behalf; that upon receipt of his letter of complaint of tampering of the customer’s account by the Claimant and the withdrawal of the sum of N250,000.00 without approval, the Defendant issued a query to the Claimant to explain his role in respect of the customer’s complaint and that the Claimant was placed on suspension pending the outcome of the inquiry of the complaint.

15. In his further testimony, DW1 testified that the Claimant was offered ample opportunity to explain his position and to defend himself on his role before the Defendant’s Disciplinary Committee. DW1 denied that the Defendant’s Staff Disciplinary Committee operated on Bank PHB Disciplinary Policy and Sanction Grid and testified that the dismissal of Claimant’s appointment for gross misconduct was based on the Defendant’s Sanctions Grid. DW1 also testified that in consonance with its Sanctions Grid, the Defendant did not need to report the Claimant to the Police and/or secure conviction before taking disciplinary action against him for professional conduct and that having been dismissed for misconduct, his name was submitted by the Defendant to Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) in line with CBN’s guideline for blacklisting.

16. In his Reply to the Statement of Defence, the Claimant testified that he complied with the guidelines for debiting customer’s account and for collecting money on customer’s behalf and categorically denied that he had right to authorize withdrawal and debit any sum from customers’ account. The Claimant further testified that the customer’s complaint to the Defendant was written about six months after the transaction in issue and that he had promptly responded when the query was issued by the Defendant.  He also testified that as at December 2015, Bank PHB Disciplinary Policy and Sanction Grid was adopted by the Defendant; that being an officer below the level of a Manager, instead of the Regional Disciplinary Committee in Abuja, he had to travel to Lagos to face the Disciplinary Committee and further contends that the Defendant’s Sanction Grid provides for investigation of cases that involved financial issues by the Police, EFCC and other law enforcement agency  before  any action can be taken by the Defendant.

17. By my understanding, the Claimant’s grievance against the Defendant is that he did not commit any offence or misconduct as alleged by the Defendant to warrant the dismissal of his appointment; that he complied with the procedure of the Defendant’s Policy on Execution of Customer’s instruction communicated by e-mail, telephone or by Account Officer for the sum of N250,000.00 he collected on behalf of Adeyinka Aromolaran and as such, the purported dismissal of his appointment by the Defendant on the ground of gross misconduct is unlawful/wrongful.

18. His further grouse is that the Defendant’s Disciplinary Committee had

pre-determined the matter and that he was found guilty of all allegations without being given the opportunity to be heard. He further contends that being an officer below the Executive Associate Grade (Manager), the procedure as stated in the Defendant’s Bank PHB Disciplinary Policy and Sanction Grid was not complied with by the Defendant before he was dismissed. The Claimant also contends that without being convicted before a Court of law, his name was submitted by the Defendant to the Central Bank of Nigeria for blacklisting and that due to the blacklisting/publication, his image has been tarred with stigma. The Claimant also alleged that he has not had access to his salary account since January 2016, when he was placed on suspension. The particulars of the allegations by the Claimant against the Defendant are stated in paragraphs 31, 32, 33, 40, 49, 50, 54, 55, 58, 59, 61, 62. 63, 64, 65, 67 and 70 of his Witness Deposition on Oath.

19. Now, parties are ad idem that the employment between the Claimant and the Defendant was governed by Exhibit C2, letter of offer of employment. The Claimant’s contention is that the Defendant violated the disciplinary procedure as stated in Exhibit C4 – Bank PHB Disciplinary Policy and Sanction Grid in dismissing his employment. By this testimony, the Claimant alleged that Exhibit C4, regulates the terms and condition of his appointment and that the Defendant is in breach of same.  However, DW1, in paragraph 13 of his Witness Deposition on Oath, categorically denied this fact and contends that the dismissal of the Claimant was based on the Defendant’s Sanctions Grid for misconduct and also maintained that fair hearing was accorded to the Claimant by the Defendant.

20. In his written submission, learned Defendant’s counsel argued that the

issue of non-compliance with Exhibit C4, before the dismissal of the Claimant does not arise, in that, the said exhibit pleaded and relied upon by the Claimant is not that of the Defendant but that of Bank PHB and learned counsel also argued that the Defendant and Bank PHB are two different legal entities. Learned counsel argued further that by Exhibit C2, the Claimant was offered employment by the Defendant and that it was not stated in the said exhibit that the offer with the Defendant was a continuation of his employment with Bank PHB.

21. Now, the settled position of law and as correctly submitted by learned Defendant’s counsel is that in an action for wrongful termination of an employment as the present case, the onus is always on a Claimant to prove the terms of the agreement allegedly breached. It is needless to cite authorities for these well-known principles. It is also provided in Section 136 of the Evidence Act (supra) that the burden of proof may in the course of a case be shifted from one side to the other. In other words, in civil cases, the Claimant has the initial burden to lead evidence to prove his assertion but the burden of proof is not static. Once the Claimant establishes a prima facie case, the burden of leading evidence in rebuttal shifts on the Defendant and vice versa. This provision of the Evidence Act has been considered by the Courts in a plethora of authorities. See Onovo Vs Mba [2014] 14 NWLR (Pt 1427) 391; Itauma Vs Akpe-Ime [2000] LPELR 1557; Ezemba Vs Ibeneme & Anor [2004] LPELR 1205. It is clear from the above authorities and the plethora of cases on burden of proof that in order to discover where the burden of proof lies in civil a case, the Court has a duty to peruse the entire pleadings of both parties.

22. In the present case, I had undertaken a careful examination of the entire processes/pleadings filed by both parties. In prove of his case, the Claimant tendered Exhibits C1 and C1B as his letters of offer of appointment with Bank PHB Plc. The testimony of the Claimant is that, at the change in the name and organizational structure of the then Bank PHB, he was offered an employment with the Defendant in Exhibit C2. The Claimant further tendered Exhibit C4, as the document guiding the disciplinary policy of the Defendant. It is imperative to state that the Defendant is sued as, Keystone Bank Limited (formerly Bank PHB, Platinum Habib Bank Plc). In other words, the Defendant never contested that its name as stated in the entire court processes filed is Keystone Bank Ltd and not “formerly Bank PHB, Platinum Habib Bank Plc”. There was no contrary evidence by the Defendant that the Bank PHB Plc was not converted or fused into Keystone Bank Ltd.

23. As I noted earlier, the law relating to burden of proof is simple and straightforward. He who asserts must prove, but where a party has offered sufficient evidence, the other party will then be the one to lose if no evidence is adduced in rebuttal; in other words, the burden shifts to that other party. The unequivocal finding of this Court is therefore, that the Claimant has essentially established a ‘prima facie’ evidence by placing in evidence, Exhibit C4 as the document regulating the disciplinary policy and sanction grid of the Defendant. The Defendant had denied that the said exhibit is its document and and asserted that the dismissal of the Claimant was based on its own sanctions grid for misconduct, as a result of this assertion, the burden of leading evidence in rebuttal shifted on the Defendant. However, the Defendant failed to tender any document to discharge the burden in rebuttal.  Having failed to discharged the burden, the Claimant has proved that Exhibit C4, Bank PHB Disciplinary Policy and Sanction Grid, regulates the disciplinary procedure of the Defendant particularly in relation to his dismissal. And I so hold.

24. Now, it is indubitable that the instant case is that of master and servant and not a contract of service with statutory flavour. In the circumstance, it is settled and as correctly submitted by learned counsel for the Defendant, that for the Claimant to succeed in his claim, he must prove that the Defendant breached the condition of service of his employment. See Amodu Vs Amode [1990] 5 NWLR (Pt 150) 356; Angel Spinning & Dyeing Ltd Vs Ajah [2000] 13 NWLR (Pt 685) 532; Ogumka Vs Corporate Affairs Commission [2010] LPELR 4891.

25. Learned counsel for the Defendant in his written address submitted that by Order 30 Rule 1 of the Rules of this Court and the authorities of Ovivie Vs Delta Steel Co Ltd [2023] 14 NWLR (Pt 1904) 203; Morohunfola Vs Kwara Tech [1990] 4 NWLR (Pt 145) 506; University of Calabar Vs Essien [1996] 10 NWLR (Pt 477) 225, U.I.T.H.M.B Vs Aluko [1996] 3 NWLR (Pt 434) 74, Statement of Facts should contain the contents of the contract of employment and the terms of employment allegedly breached in an action for unlawful or wrongful termination or dismissal of appointment. Learned counsel argued that the Claimant has not set out his cause of action for the reliefs sought as his Statement of Facts have not in any way set out the facts of the employment, the terms or conditions of employment and the terms of employment that were breached by the Defendant.

26. Citing the cases of Ajayi Vs Texaco (Nig) Ltd [1987] 3 NWLR (Pt 62) 577 at 593; Yusuf Vs U.B.N Ltd [1996] 6 NWLR (Pt 457) 63; U.B.N Ltd Vs Ogboh [1995] 2 NWLR (Pt 380) 647 at 669, learned counsel further submitted that an employer has the right to hire and fire an employee at any time for good or bad reason or for none and also that an employer can terminate or dismiss an employee for gross misconduct bordering on criminality without same being determined by a court of law. Learned counsel argued that the reason for the dismissal of the Claimant was gross misconduct, in that the Claimant tampered with a customer’s account by withdrawing money therefrom without due authorization and further argued that as required by the Defendant’s Sanctions Grid, the Defendant had given the Claimant the opportunity to be heard in defence of the said allegations.

27. In his submission, learned Claimant’s counsel conceded that both the employer and employee have a mutual right to terminate the appointment at any time even for no reason but further argued that the Claimant had demonstrated through his pleadings all relevant issues and had given evidence in line with his pleadings in relation to his claims.  Learned counsel also argued that the Defendant had no evidence in rebuttal on the unfairness of the disciplinary committee that investigated the gross misconduct alleged against the Claimant.

28. Now, the current position of the law on the principle of “hiring and firing” is that, while an employer is not obliged to give any reason for firing an employee, once the employer gives a reason for terminating or dismissing an employee, the burden lies with the employer (not on the employee) to justify the said reason. See George Abomeli Vs Nigerian Railway Corporation [1995] 1 NWLR (Pt 372) 451; Angel Shipping & Dyeing Ltd Vs Ajah [2000] 13 NWLR (Pt 685) 551 CA; Mr. Kunle Osisanya Vs Afribank Nigeria Plc [2007] All FWLR (Pt 360) 1480 SC at 1491; [2007] 1 – 2 SC 317.

In the words of the Apex Court in Institute of Health ABU Hospital Management Board Vs Mrs Jummai R. I. Anyip [2011] LPELR-1517(SC), it was held as follows:

“Although it is trite that an employer is not obliged to give any reason for firing his servant, all the same, it is settled law that where he has preferred any reason at all, it is obliged to satisfactorily prove the same as the onus is on him in that regard, otherwise the termination/dismissal may constitute a wrongful dismissal without more”. 

29. The reason given by the Defendant for the dismissal of the Claimant is stated in Exhibit C8. I have taken liberty to reproduce the relevant portion of the said exhibit titled, “Letter of Dismissal” dated August 3, 2016, it states as follows:

“An investigation into alleged gross misconduct and abuse of office by you has shown that you abused your office by using your position to collect the sum of N250,000.00 from teller (Popoola) without a withdrawal instrument. You also authorized the debiting of a customer’s account (Adeyinka Aromolaran) without proper instrument to cover for the N250,000 you collected which amount to unethical behaviour.

Your actions therefore amount to GROSS MISCONDUCT in line with the Bank’s sanctions grid.

Consequently, you are hereby dismissed from the services of Keystone Bank Limited with immediate effect.” (Underlining for emphasis).

30. By the position of law, the onus is on the Defendant to satisfactorily prove and/or justify the reason as stated in his letter of dismissal. The question that presently arises, therefore now is, whether the Defendant has justified the dismissal of the Claimant having preferred a reason for the said dismissal. The testimony of DW1 in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the Witness Statement on Oath is that the Claimant without due authorization and in total disregard of the Bank’s policy on withdrawal of customer’s account collected the sum of N250,000.00 from the Bank’s Teller without ticket and authorized the debiting of the customer’s account without proper instrument and thereby abusing his office as Resident Internal Control Office (RICO). DW1 testified that the said customer, Adeyinka Aromolaran did not send any text message to his Account Officer but that the Claimant deliberately without due authorization, authorized the teller to debit the customer’s account without proper ticket which is in violation of Bank’s Branch Operation Policy.

31. The focus of the Court in the determination of the issue at hand is therefore, on the above stated reasons that amounted to gross misconduct and for the dismissal of the Claimant. In his testimony, the Claimant categorically denied the allegations levelled against him by the Defendant and testified that he complied with Exhibit C3, the procedure to withdraw money from the customer’s account in the absence of the customer but in line with the customer’s instruction and also tendered Exhibit C12, the copy of the text message of the said customer.  

32. As correctly submitted by learned Claimant’s counsel, the Defendant did not deny that the procedure enumerated by the Claimant in his testimony for withdrawal of money from customer’s account is incorrect.  In fact, the Defendant did not tender any document in rebuttal of Exhibit C3 that the Claimant tendered as the procedure for withdrawal of money on behalf of a customer. The Defendant’s defence in the main is that, a complaint was received from a customer; that based on the complaint, the Claimant was queried and that the Claimant was dismissed after he was given opportunity to defend himself by the Disciplinary Committee set up to investigate the allegations. The Claimant’s further grievance is that he was denied the opportunity to be heard as the three principal officers of the Defendant who purportedly confirmed the customer’s instruction and directed the release of the money were not called to testify as witnesses.

33. While under cross-examination by the learned Claimant’s counsel, DW1, testified as follows:

“The chain of officers involved in transaction of withdrawal of

customer’s account starts from the teller and authorised by Service Manager”.

Still under cross- examination, DW1 testified further:

“The outcome of the Disciplinary Committee with regards to the teller stated that the Claimant abused his office by enforcing the teller to consummate the transaction on behalf of the customer. The Teller claimed that out of fear for the office of the Claimant, he had to deal with the transaction.”  

34. The further defence advanced by DW1 is that, the customer, the said complainant, Adeyinka Aromolaran, did not send a text message to the Claimant but the Defendant failed to call the said complainant, or Aminu Lawal, the Service Manager or Tolulope Alao, the Service Officer or Popoola Ayotunde, the teller as witnesses. It is on record that the Defendant did not tender the Sanction Grid or any document to show that the punishment for the alleged gross misconduct stated as being contravened by the Claimant earns a dismissal. It is equally on record that the Defendant did not tender the report of its disciplinary committee that investigated the alleged misconduct to indicate that the reason stated for the Claimant’s dismissal was proved.

Based on the above analysis and the totality of the unassailable evidence adduced by the Claimant, it is my finding that the Defendant has not justified the reason for the Claimant’s dismissal for misconduct. This is fatal to the case of the Defendant. In the circumstances therefore, the Claimant’s dismissal is wrongful. And I so hold.

35. It is trite that in a master and servant relationship in which the

relationship is purely contractual, as in the instant case, once there is a purported termination of the employment, the Court will rarely make an order that it still subsists. This is on the principle that the Court cannot force a servant on an unwilling master and where the termination is wrongful, the employee is entitled to damages for wrongful termination and not reinstatement.  See: Geidam Vs NEPA [2001] 2 NWLR (Pt 696) 45; Texaco Nig Plc Vs Kehinde [2002] All FWLR (Pt 94) 143 at 164; Osisanya Vs Afribank Nig. Plc [2006] 1 NWLR (Pt 1031) 565 (SC) Obanye Vs U.B.N [2018] LPELR 44702. Therefore, by virtue of Section 19 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 and the recent authority of Skye Bank Plc Vs Adegun [2024] LPELR 2219, the Claimant is entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal. And I so hold.

36. On the Claimant’s claim for Order of Court for release his blocked/frozen account, the Defendant in paragraph 14 of its Statement of Defence, admitted the fact that the Claimant has never had access to his account from January 2016, when he was suspended until he was dismissed from his employment. It is a settled position of law with statutory backing and a legion of decided authorities that what is admitted needs no further proof. See Section 123 of the Evidence Act 2011; Akinlagun Vs Oshoboja [2006] 12 NWLR (Pt 993) 60; [2006] 5 SC (Pt 11) 100; Ojukwu Vs Onwudiwe & Ors [1984] 2 SC 15 at 38. Having regard therefore, to the Defendant’s unequivocal admission, I must state that the Claimant is entitled to the claim. And I so hold.

37. The Claimant also claims for the sum of Five Million Naira (N5,000,000.00) as general damages for defamation of character. The question now is, has the Claimant proved by credible and positive evidence his claim for defamation? Under the law, in an action for defamation or libel, the onus is on the Claimant to prove the following:

(a) That the Defendant published in a permanent form a statement; (b) That the statement referred to the Claimant; (c) That the statement conveys defamatory meaning to those to whom it was published; and (d) That the statement was defamatory of the Claimant in the sense that: (i) it lowered him in the estimation of right-thinking members of the society; or (ii) it exposed him to hatred, ridicule or contempt; or (iii) it injured his financial credit.

38. In other words, for an imputation to be defamatory, it must not only be pleaded but must be proved to have been to the discredit of the Claimant. See Sketch Vs Ajagbemokeferi [1989] 1 NWLR (Pt100) 678 683; NEPA Vs Inameti [2002] 11 NWLR (Pt 778) 397 at 421- 422. It is also settled that every fact pleaded must be proved by evidence and where a fact pleaded is not covered by the evidence produced in the case, that pleaded fact is deemed abandoned and discountenanced. It is certain therefore, that since the Claimant did not call evidence on the issue of defamation, it is deemed abandoned. And I so hold.

39. On the whole, I resolve the sole issue as set out against the Defendant and hold that the Claimant has established that the dismissal of his appointment by the Defendant is wrongful.

In the overall analysis, the Court adjudges the claims of the Claimant as meritorious in part. For avoidance of doubts and abundance of clarity, judgment is hereby entered in favor of the Claimant in part, against the Defendant upon the terms set out as follows:

1.                 It is hereby declared that the dismissal of the Claimant’s

employment on 03rd August, 2016 by the Defendant is wrongful.

2.                 It is hereby further declared that the letter of dismissal dated 03rd August, 2016 is invalid and it is hereby set aside.

3.                 The Defendant is hereby ordered to unfreeze the Claimant’s salary Account Number 1160047972, and to pay the Claimant the sum in the said account.

4.                  The Defendant is hereby further ordered to pay to the Claimant sum of N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) as general damages.

5.                 Cost of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) is awarded in favor of the Claimant

6.                 It is hereby further ordered that the Defendant shall pay the sum set out in (3), (4) and (5) above to the Claimant, within thirty (30) days.

7.                 10% interest is awarded on the judgement sum from the date of set in (xi) above till final liquidation.

 

SINMISOLA O. ADENIYI

(Hon. Judge)

11/09/2024

 

Legal representation:

A. A. Manta Esq. for Claimant

Godwin Udondiah Esq. with N. N. Bin Esq. for Defendant