Color

 

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE O. Y. ANUWE

 

Dated: 2nd October 2025                             

SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/31/2023

 

Between:

 

Uju Ethel Aligwo                                                       - Claimant

 

And

 

Keystone Bank Nigeria Limited                              -                                               Defendant

 

Representation:

I. A. Akaraiwe (SAN), with him, Hephzibah A. Nnanna and D. A. Ikeazor-Akaraiwe for the Claimant

Dr. Sonny Ajala (SAN), with him, Deborah Nwoke, L. Kekong, T. T. Istifanus and R. O. Onumajuru for the Defendant

 

    JUDGMENT

The Claimant instituted this action vide a Complaint filed on 8th February 2023. In an amended statement of facts filed on 7th April 2025, but deemed filed on 10th July 2025, the Claimant sought the following claims against the defendant:

1.         A declaration that the termination of the Claimant's employment by the Defendant on 7th November 2022 is wrongful and unlawful.

2.         An Order directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N30,000,000 being sum owed the Claimant by the Defendant as her entitlement in the course of the Claimant's employment with the Defendant.

3. The sum of N500,000,000 against the Defendant in favour of the Claimant as general damages for wrongful termination of the Claimant's employment which has occasioned her emotional and psychological trauma with economic destabilization.

 

CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

In her evidence, the claimant said she was employed by the defendant sometime in 2007. While in the employment of the Defendant, she was approached by a group of politically exposed persons [PEP] to open an account under the name “TAKEBACKNAIJA” initiative. She sought the permission of the Defendant's Executive Director, Mr. Lawal Jibril, about opening the account and she was given approval by the Executive Director to open the account. After opening the account, the PEP further requested that the same account be opened for all the 36 States in Nigeria. Approval was also granted by the Executive Director and the accounts were opened. On 7th November 2022, she was summoned to a meeting of the disciplinary committee who was investigating allegation of deceiving the management with PEP approval and improper documentation against her. There was no proof that her actions, which were approved by the Executive Director, amounted to dereliction of duty, gross negligence, incompetence and deliberate concealment of vital information to deceive the Executive Management as alleged by the Defendant. No proper investigation was done in the matter and there was no investigation report that indicted her. There was also no recommendation to appear before a duly constituted disciplinary committee in line with the Defendant's policy. During the Disciplinary Committee sitting, the Managing Director and Executive Director were there but, according to the Defendant's policy, they are not supposed to be part of the Committee. 

 

On the same date, being 7th November 2022, her employment was terminated by the Defendant through a letter wherein it was alleged that she deceived the defendant's management. Upon receipt of the termination letter, she engaged the services of a lawyer who wrote a demand letter dated 5th December 2022 to the defendant demanding that she be paid all benefits and entitlements as promised by the Defendants in their termination letter. The claimant's terminal benefits and entitlements is the sum of N30,000,000. 

 

The claimant tendered 7 documents in evidence which were admitted in evidence and marked Exhibits K1, K2, K3, K4, K5, K6 and K7 and she was thereafter cross examined by counsel for the defendant. 

 

DEFENCE

The defendant filed a statement of defence on 2nd May 2023 and also called one witness who testified on behalf of the defendant. The witness is Taiwo King. The witness, as DW1, explained to the Court that the Claimant was familiar with the Defendant's mandatory requirements for opening of accounts for both corporate and individuals.  The Claimant prospected the customer described as 'TAKEBACKNAIJA' for banking relationship with the Defendant and in the bid to consummate the relationship, presented an internal memo dated 30th August 2022 seeking the approval of her line supervisor's approval to open an account for TAKEBACKNAIJA' initiative. The approval granted was for the request to open account and not to waive the Defendant's mandatory requirement for account opening. The Claimant was the primary account officer for 'TAKEBACKNAJA' initiative and as the account officer, she failed to ensure compliance with the Defendant's mandatory requirement for opening account and this amounted to dereliction of her duty of care to the Defendant and she allowed the signatories to the TAKEBACKNAIJA' initiative to operate the TAKEBACKNAIJA' initiative account. The Claimant whose job is to be the watch dog for the Defendant to ensure compliance with the operational procedures willingly, willfully and knowingly concealed from the management of the Defendant, the documentation deficiency in the opening of the account of TAKEBACKNAIJA' initiative; concealed the inflows from doubtful sources such as 'medical outreach and flood victims together with the concealment of multiple outflows to signatories to the account of 'TAKEBACKNAJA' initiative. Investigation carried out by the relevant unit of the Defendant established series of acts of dereliction of duty by the Claimant and documentation deficiencies in the opening of the account. 

 

There was proper investigation of the conduct of the Claimant and formal invitation dated 4th November 2022 was given to the Claimant. The Defendant's Disciplinary Committee conducted its proceedings and observed the principle of fair hearing by confronting the Claimant with facts and findings from the investigation of the Claimant's dereliction of duty in the handling of the TAKEBACKNAIJA' initiative account. The Claimant appeared before the Defendant's Disciplinary Committee and she had ample and reasonable opportunity to make/present her defence with regard to her dereliction of duty in the handling of the TAKEBACKNAIJA' initiative account. Following the unsatisfactory explanation given by the Claimant on the allegation of dereliction of duty in the handling of the TAKEBACKNAIJA' initiative account, the Claimant's appointment was terminated on 7th November 7 2022. The Claimant's claim for N30,000,000 is unfounded as the Claimant's terminal benefits, inclusive of one month salary in-lieu of notice and earned allowances, were properly calculated and credited to her account upon the termination of her employment.

 

DW1 tendered 4 documents in evidence marked Exhibits K8, K9, K10 and K11. He was cross examined by counsel for the claimant.

 

FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESSES 

The Defendant’s Final Written Address was filed on the 13th day of March, 2025. A lone issue was submitted for the Court’s determination. I have considered and evaluated all the submissions and arguments canvassed in the said Final Written Address of the Defendant. I do not see the need to rehash its contents herein. However necessary reference will be made to the said address in the course of this judgment. 

 

The Claimant’s Final Written Address was filed on the 7th day of April, 2025. Three issues were submitted for the court’s determination. I have considered and evaluated all the submissions and arguments canvassed in the said Final Written Address of the Claimant. I do not see any need to rehash the contents herein. However necessary reference will be made to them in the course of this judgment.

 

COURT DECISION

The claimant was an employee of the defendant until 7th November 2022 when her employment was terminated. The claimant’s employment letters are Exhibits K1 and K2 while the letter terminating the claimant’s employment is Exhibit K4. In relief 1, the claimant has asked this court to declare that the termination of her employment on 7th November 2022 was wrongful while in relief 3, she sought to be paid the sum of N500,000,000 as general damages for the wrongful termination of her employment. In claims of this nature where an employee challenges the termination of his or her employment for being wrongful, the law has set the requirements which the employee must plead and prove, to be entitled to such claim. It is the law that an employee who brings a case for wrongful termination of employment must, in order to succeed, plead and prove the following essential facts: the terms and conditions of his appointment; the circumstances in which his appointment can be terminated under the condition of service; the procedure stipulated in the condition of service for termination of the employment; and the manner in which the termination has breached the said terms and conditions of his appointment. See PETROLEUM TRAINING INSTITUTE vs. MATTHEW (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 623) 1949; W.A.E.C vs. OSHIONEBO (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 370) 1501 at 1512. Therefore, to be entitled to the declaration sought by the claimant in relief 1, the claimant is under a duty to plead and prove the procedure for termination of employment stipulated in the condition of service which regulated her employment and then show the manner in which the procedure was breached by the defendant during the process of termination of her employment. 

 

I have carefully examined the averments in the statement of facts as well as the evidence adduced by the claimant. This is what she said, in both her pleading and evidence, with respect to termination of her employment: Her employment was terminated on 7th November 2022 through a letter wherein it was alleged that she deceived the defendant's management. On that day, she was summoned to a meeting by the disciplinary committee of the defendant investigating the allegation of deceiving the management with PEP approval and improper documentation against her. No proper investigation was done in the matter and there was no investigation report that indicted her. There was also no recommendation to appear before a duly constituted disciplinary committee in line with the Defendant's policy. During the Disciplinary Committee sitting, the Managing Director and Executive Director were there but, according to the Defendant's policy, they are not supposed to be part of the Committee. 

 

In her pleading and evidence, the claimant did not mention the condition of service which regulated her employment while in the service of the defendant and did not produce any condition of service, which contains the procedure for termination of employment in the defendant, before the Court, except her employment letters in Exhibits K1 and K2. Exhibits K1 and K2, in their contents, do not contain the terms and conditions for termination of the claimant’s employment but the employment letters indicated that the terms and conditions of the employment are contained in attached document. However, the employment letters tendered by the claimant do not have the attachments. In addition, the claimant failed to plead or state the procedure prescribed in the condition of service to be followed before her employment can be terminated. 

 

The claimant referred to the Defendant's policy and she appears to have founded some of her allegations against the disciplinary action taken against her on that policy, particularly her allegation that there was no recommendation to appear before a duly constituted disciplinary committee and that the Managing Director and Executive Director were present in the Disciplinary Committee sitting. However, the claimant failed to produce the said policy before the Court. The effect is that the claimant is unable to establish that these allegations were requirements stipulated in the Defendant's policy or condition of service. Without putting the condition of service or the Defendant’s Policy in evidence, the claimant failed to adduce the evidence necessary to determine whether the termination of her employment and the steps taken in the disciplinary action leading to the termination of her employment were wrongful or not. See AJI vs. CHAD BASIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [2016] All FWLR [Pt. 824] 175 at 190. The claimant therefore failed to show that the termination of her employment contravened the terms and conditions of the employment.

 

Let me add that the claim in relief 1 is a declaratory claim. Such a claim is grantable only upon cogent, satisfactory and credible proof of the claim by the claimant. The fact that the defendant admitted the claim or failed to defend the claim cannot be a basis to grant a declaratory claim. The claimant must be seen to have proved the claim by her evidence to succeed in the claim. See YUSUF vs. MASHI [2017] All FWLR [Pt.912] 664; SULE vs. HABU [2012] All FWLR [Pt.643] 1910. In this case, I find that the claimant did not adduce any cogent or credible evidence to prove the declaration she sought in relief 1. Consequently, the declaration sought by the claimant in relief 1 fails. By extension, relief 3 sought by the claimant was also not proved and accordingly fails.

In relief 2, the claimant sought an order directing the Defendant to pay her the sum of N30,000,000. This sum was described as entitlements owed to her by the Defendant. I have examined the evidence in proof of this claim but I find that the claimant failed to prove the claim. The evidence given by the claimant which relates to this claim is simply that her terminal benefits and entitlements is the sum of N30,000,000. She did not explain to the Court how her terminal benefits and entitlements accrued to the sum of N30,000,000. In other words, the claimant did not give the basis for the claim nor substantiate the claim. In defence of this claim, the defendant averred that the Claimant's terminal benefits have already been calculated and paid into her account. The claimant did not file a reply to the statement of defence. Accordingly, she did not controvert the defendant’s averment that what is due to her as terminal benefits have been paid to her. I find that the claimant did not prove the claim in relief 2. 

 

The result of this judgment is that the claimant has failed to prove her claims. This suit lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed. 

 

Parties shall bear their respective costs.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe

Judge