WD

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT UYO

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE S. H. DANJIDDA

DATE: 17^th October, 2025                                SUIT NO: NICN/LA/545/2019

BETWEEN:

GINIKA CHIANUGO                     -           -           -           -           -           Claimant

AND

KEYSTONE BANK LIMITED                 -           -           -           -           Defendant

REPRESENTATION:

Kelly O. Ogbe Esq for the Claimant

A. O. Kolawole Esq for the Defendant

JUDGMENT

By a General Form of Complaint and other accompanying processes dated and filed on 30/10/2019, the Claimant instituted this suit against the Defendant and asked for the following reliefs as set out in his statement of facts:-

“i.        A Declaration that the Claimant’s  employment with the Defendant was duly determined by voluntary resignation of the Claimant via a Letter of Resignation of Appointment dated 23/6/2015.

ii.        A Declaration that the subsequent suspension and dismissal of the Claimant from the Defendant’s employment after the Claimant has resigned from the said employment is wrongful, invalid and illegal.

iii.       A Declaration that the Claimant having resigned his appointment with the Defendant on the 23/6/2015 cannot subsequently in the month of March 2016 be validly Blacklisted by the Defendant in the Register of Terminated, Dismissed or Convicted staff of Banks and Other Financial Institutions on the grounds of fraud and dishonesty (CBN Blackbook) under Section 48(4) of BOFIA.

iv.       A Declaration that the indictment of the Claimant for fraud by the Defendant without issuing the Claimant any query in respect of such allegation; without informing the Claimant of the constitution of any Disciplinary Committee (DC) to try the offence; without inviting the Claimant to appear before the DC and without affording the Claimant the right to be heard before the DC amounts to a breach of the Defendant's Policies and Procedures Manual and the Claimant's Fundamental Human Rights to fair hearing guaranteed under Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and also protected under the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights as domesticated in Nigeria.

v.         A Declaration that the failure of the Defendant to follow the appropriate procedure of investigation and granting of fair hearing to the Claimant before filing a Fraud Indictment Report against the Claimant with the Secretary of the Bankers Committee for inclusion in the Register of Terminated, Dismissed or Convicted staff of Banks and Other Financial Institutions on the grounds of fraud and dishonesty (CBN Blackbook) as envisaged under Section 48(4) of BOFIA, makes the said filed Fraud Indictment Report invalid, illegal, ultra vires, null and void and liable to be set aside.

vi.       An Order setting aside the suspension of the Claimant from the Defendant’s employment and subsequent dismissal from the said employment on the ground that the same was wrongful, invalid and illegal. 

vii.      An Order setting aside the Defendant's Disciplinary Committee indictment of the Claimant on the allegation of Forged Bank Statement used in processing Credit Facilities as same was wrongful, invalid, illegal, ultra vires, null and void.

viii.    An Order compelling the Defendant to take immediate and appropriate steps towards delisting the Claimant’s name from the Register of Terminated, Dismissed or Convicted staff of Banks and Other Financial Institutions on the grounds of fraud and dishonesty (CBN Blackbook).

ix.       A Mandatory Order directing the Defendant to immediately Delist the Claimant’s name from the Register of Terminated, Dismissed or Convicted Staff of Banks and Other Financial Institutions on the grounds of fraud and dishonesty (CBN Blackbook).

x.         An Order directing the Defendant to notify the Claimant in writing of the removal of the Claimant’s name from the Register of Terminated, Dismissed or Convicted Staff of Banks and Other Financial Institutions on the grounds of fraud and dishonesty (CBN Blackbook).

xi.       An Order directing the Defendant to write a letter of apology to the Claimant for wrongfully blacklisting the Claimant’s name in the CBN Blackbook.

xii.      An Order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendant, its officers, servants, agents, however described from further Blacklisting of the Claimant’s name in the CBN Blackbook or publication or dissemination of the aforesaid Fraud Indicted Report against the Claimant.

xiii.    An Order of special damages in the sum of ?10,118,057.08 (Ten Million, One Hundred and Eighteen Thousand, Fifty-Seven Naira and Eight Kobo) (being Claimant's annual total package while in the employment of Unity Bank Plc); against the Defendant annually commencing from the date of the termination of the Claimant's employment with Unity Bank Plc (June 27^th 2019) to the date of Delisting of the Claimant’s name from the Register of Terminated, Dismissed or Convicted Staff of Banks and Other Financial Institutions on the grounds of fraud and dishonesty (CBN Blackbook).

xiv.     An Order of General Damages against the Defendant in favour of the Claimant in the sum of ?15,000,000 (Fifteen Million Naira) for the injurious falsehood published and filed by the Defendant against the Claimant in the CBN Blackbook which have injured the Claimant's dignity, reputation, integrity and his character in the eyes of the Banking community and Other Financial Institutions.

xv.      25% Post Judgment interest on Judgment Sum from date of Judgment until final liquidation.”

In response to the Originating processes, the Defendant by an order of court filed its statement of Defence and other accompanying processes on the 14^th July, 2020. Meanwhile, the claimant filed his reply to the statement of defence on 1/9/2020.

CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

From the pleadings of the Claimant, his case is that, the Defendant as a financial Institution employed him via a letter of employment dated 1^st August, 2013 and based on his previous banking experience, he started as a Senior Banking Officer and resumed his duties as the Manager of the Computer Village, Ikeja Branch of the Defendant.

Claimant averred that his employment was subsequently confirmed by the Defendant and he diligently carried out his employment services to the best of his ability without any blemish record. That he resigned from the Defendant's employment voluntarily and with immediate effect in accordance with the terms of the letter of his employment through a letter dated 23/6/2015. Claimant added that he forfeited his salary for that month since he could not give a month’s notice to the Defendant prior to his resignation.

Claimant also averred that, to his utmost dismay, the Defendant on the same 23/6/2015 purported to reject his resignation on the ground that the Claimant was currently on suspension and being investigated for alleged forged Bank Statements used in processing Credit Facilities for customers, and subsequently purported to suspend the Claimant from the employment after the Claimant had exited the employment. Claimant further averred that as at the time of his resignation, he was neither under any suspension from the Defendant nor under any investigation for any forged Bank Statement used in processing Credit Facilities for customers.

That the Defendant thereafter without the knowledge of the Claimant purported to constitute a Disciplinary Committee (DC) to investigate the Claimant on allegation of Forged account statements. That the Disciplinary Committee conducted its investigation and proceedings without inviting or informing the Claimant and a decision was subsequently taken indictng the Claimant on the allegation and the Claimant was consequently dismissed from the Defendant’s employment.

Stating further, Claimant said that pursuant to the indictment and dismissal, the Defendant in March, 2016 without the knowledge of the Claimant, caused the Claimant’s name to be entered in the CBN Register of Terminated, Dismissed or Convicted staff of Banks and Other Financial Institutions on the grounds of fraud and dishonesty (otherwise known as the CBN Blackbook), thereby banning the Claimant for life from gaining any employment with any other bank or other financial Institutions in furtherance of his career as a Banker pursuant to Section 48(4) of BOFIA.

Claimant continued that, by denying him the right to be heard before the DC, the defendant has breached the Claimant’s Fundamental Human Rights to fair hearing as guaranteed under Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

That the Claimant in April, 2019 secured an employment with Unity Bank Plc with an annual total salary package of ?10,118,057.08 without his knowledge of his being blacklisted. However, Unity Bank Plc subsequently terminated the Claimant's appointment in June 2019 when it became aware that the Claimant’s name was Blacklisted. That despite the complaint by the Claimant, the Defendant has failed and refused to cause his name to be removed from the CBN Blackbook, hence this action.

CASE OF THE DEFENDANT

It is the Defendant’s case on the other hand that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant as a Senior Banking Officer and at all relevant time a Manager of the Defendant's branch in computer Village, Ikeja, Lagos.

That sometime in 2015, the Defendant received credit applications recommended by the Claimant on behalf of two (2) customers of the Defendant (Capri Finance and Investment Limited and Faika Farms Limited). That the account statements of the customers were forwarded by the Claimant as part of the documents presented for loan acquisition ie; Zenith Bank Plc and Fidelity Bank Plc account statements of Capri Finance and Investment Limited and FCMB Plc account statement of Faika Farms Limited.

That the Defendant verified the genuineness of the documents attending the loan application and found that the account statements of Capri Finance and Investment Limited and Faika Farms Limited presented and recommended for approval by the Claimant were forged. The Defendant then contacted the Claimant for clarification on his involvement in presentation of the forged account statements as a Branch Manager, but the Claimant maintained that the Zenith and Fidelity Bank account statements were not forged but genuine, and that they were given to him by the company’s promoters. That on Faika Farms Limited, the Claimant initially denied submitting the FCMB account statement to the Credit Reviewing Team, but upon being confronted with the e-mail by which he forwarded the account statement, he admitted that he sent the account statement in error and apologised for the lapse on his part.

According to the Defendant, Claimant also claimed that Faika Farms Limited's account was given to him by the accountant of Pointek Technologies (a sister company of Faika Farms Limited) who requested for his assistance in preparing a financial report for Faika Farms Limited.

As a result of that, the Defendant then placed the Claimant on indefinite suspension on 22^nd June, 2015 without pay and with immediate effect, pending the conclusion of investigation on these issues by the Internal Audit Division. That the Claimant having had knowledge of the said letter refused to meet his supervisor to accept and acknowledge receipt of same.The defendant reported the Claimant’s case of forgery and falsification of banks documents to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, State CID Panti, Yaba, Lagos for investigation and prosecution. That the Claimant in order to avoid police investigation and probable arrest hurriedly submitted his Resignation letter dated 23^rd June, 2015 and made himself unreachable except through his email. That in reaction to his resignation, the Defendant served the Claimant with a letter on the 23^rd June, 2015 stating that the resignation was not accepted by the Defendant, as the Claimant was on suspension and under investigation for alleged forgery.

According to the Defendant, the Claimant's resignation, allegedly effective the same day it was presented, was ineffective and in breach of the Claimant’s terms of employment. That it also purported to circumvent the ongoing investigation of allegation of wrongs suspected to have been committed by the Claimant. That the Defendant invited the Claimant to Disciplinary Committee hearing of 2^nd July 2015 by a letter dated 23^rd June 2015 sent by courier to the Claimant's last known address No. 82 Ogunleye Street off Adekunle Kuye Surulere, but was returned undelivered on account that the house address does not exist as the street numbering stopped at No. 32. That the defendant then subsequently sent email invitations to the Claimant’s mail but the Claimant did not acknowledge any of the mails sent to him and several phone calls made to the Claimant's private phone number did not go through. That despite having knowledge of the sittings of the Disciplinary Committee, the claimant elected to abscond all through the sittings and refused to take the opportunity to present his defence and exonerate himself.

That in view of the invitation of sittings of the DC, the Disciplinary Committee in its sitting of 11^th November 2015, reviewed the facts presented by the Internal Audit Division and concluded that the Claimant was complicit in the scheme to fraudulently obtain credit facilities from the Defendant and falsified Bank's record by presenting forged statements of account to the Defendant for credit purposes, which accounts the customers denied giving the Claimant.

The Defendant averred that the above conclusion of the Disciplinary Committee warranted a dismissal of the erring employee, and the Claimant was so dismissed by a Letter dated 17^th December 2015, which was served on the Claimant through his email notifying the Claimant of the Disciplinary Committee’s decision against him.

That the Defendant in compliance with the extant law and Central Bank of Nigeria's regulations on blacklisting any Banker dismissed for any act of dishonesty or fraud, made the requisite report to the Central Bank of Nigeria and immediately commenced the procedure for blacklisting the Claimant.

That the Claimant was then listed in the Register of Terminated, Dismissed or Convicted staff of Banks and Other Financial Institutions on grounds of fraud and dishonesty effective year 2016.

Therefore, the Defendant denies being liable for any consequential loss the Claimant may have sustained by virtue of his being blacklisted, and states that fair hearing was afforded the Claimant but he failed to take advantage of same.

TRIAL

At the commencement of trial on the 5^th July, 2021, the Claimant testified as CW1 and adopted his two witness statements on oath dated 31st October, 2019 and 1^st September, 2020 respectively. Claimant tendered his documents which were admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibits KOBI-1 to KOBI-20a & b. Exhibits KOBI-21 and KOBI-22 were also tendered and admitted in evidence under cross-examination.

Claimant was cross-examined by the Defendant and closed his case as there was no re-examination.

Defendant in its defence called Mr. Julius Oyedeji (DW1) who adopted his witness statement on oath dated 14^th July, 2020 and tendered Exhibits KYS-1 to KYS-15a & b.

DW1 was cross-examined and discharged as there was no re-examination hence adjourning the matter for adoption of final written addresses.

CLAIMANT’S  FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

At the close of hearing and after the matter was adjourned to 21/1/2023 for adoption of final written addresses and  having the Defendant not filed it's final written address, the Claimant  filed his Final Written Address on 5/12/2023, wherein learned counsel on behalf of the claimant formulated three issues for determination, to wit;

i)                 Whether the Claimant having resigned from the Defendant’s employment on the 23^rd of June, 2015 via Exhibit KOBI 3; can still be considered as an employee of the Defendant and subjected to the Defendant’s  disciplinary procedures and subsequent dismissal  via Exhibit KYS- 12(b); and

ii)              Whether the Defendant in purporting to investigate and discipline the Claimant for gross misconduct and finding the Claimant guilty of gross misconduct complied with the Defendant’s disciplinary procedure as contained in Exhibit KOBI-18 which aims at affording employees the opportunity of fair hearing;

iii)           Whether the Claimant is entitled to damages for the loss of his employment with Unity Bank Plc and for his continuous inability to be gainfully employed in the financial sector until the Defendant causes his name to be removed from the CBN Blackbook.

Counsel for the Claimant referred to the the Defendant's Policy manual (Exhibit KOBI- 21) at page 21 which provides that an employee who wishes to resign from the Bank must give one or three months notice as agreed in the contract letter in  writing or pay one/three months basic salary in lieu of notice to the bank. That the Claimant voluntarily resigned via Exhibits KOBI-3 dated 23/6/2015 to take effect from the date of the letter.

Counsel submitted that eventhough the Claimant did not give notice, but was entitled to pay the Defendant one month basic salary in lieu of notice in the sum of ?186,201.36k in accordance with the Claimant’s remuneration package.

Counsel also submitted that the Claimant is entitled to a prorated salary in the total sum of ?290,624.84k having worked for the Defendant for a period of 22 days in the month of June, 2015 before his voluntary resignation. Therefore the Claimant was under a duty to pay the Defendant the sum of ?186,201.36k in lieu of notice of resignation. That in view of the Defendant's Policy Manual (Exhibit KOBI-21) at page 83, the Claimant had to forego his entire severance entitlement (prorated salary) as a net off for the payment of the basic salary in lieu of notice to the Defendant.

Counsel further submitted that the Claimant as at the time of his resignation was neither under any suspension by the Defendant nor under any investigation for any alleged forged Bank Statement used in processing Credit Facilities for customers. Neither did the Claimant have any query issued to him by the Defendant as of the date of resignation. That the defendant subsequently sent the Claimant an mail on 24/6/2015 (Exhibit KOBI-5(a) with an attached Internal memo on suspension backdated to 22/6/2015 purporting to suspend the Claimant indefinitely with immediate effect and without pay after the Claimant had resigned.

Counsel contended that there is no evidence before this court to establish that there was a disciplinary action against the Claimant either by way of a query letter or suspension letter served on the Claimant by the Defendant. That Exhibit KOBI-19 provides adequately for the procedure to be followed for setting in motion disciplinary actions against an employee who is alleged to have committed any infraction of the rules of engagement as an employee.

Counsel stated that the current trend in Labour Law is that a Letter of Resignation determines the employment relationship and a rejection of a letter of Resignation by an employer for whatever reason, amounts to unfair labour practice and is therefore unconstitutional. Counsel relied on the cases of WAEC V. Oshionebo (200) 12 NWLR Pt, 994 258 CA; Selcon Tannery Ltd V. Mr. Bada Abubakar  & Ors 2013 LPELR-21412; 7Up Bottling Company Ltd  V. Anyanya Afam Augustus 2012 LPELR-20873 CA, where it was held that a notice of Resignation is effective from the date such a letter was received by the employer and it also bestows on the employee the right to leave the employment automatically without any benefit, subject to the employee paying any of his indebtedness to the employer.

Counsel also placed reliance on the position of the law as captured in the paper delivered by the President of the Court; My Lord, Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip (PNICN) titled: "The Changing face of Nigerian Labour Law Jurisprudence and What Employers need to know" presented at the Perchstone & Graeys Labour Law Emerging Trend Seminar on Labour Law and Emerging Trends, where His Lordship shed more light on this issue.

Counsel also referred to this Court's decisions in Mr. Frederick Obeahon Ogbeifun V. Uba Microfinance bank Ltd; Suit No: NICN/BEN/07/2017 delivered on 11^th February 2019 by Hon. Justice A. A. Adewemimo; Selcon Tannery Ltd V. Mr. Bada Abubakar & Ors (2013) LPELR 21412 and 7Up BOTTLING Co, Ltd V. Anyanya Afam Augustus 2012 LPELR 20873 CA.

Counsel maintained that it is immaterial whether the employee resigned for the purpose of truncating or evading a disciplinary investigation or indictment. That an employee such as the Claimant has an absolute power to resign and there is no discretionary power vested on the employer such as the Defendant to reject or accept same. Counsel relied on Adefemi V. Abegunde (2004) All FWLR Pt. 203) 2109 at 2129- 2130; Yesufu V. Gov. Edo state (2001) 13 NWLR Pt. 731) 517.

Counsel urged the court to resolve the issue in favour of the Claimant.

ISSUE TWO

Counsel contended that the foundation for any disciplinary actions or proceedings against an employee by the Defendant under its policy is kick-started with a query and having the claimant not been issued with a query by the Defendant, as admitted by DW1, then the defendant cannot claim to have properly investigated the Claimant in the first place that could have led to any proper disciplinary action in compliance with its disciplinary rules.

It is the further contention of counsel that the Claimant’s fundamental right to fair hearing as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was breached by the Defendant because the provision entails that every person accused of any wrongdoing is given adequate opportunity to explain himself. Counsel cited the case of Kotoye V. CBN (1989) 1 NWLR Pt. 98) 419 at 488.

Counsel argued that the contention of the Defendant that the Claimant was unreachable failed woefully under cross-examination of DW1 when confronted with the Electricity bill for the claimant's address.That the Defendant deliberately refused to serve the Claimant through his solicitor who is known to the Defendant and also failed to serve the Claimant through his referees who are also known to the Defendant or his Branch Driver or his colleagues.

Counsel urged the court to hold that the procedure adopted by the Defendant in conducting its disciplinary proceedings without notifying the Claimant and consequently finding the Claimant guilty and dismissing him was grossly inconsistent with its laid down procedures. Consequently the disciplinary action was flawed and is liable to be set aside.

ISSUE THREE

Counsel contended that given the argument already canvassed on issues one and two above, then the Claimant will automatically be entitled to all the reliefs sought including damages according to Section 19(d) of the NIC Act. That the court is enjoined under Section 19(d) of the NIC Act, 2006 to consider whether an award of compensation or damages in any circumstances contemplated by the NIC Act or any Act of the National Assembly dealing with any matter that the court has jurisdiction.

It is counsel’s submission that the Claimant's new employment with Unity Bank Plc was terminated simply because the Defendant wrongfully blacklisted the Claimant’s name without his knowledge on the basis of a purported indictment for fraud and dismissal after claimant had exited the Defendant's employment some years ago.That the defendant in bad faith entered the Claimant’s name in the CBN Register of Terminated, Dismissed or Convicted staff of Banks and Other Financial Institutions on grounds of fraud and dishonesty, thereby banning the Claimant for life from gaining any employment with any other bank or other financial Institutions in furtherance of his career as a Banker pursuant to Section 48(4) of BOFIA.

Counsel continued that despite the complaint by the Claimant demanding the Defendant to remedy the wrong, the Defendant has failed and refused to cause the name of the Claimant to be removed from the CBN Blackbook.

Claimant maintained that since the loss of his employment with Unity Bank Plc and the Claimant's inability to secure another employment due to his blacklisting at the Defendant’s instance; the damage to the Claimant's longstanding reputation has led to inexpressible hardship on the Claimant.

In conclusion, counsel submitted that the Claimant is entitled to the award of special and general damages as compensation for the wrongful act of the Defendant which was actuated by malice and bad faith.

DEFENDANT'S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

The Defendant filed its Final Written Address on the 21/5/2025 and formulated three issues for determination to wit;

“A.      Whether the Claimant's resignation during the pendency of an investigation into allegations of his misconduct was valid and effective to terminate the contract of employment between the Claimant and the Defendant?

B.        Whether the Defendant accorded the Claimant a fair hearing in the Disciplinary Committee Proceedings?

C.        Whether the Claimant is entitled to the anticipated wages claimed as special damages or to any damages at all?”

Defendant objects to paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 23b, 28b, 28c, 28d and 28e of the Claimant's Reply to the statement of defence filed on 1/9/2020 and also objects to the admissibility of Exhibits KOBI 14, 15, 16 and 17 and argued that the above paragraphs are new facts which did not merely respond to the statement of defence but raised new issues demanding response from the Defendant

On issue one, counsel submitted that contract of employment is governed by the terms and conditions of employment agreed to, by parties out of their freewill. Citing UBN PLC V. JABULE & ANOR (2011) LPELR-8239(SC). That the terms and conditions of employment must be gathered from the contract of service and other sources which can be incorporated by reference to the contract. Counsel relied on the case of IDONIBOYE-OBU V. NNPC (2003) LPELR 1426(SC).

On the Claimant’s case that he resigned from the Defendant wherein he made the resignation effective that same day(23/6/2015), counsel stated that by the Defendant's policies, the claimant could not validly resign while under investigation and that the resignation  was not effective until the investigation is concluded. Counsel continued that it is important to determine from the evidence on record whether the Claimant was lawfully entitled to resign while under investigation, and whether the Defendant was obliged to accept the resignation.

Counsel contended that the claimant did not deny any of the activities stated in paragraph 26 of the DW1's Statement on Oath dated 14/7/2020 that predated his resignation. That the Claimant having not specifically denied that those events and investigation activities predated his resignation, the Claimant is deemed to have admitted that those events predated his resignation. That during cross-examination, facts were elicited that the Claimant had knowledge of some alleged forged documents before 23/6/2015 when he wrote his resignation letter.

Counsel further contended that by Clause 8.1 at Page 81 of Exhibit KOBI-21, it was agreed between the Claimant and the Defendant that an employee could not resign while under investigation. That it is established that the Claimant who was under investigation and purporting to resign could not lawfully do so.

According to the Defendant, it acted lawfully and validly by refusing to accept the Claimant’s resignation as there was pending investigation against the Claimant as at the date of his resignation.

Counsel argued that Exhibit KOBI 21 provided under HCP 111- STAFF SEPARATION POLICY, Clause 4.1 at Page 71, processes/steps for exit through resignation/retirement, and the processes are to be concluded within 24 hours of the receipt of the notice of exit from the branches. That in the event that an employee resigns pending the conclusion of any investigation of his conduct, or while on suspension, the Bank shall proceed with the process of investigation. The resignation letter shall not be accepted until the investigation is concluded. It was argued that the Claimant did not hand over his resignation letter to his supervisor, rather it was addressed to the Head office. That Exhibit KOBI 3 bore no received stamp of either the supervisor or head office because it was sent to the defendant by courier, and neither did the claimant do exit interview, as the supervisor to conduct the interview was the one with the suspension letter which the Claimant was evading.

It is the submission of counsel that there was no notice period given, and no draft was referenced enclosed in lieu of notice. According to the Defendant, the claimant’s resignation is invalid and in breach of the “severance” term of his employment as stipulated in Exhibit KOBI 2 and 21. Counsel cited NIGER INSURANCE CO. V ABED BROTHERS LTD (1979) 7 SC 35.

Counsel noted with emphasis that the payment of the salary in lieu of notice should be made immediately the letter of termination/resignation is handed to the employer. Citing SKYE BANK PLC V. ADEGUN (2024) LPELR-62219(SC). That the resignation letter neither gave any notice nor attached any draft in lieu of notice on the effective date of the Notice, and in the absence of all these, counsel urged the court to hold that the Claimant’s resignation was unlawful, invalid, incompetent and ineffective to terminate the contract of employment between him and the Defendant on the said 23/6/2015.

Counsel continued that an employee is not entitled to salary while on suspension during an investigation, unless and until he is exonerated. That the Claimant had no “End of service Advice” where his due entitlements would be pro-rated and paid, because his exit was unlawful. That it is of no moment that the Claimant suggested forfeiture of salary for 21 days he worked in June 2015. The claimant’s terms and conditions did not provide for forfeiture in lieu of notice. That forfeiture was not agreed upon in Exhibits KOBI 2 and 21. It was contended that in law a term not part of the conditions agreed upon cannot be surreptitiously made to become a condition in a contract. Counsel cited FUNTAJI INT'L SCHOOL LTD V. GTB PLC (2022) LPELR-58143(CA) and AHMED & ORS V. CBN (2012) LPELR-9341(SC).

Counsel also contended that it was an agreed term that in the event an employee resigns pending the conclusion of any investigation of his conduct, the Bank shall proceed with the process of investigation. That the Defendant lawfully subjected the Claimant to disciplinary proceedings notwithstanding his resignation. Counsel maintained that the Claimant was under investigation and not entitled to resign, and an acceptance of the resignation letter would only be on conclusion of the investigation and completion of the Exit process.

On issue two, counsel submitted that the law envisages that both parties to a case be given opportunity of presenting their respective cases without hindrance from beginning to the end. Counsel cited NEWSWATCH COMMUNICATIONS LTD V. ATTA (2006) LPELR-1986(SC).

Counsel stated that page 42 of Exhibit KOBI 21 provides on Policy Statement that “No disciplinary action should be taken against an employee without an investigation to establish the facts. For this purpose, suspension from office pending the completion of investigation will not constitute disciplinary action”. Counsel therefore submitted that there was an on going investigation against the Claimant as at 23/6/2015 when he sought to resign. That the Defendant subsequently placed the Claimant on suspension on 23/6/2015 and that the pendency of an investigation with or without suspension is sufficient ground not to accept the resignation of an employee.

Counsel argued that the Claimant mis-interpreted the provision for “formal” query in Exhibit KOBI 18 to mean “written” query. That the interpretation is not only erroneous but also misleading. That Exhibit KOBI 18 required a Formal query and not a written query and formal query may thus be written or oral, so long as it is official. Counsel maintaind that the Claimant was given a query and the disciplinary process was in accordance with its Policies.

Counsel contended that the Meeting of Risk Management Department and Audit Department with the Claimant and 2 other employees was a Formal meeting and the claimant was queried orally and he responded orally as permissible under Exhibit KOBI 18.That the Claimant was aware that the meeting was an official investigation and that the allegation was forgery of bank documents. That the subsequent decision to place the Claimant on suspension was properly based on his oral response to query as documented in Exhibit KYS 11. Counsel relied on the Supreme Court case of IMONIKHE V. UNITY BANK PLC (2011) 12 NWLR PT. 1262, 624 AT 640, where it was held that where an employer accuses an employee of misconduct by way of query and the employee answers the query before the employer takes a decision on the employee's appointment, that satisfies the requirement of fair hearing.

Counsel further contended that the Claimant wilfully refused to attend the Disciplinary committee proceedings despite having notice of same and urged the court to hold that the Claimant was granted fair hearing but has failed to take advantage of same.

On issue three, it is counsel's contention that it is worrisome that the Claimant secured employment from Unity Bank Plc without obtaining Reference Letter from the Defendant as his immediate previous employer. That invariably, the claimant must have refused to list the Defendant as his previous employer in his Personal History Form with Unity Bank Plc and this wilful omission points to the fact that the Claimant was aware that he was not entitled to request for the Defendant's Reference to his new employer due to his acts of non exit interview, lack of handover note and clearance certificate and eventual dismissal. That the claimant circumvented the Defendant’s reference and somehow secured employment with Unity Bank Plc by concealment of facts.That the Defendant is therefore not liable for the loss of Unity Bank’s employment.

Counsel argued that the claimant claimed ?10,118,057, which was the exact annual salary he was promised at unity Bank Plc, from 2019 until he was delisted from the CBN Blackbook and ?15 million General Damages. That the Claimant as an employee only becomes entitled to his wages or emoluments based on the time for which he has actually worked for. Counsel cited the case of TENUMAH V. OWELLE GLOBAL SERVICESLTD (2013) 34 NWLR 29 AT 187. That the law is that special damages must be proved specifically. The claimant has failed to show that he worked for the Defendant between 2019 and now to be entitled to any wages from the Defendant.

It is the further submission of counsel that the Defendant was required by law to submit to the CBN the fact of the Claimant’s dismissal as a result of which the CBN registered the Claimant in its Register of Terminated, Dismissed or Convicted staff of Banks and Other Financial institutions. That by self-terminating his employment without proper Exit Process and clearance certificate, the claimant was liable to be registered in the CBN Register of Terminated, Dismissed or Convicted staff of Banks and Other Financial Institutions.That the Claimant is not entitled to any of his claims before this court and the court is urged to dismiss the Claimant’s claims with cost.

CLAIMANT'S REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW

In response to Defendant’s objection against some paragraphs of the Claimant's Reply to the Statement of Defence, Counsel contends that under the practice and procedure of Courts, any party who though did not plead a particular fact, will be allowed to adduce evidence on the facts pleaded by his adversary by either giving evidence in support of the said fact or evidence to challenge or rebut it. Counsel referred to Order 38 Rule 16(5) of the NICN Rules.

Counsel submitted that the paragraphs of the Defendant's Final Written Address suggesting counsel giving evidence from chambers should be discountenanced and struck out by the court. That the law is trite that address of counsel no natter how brilliant cannot take the place of evidence. Counsel relied on the Supreme Court decision in UCHA V. ELECHI (2012) 13 NWLR (PT 1317) AT 361 PARAS F-H. The Court was also urged to discountenance the Defendant’s objection to the Claimant’s Exhibits KOBI 14, 15 and 16 founded on the Claimant’s Reply to the Statement of Defence.

Counsel further submitted that there is no law that requires an employee to compulsorily state in his resignation letter that his salary should be forfeited for failure to give notice or that failure to state same coupled with the failure to provide a cheque for payment in-lieu of notice will make such resignation letter invalid. Counsel continued that the issue of forfeiture of salary for failure to give notice is automatic as it is an issue of law and referred to the case of MR. FREDERICK OBEAHON OGBEIFUN V. UDA MICROFINANCE BANK LIMITED; SUIT NO. NICN/BEN/07/2017 delivered on the 11^th of February, 2019 by Hon. Justice A. A. Adewemimo.

On the Defendant’s argument that the claimant secured employment from Unity Bank Plc without obtaining Reference Letter from the Defendant, counsel contended that this is another case of counsel giving evidence from chambers in the Final Written Address on a point that was never raised in any of the pleadings of the parties and of which no evidence was proffered during the trial.That the law is settled that counsel cannot in the guise of a final written address give evidence from either the Bar or in the Final Written Address. Counsel relied on the Supreme Court decision in TIMOTHY V. THE PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE (2021) 11 NWLR (PT.1787) 251 AT 272, PARAS F-G.

Counsel finally urged the court to grant the Claimant's reliefs as sought.

Defendant's counsel filed additional authorities on 25^th July, 2025.

COURT'S DECISION

I have carefully gone through the pleadings filed by the parties and the evidence presented. Having also taken into account the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the issue for determination I will address is; Whether or not the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in view of the facts and evidence before this Court?

The gist of the case of the claimant is that he worked with the Defendant from August 2013 to June 2015 and resigned voluntarily on 23^rd June 2015, but the defendant rejected the resignation, alleging that he was under suspension and investigation. That after the resignation, the Bank set up a Disciplinary Committee which led to the dismissal of the Claimant. That in March 2016, the claimant was Blacklisted by the Central Bank of Nigeria based on alleged fraud. He however secured a job with Unity Bank Plc in 2019, but was later terminated when the Unity Bank Plc discovered that he was Blacklisted. It was contended by the claimant that his inclusion in the CBN Blackbook was illegal and ultra vires and directly caused him loss of employment and reputation in the banking industry.

It is a settled principle of law that where a party seeks declaratory reliefs as in the instant case, he must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence, if any. In essence, a declaratory relief must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court notwithstanding the default of defence or any admission in the Defendant’s pleadings. The onus therefore is on the Claimant to establish his case on the preponderance of evidence. See Olayiwola V. Minister, FCT & Ors (2021) LPELR-53044 (CA); Glo V. Fatmax Global Ventures Ltd (2020) LPELR-50500 (CA).

Claimant in trying to prove his case has tendered among others, Exhibits KOBI-2 and KOBI-21 which are his Letter of Employment and the Defendant's Policy Manual respectively. The said Exhibits form a binding contract between the parties and the core legal principle is that when two parties willingly sign a written agreement, they must abide by its terms. If a dispute arises, the court must resolve it based only on what is written in that agreement. The court cannot invent new terms or interpret things that are not clearly in the contract. This principle is supported by court's decision which state that ontracts are sacred, and their written terms are the ultimate guide for interpretation. A Court's role is not to rewrite a contract for the parties. See Ahmed V. CBN (2012) LPELR-9341(SC), Minaj Holdings Ltd V. Amcon (2015) LPELR-24650(CA) and Oyamenda V. Abdulrahman (2013) LPELR-22744 (CA).

On the issue of the Claimant’s resignation, the Defendant argued that the Claimant’s resignation, allegedly effective the same day the letter was presented was ineffective and in breach of the Claimant’s Terms of Employment. That is why the Defendant rejected the letter of Resignation, as the Claimant was on suspension and under investigation for alleged forgery.

The Claimant resigned his appointment with immediate effect on the 23/6/2015 Vide Exhibit KOB3 which was received by the Defendant on the same day. What then is the legal effect of this resignation with immediate effect? In WAEC V. OSHIONEBO (2006) 12 NWLR PT 994) 258 CA, it was held that a Notice of Resignation is effective not from the date of the letter, or from the date of any purported acceptance, but from the date on which the letter was received by the employer or his agent; and that tendering of a letter of resignation by an employee carries with it the right to leave the service automatically without any benefit subject to the employee paying any of his indebtedness to his employer.

In MR BELOVED PATRICK ANOKWURU V. OMATEK VENTURES PLC & ANOR Unreported SUIT NO. NICN/LA/140/2011, the judgment of which was delivered on 16^th March 2016, this court held thus:

“Resignation with immediate effect by an employee carries with it three legal effects: the right to leave service automatically, the employee’s forfeiture of any benefit; and the employee paying any indebtedness to his employer.The justification for having to allow the resigning employee to leave immediately and automatically is the fact that he forfeits any benefit he may be entitled to as well as the duty to pay off all indebtedness that he may have towards the employer; as such, the forfeiture of benefits inures as contractual consideration for the immediate and automatic separation of contractual relationship as per the employment in issue. So it cannot be that an employee who resigned with immediate effect is allowed to also benefit from such immediate separation by claiming benefits from the employer.”

In the instant case, the Claimant resigned with immediate effect on the 23/6/2015 and the Defendant received but rejected the said letter of resignation on the same date.

Going by the above case law authorities, the Claimant’s resignation was effective from 23/6/2015, the date the Defendant received the letter of resignation and I so find and hold.

This being the case, there was no employment relationship between the parties which the defendant can reject and so dismiss the Claimant afterwards. By the case of JOMBO V. PEFMB (2005) 14 NWLR PT. 945)443 SC, it is elementary that an employee cannot be dismissed from an employment that had ceased to exist. Therefore, a dismissal coming after the termination of appointment would be a futile exercise. The claimant effectively resigned his employment on 23/6/2015, there was no employment relationship on 23/6/2015 for the Defendant to suspend the Claimant, neither was there any employment relationship on the 23/6/2015 for the Defendant to dismiss the Claimant and I so hold.

In INEH MONDAY MGBETI V. UNITY BANK PLC Unreported SUIT NO: NICN/LA/98/2014, the judgment of which was delivered on 21^st February 2017, a clause in the employee handbook, as in the instant case which provided, inter alia, that the management reserves the right to reject a notice of Resignation or payment in lieu of notice from an employee if it is seen as a strategy to cover up a fraud or misconduct to avoid disciplinary action, was not only struck down by this court, but it was held to approximate to forced labour contrary to Section 34(1)(c) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 73(1) of the Labour Act; as such the provision was held to be illegal and unconstitutional. In arriving at this decision, the court placed reliance on the ILO Convention concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour, 1930 (No. 29) otherwise called the Forced Labour Convention. The point was stressed that there is absolute power to resign and no discretion to refuse to accept; and it is not even necessary for the person to whom the notice of resignation is addressed to reply that the resignation is accepted. See YESUFU V. GOV. EDO STATE (2001) 13 NWLR PT. 731) 517 SC, ADEFEMI V. ABEGUNDE (220) 15 NWLR PT. 895) 1 CA and ABAYOMI ADESUNBO ADETORO V. ACCESS BANK Unreported SUIT NO. NICN/LA/293/2013, the judgment of which was delivered on 23^rd February 2016.

In TADUGGORONNO V. GOTOM (2002) 4 NWLR (PT. 757) 453 CA, the Court specifically held that no employer can prevent an employee from resigning from its employment to seek greener pastures elsewhere. It is not open to the employer for whatsoever reason to refuse to accept the resignation of the employee, for the employee has an absolute power to resign and the employer has no discretion to refuse to accept the resignation. This being the case, the defendant’s rejection of the Claimant's resignation is null and void and of no effect whatsoever and I so find and hold.

The Claimant also contended that the Defendant failed to follow the appropriate procedure of investigation and giving him fair hearing before filling a Fraud Indictment Report against him with the Secretary of the Bankers Committee for inclusion in the Register of Terminated, Dismissed or Convicted staff of Banks and Other Financial Institutions. That his suspension and subsequent dismissal from the Defendant's employment was wrongful.

In  Aminetu Omolola Salami V. Union Bank On Nig. Plc(2010) LPELR-8975(CA), it was held that the position of the law is that when an employer decides to dismiss an employee on grounds of gross misconduct, the employer is duty bound to afford the affected employee fair hearing. It would appear to be trite that a hearing need not attain the standard or form obtainable in a court before it can be said to be fair. Where a matter is not before a Court of Law, what is generally required in order to accord fair hearing to a person, is that there be an identifiable person or body of persons empowered and capable of going into the issue in disputation, and that the person who is to be adversely affected by the decision, act or proceeding, be given adequate notice of what is proposed and any allegation against him so that he will be afforded the opportunity to know the case against him to enable him prepare and answer the case against him.

Moreso, the Supreme Court in Skye Bank Plc V. Adedokun Olusegun Adegun (2024) LPELR-62219(SC) has laid down the requirement of fair hearing in the dismissal of an employee when it held that:

“Despite the fact that an employer has a right to dismiss an employee, the dismissal should not be wrongful. The motor questions which the court will consider in determining whether a dismissal is proper or wrongful will be:

(a)      was the dismissal carried out in line with the procedure laid down in the Employer Handbook or any document governing the employment relationship; 

(b)      was the issuer of the letter of dismissal competent to do so? Or was the dismissal process carried out by a competent authority. Was the employee afforded fair hearing during the dismissal process. The employer has the duty to ensure that it does not enigmatically raise its executive stick in oppression of the employee and it is important that every employer must be careful not to abdicate or abuse its powers. It has been held that employers and public bodies are required by law at all times, to act in good faith, reasonably and fairly towards people and matters under their charge in all circumstances, the law does not permit employers to act arbitrarily. The question of  “Whether there was fair hearing during the dismissal process?” is so weighty that, where the Court finds that an employee was not afforded fair hearing it renders the dismissal wrongful entitling the employee to damages. Having said that, the employer has the duty to ensure that the internal inquiry process (or investigative panel hearing process) which was set up to hear and determine the allegations against an employee and based on which the employee was recommended for dismissal was done within the dictates of the law. The dictates of the law as regards fair hearing is predicated on two main points. Simply put, they are that, the employee must be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him/her and must have the opportunity to face his/her accusers as the case may be. Also the persons sitting in the investigative panel should not be the same persons as his/her accusers. Where these have not been observed, it cannot be said that the employee was afforded fair hearing before the dismissal therefore rendering the dismissal wrongful. It should also be pointed out that an employee can be given an opportunity to present a case in defence of the allegations against him/her orally or in writing.”

Based on the foregoing authorities, it needs to be stated that where an employer dismisses or terminates the appointment of an employee on grounds of misconduct all that the employer needs to establish to justify his action is to show that the allegation was disclosed to the employee that he was afforded a fair hearing, that is to say that the Rules of natural justice were not breached and that the disciplinary panel followed the laid down procedure, if any.

The question now is, was the Claimant given fair hearing? And were the laid down procedures for an erring employee followed?

In resolving this issue, the court needs to examine the Defendant’s Disciplinary Policy and Sanction Grid which provides for the disciplinary measures to be taken when there is an allegation of gross misconduct. It stipulates that before a sanction is applied, the culpable staff must have been queried and an explanation obtained in writing. Furthermore, the employee shall be given an opportunity to state his own case either in writing or before the Disciplinary Committee during the course of investigation and the appropriate disciplinary action to be taken must be consistent with the sanction Grid. See pages 5 and 11 of Exhibit KOB18.

The Defendant contended in its statement of Defence that it invited the Claimant to the Disciplinary Committee hearing of 2/7/2015 with a letter dated 23/6/2015 through courier to the Claimant’s last known address No. 82 Ogunleye Street, Surulere, but the letter was returned undelivered with the reason that the house address does not exist as the street numbering stopped at No. 32. That it also sent 3 email notifications to the Claimant’s mail with the scanned letter of invitation dated 23/6/2015 attached, notifying the Claimant of the Disciplinary Committee hearing of 2^nd July 2015.

Claimant however denied receiving any mail through his email address inviting him to appear before any Disciplinary Committee of the Defendant, that the Claimant never changed his house address at any time, from the time he joined the Defendant till date.That the Defendant’s branch where the Claimant worked as a Branch Manager had an official vehicle where the driver of the official vehicle often times used to take the Claimant in the said car to the Claimant’s house during official hours, to the knowledge of the Defendant and thus knows the Claimant’s house, that the Defendant also had the opportunity to deliver such correspondence through the said driver.

I note that the defendant had tendered Exhibits KYS 8-KYS 10 which are the email notifications of 24/6/2015, 4/9/2015 and 5/11/2015 respectively inviting the Claimant to appear before the Disciplinary Committee.The defendant has not proved before this court that the emails sent to the Claimant were either seen or read by the Claimant. In fact upon cross-examination of DW1, he stated that there is no evidence that the Claimant read his mail. I do not therefore see any reason to disbelieve the Claimant that he neither saw nor read the emails.  It is evident from the facts of this case as contained in the pleadings of the parties and their evidence, that there is no evidence before this court to show or suggest that any query was given to the Claimant about his involvement in the forgery of statements of account. There is also no evidence of the proceedings of any Disciplinary panel where the Claimant and any other person had any interface and interrogated each other about his alleged involvement in the forgery of statements of account. I cannot agree with the purported justification of the Defendant that it followed laid down procedure in dismissing the Claimant. Iam of the opinion that the dismissal of the Claimant’s employment on the grounds of involvement in the forgery of statements of account without giving him the opportunity to be heard was not justified, hence wrongful. After all, the claimant had already resigned when he was allegedly invited and when the Disciplinary Committee was purportedly constituted by the Defendant.

On the issue of failure of the Defendant to follow appropriate procedure before filing a Fraud Indictment Report against the Claimant with the Secretary of the Bankers Committee for inclusion in the Register of Terminated, Dismissed or Convicted staff of Banks and Other Financial Institutions on grounds of fraud and dishonesty. In Paragraphs 4.0, 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 of the Review of Operational Guidelines for Blacklisting, the conditions and procedure for blacklisting have been spelt out. For ease of reference, the said paragraphs are reproduced below;

“4.0    The blacklisted person is anyone who has been terminated or dismissed strictly as a result of fraud, act of dishonesty and conviction.

5.0      A disciplinary committee must have conducted a thorough investigation.

-           The disciplinary committee must have established that the staff involved had committed an act of fraud and dishonesty.

-           The staff must have been granted Fair hearing through the Disciplinary committee.

-           The decision of the committee must be communicated to the staff involved.

6.0      Upon verification of the existence of grounds for blacklisting, the financial institution shall notify the staff in writing informing him that:

a)       A complaint for blacklisting has been filed against him, stating the grounds for such and the consequences of being blacklisted.

b)       The staff must be given the opportunity to present documentary or verbal testimony that may affect the decision; and

c)        The final decision of the Disciplinary Committee must be communicated to the staff.

7.0      The financial institution shall forward the returns on dismissed or terminated staff (including temporary and contract) on grounds of frauds and forgeries to the CBN along with a declaration from the bank that;

-           It followed due process before arriving at the decision;

-           And signed by the Managing Director.”

Having earlier found that the Claimant was not given fair hearing and that the Defendant did not follow the laid down procedures in the Disciplinary Committee, I will not hesitate to hold that the steps taken by the Defendant to blacklist the Claimant’s name in the Register of Terminated, Dismissed or Convicted staff of Banks and Other Financial Institutions on the grounds of fraud and dishonesty (CBN Blackbook) is wrongful having not met the conditions and procedure for blacklisting a staff as set out in the Review of Operational Guidelines for Blacklisting.

Having given due consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case, I wish to find on the claim for general damages that the act of blacklisting the Claimant in the Central Bank of Nigeria's Blackbook has occasioned a significant stigma and loss of reputation. I find that this injury to the Claimant's character and standing is a proper foundation for an award of general damages. This is supported by the principle enunciated in BRITISH AIRWAYS V. MAKANJUOLA (1993) 8 NWLR (PT. 311) 276 at 288, PER UBAEZONU, JCA.

On the Claim for special damages. As it has earlier been established that a resignation with immediate effect by an employee entails certain legal consequences, notably the forfeiture of any attendant benefits. It is my finding that the Claimant's immediate resignation was tendered in anticipation of imminent disciplinary proceedings. The Claimant, having elected to pre-empt such disciplinary proceedings, cannot now seek to claim the financial benefits he would have gained in his employment with Unity Bank Plc, had his appointment not been terminated by the Unity Bank. To hold otherwise would permit him to "eat his cake and have it," a principle not countenanced in law. Consequently, the claim for special damages is hereby refused and is accordingly dismissed.

For all the reasons given above, claimant's case succeeds with the exception for his claim for special damages which is rejected. For the avoidance of doubt and clarity, I make the following declarations and orders:

1.        A Declaration that the Claimant’s employment with the Defendant was duly determined by voluntary resignation of the Claimant via a Letter of Resignation of Appointment dated 23/6/2015.

2.        A Declaration that the subsequent suspension and dismissal of the Claimant from the Defendant’s employment after the Claimant has resigned from the said employment is wrongful, invalid and illegal.

3.        A Declaration that the Claimant having resigned his appointment with the Defendant on the 23/6/2015 cannot subsequently in the month of March 2016 be validly Blacklisted by the Defendant in the Register of Terminated, Dismissed or Convicted staff of Banks and Other Financial Institutions on the grounds of fraud and dishonesty (CBN Blackbook) under Section 48(4) of BOFIA.

4.        A Declaration that the indictment of the Claimant for fraud by the Defendant without affording the Claimant the right to fair hearing amounts to a breach of the Defendant's Policies and Procedures Manual and the Claimant's Fundamental Human Rights to fair hearing.

5.        A Declaration that the failure of the Defendant to follow the appropriate procedure of investigation and granting fair hearing to the Claimant before filing a Fraud Indictment Report against the Claimant with the Secretary of the Bankers' Committee for inclusion in the Register of Terminated, Dismissed or Convicted staff of Banks and Other Financial Institutions on the grounds of fraud and dishonesty (CBN Blackbook) as envisaged under Section 48(4) of BOFIA, makes the said filed Fraud Indictment Report invalid, illegal, ultra vires, null and void and it is hereby set aside.

6.        An Order setting aside the suspension of the Claimant from the Defendant’s employment and subsequent dismissal from the said employment on the ground that the same was wrongful, invalid and illegal.

7.        An Order setting aside the Defendant's Disciplinary Committee indictment of the Claimant on the allegation of Forged Bank Statement used in processing Credit Facilities as same was wrongful, invalid, illegal, ultra vires, null and void.

8.        An Order compelling the Defendant to take immediate and appropriate steps towards Delisting the Claimant’s name from the Register of Terminated, Dismissed or Convicted staff of Banks and Other Financial Institutions on the grounds of fraud and dishonesty (CBN Blackbook).

9.        A Mandatory Order directing the Defendant to immediately Delist the Claimant’s name from the Register of Terminated, Dismissed or Convicted staff of Banks and Other Financial Institutions on the grounds of fraud and dishonesty (CBN Blackbook).

10.      An Order directing the Defendant to notify the Claimant in writing of the removal of the Claimant’s name from the Register of Terminated, Dismissed or Convicted staff of Banks and Other Financial Institutions on the grounds of fraud and dishonesty (CBN Blackbook).

11.      An Order directing the Defendant to write a letter of apology to the Claimant for wrongfully Blacklisting the Claimant’s name in the CBN Blackbook.

12.      An Order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendant, its officers, servants, agents, however described from further Blacklisting the Claimant’s name in the CBN Blackbook in respect of the alleged forgery of statements of account or publication or dissemination of the aforesaid Fraud Indicted Report against the Claimant.

13.      An Order of General Damages against the Defendant in favour of the Claimant in the sum of ?5,000,000 (Five Million Naira) for blacklisting the Claimant in the CBN Blackbook after the Claimant had already resigned from the Defendant's employment.

15.      The judgment sum shall be paid by the Defendant to the Claimant within 30 days, failing which it shall attract 10% Post Judgment interest per annum until it is finally liquidated.

Judgment is entered accordingly.

.............................................................

HON. JUSTICE S. H. DANJIDDA

(PRESIDING JUDGE)