Media
- Home
- Details
His Lordship, Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip of the Lagos Division, National Industrial Court of Nigeria on Wednesday 13th March, 2018 in a judgment dismissed suit for lacking merit against Wema bank in a case filed by Mr Asuquo Archibong challenging his dismissal.
The claimant through his counsel Damola Sodeinde Esq. commenced this action vide a complaint dated and filed on 11th January 2013 together with the statement of claim, list of witness(es), deposition on oath of the claimant, list of documents and copies of the documents;
By the statement of facts, the claimant is claiming against the defendant amongst others:
A declaration that the purported dismissal of the claimant vide a letter dated 21st of March 2011 from the services of the defendant is irregular, wrongful, null and void. Also, An order reinstating the claimant and An order directing the defendant to pay all arrears of salaries, emoluments and entitlements due to him as a result of the purported dismissal.
In response the defendant filed several processes including an amended statement of defence dated 9th February 2016, a witness statement on oath, list of documents to be relied upon, as well as several exhibits;
From the pleadings, the case of the claimant is that he was employed on 15th February 2007 on probation by the defendant and confirmed on 24th December 2008 as a Senior Banking Officer, but did not enjoy any salary increase upon the confirmation. That he was the Resident Auditor of the defendant in its Makurdi Branch from 2007 to 2010 with one of his functions being to distribute MENU for the defendant’s operators.
That fraud was detected in the Makurdi branch of the Wema Bank in May 2010 and three persons upon investigation were discovered to be involved in the fraud which makes it self evident that the claimant was innocent of all the spurious allegations leveled against him by the defendant.
That the defendant set up a disciplinary committee to look into the said fraud and practically charged him for forgery of menu creation form and gross addiction of his responsibilities leading to fraud committed against the Benue State Account. That the disciplinary committee abandoned the latter allegation, but came to the rather curious conclusion on the former that same was committed to implicate Eneoche Udele.
That he appeared at the disciplinary committee where he was questioned as to his involvement in the fraud, and he established his innocence. However, that he was amazed on 21st March 2011 when his services with the defendant was terminated vide a dismissal letter; and that the defendant did not pay him his salaries from January to March 2011. That, through his lawyer, he wrote to the defendant asking it to reverse its decision and pay him his salaries but to no avail; hence this suit.
The defendant on its part denied breaching the terms and conditions relating to increase in salary as stated by the claimant especially as the offer letter did not state that salary will be increased upon confirmation of appointment; and that the claimant was dutifully paid all his salaries and emoluments as he is entitled to. The defendant maintained that the claimant fraudulently created the teller menu dated 30th November 2009 on behalf of Eneoche Udele without her knowledge by altering the signature of the access form to suit that of Eneoche Udele. In any event, that there is nothing in the banking world known as an adjusted form; for which the defendant queried the claimant. The defendant wondered how come a form that should have been found in Makurdi was not so found but surfaced in Osogbo.
The defendant acknowledged that in order to give the claimant fair hearing, it set up an independent disciplinary committee to look into the fraud that took place in the Makurdi branch office, which committee found the claimant liable for an act of gross misconduct relating to the fraudulent transfer of funds totaling N7,685,767.03 from Benue State Government expenditure account in Makurdi branch office of the defendant.
That it was because of the outcome of the report of the disciplinary committee dated 24th February 2011 that the claimant was dismissed. On the failure to pay the claimant salaries for January, February and part of March, the defendant stated that this was because the claimant was suspended without pay during the period of investigation; and that because of the dismissal, the claimant is not entitled to salary for the said period. Accordingly, the defendant sought that the claimant’s case should be dismissed.
Furthermore, that upon the discovery of the fraud, the defendant set up an Internal Committee to conduct a thorough investigation of the fraud. The claimant under cross-examination gave evidence that he appeared before the Committee, and gave both oral and written testimony. The Committee consequent upon the internal investigation recommended that the claimant be dismissed. That the claimant has not in his pleadings or evidence in this entire case challenged the recommendation of this Committee; and there is no claim or relief before this Court asking this Court to set aside the findings of the said Committee, nor is the present suit an action in judicial review. Consequently, the claimant’s claim for wrongful termination cannot succeed, and so must fail.
After reviewing the argument of the parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip had this to say:
After a careful consideration of the processes filed and the submissions of counsel, On the question of fair hearing, I already held that the claimant was given the opportunity to be heard; he cannot, therefore, complain about lack of fair hearing. Under cross-examination, the claimant acknowledged that the Bank set up a disciplinary committee to investigate the fraud; and that he appeared before the committee and answered all the charges placed before him at the committee. Accordingly, the fact that the claimant “appeared at the disciplinary committee he was questioned as to his own involvement in the fraud, and he established his innocence…” (paragraph 26 of the statement of claim) means that he was given fair hearing. I so find and hold.
The argument of the claimant that he cannot be dismissed because the allegation against him is a crime which must first be proved before he can be dismissed intuits that a conviction in a court of law is thereby required before the claimant can be dismissed. To the Court, it is, therefore, erroneous to contend that once crime is detected, the employer cannot dismiss the employee unless he is tried and convicted first. I do not accordingly agree with the submission of the claimant in this regard.
On the whole, I am satisfied that the defendant has justified the summary dismissal of the claimant. This means that relief (1) is not grantable. It fails and so is accordingly dismissed. I so hold.
The manner in which the claimant couched relief (3) is such that he hinged it on the fact of his dismissal. In other words, if this Court finds that his dismissal is wrongful, then the order for payment of all arrears of salaries, emoluments and entitlements due to him can then be made.
This being so, since I made the finding and so held that relief (1) is not grantable, for which it is dismissed, there is no basis for the grant of relief (3).
On the whole, the claimant’s case fails and so it hereby dismissed.
For Full Judgment, Click Here…
