Media
- Home
- Details
Lagos---His Lordship, Hon. Justice J. D. Peters of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Lagos Judicial Division on Thursday 12th July 2018 in a judgment declared the dismissal of Vivian Okwudiafor (Claimant) by Diamond Bank Plc wrongful having not proved the reason for same as required by law and ordered Diamond Bank Plc. to pay to the Claimant her salary for the period from 20/6/14 to 4/6/15 in the sum of =N=3,936,000.00 being the outstanding salary of the Claimant from the date of her unlawful suspension without pay to the date of her wrongful dismissal with 10% interest per annum from June 2015 till final liquidation among others.
The Claimant commenced this suit on 24/7/15 and sought for A declaration that the purported dismissal from employment of the Claimant is unlawful and wrongful as the said dismissal was done without following due process/procedure laid down in credit policies manual and An order of this Court compelling the defendant to withdraw the purported letter of dismissal. Likewise An order of this honourable court compelling the Defendant Bank to reinstate the Claimant to her employment which was terminated through dismissal without due process/procedure laid down in the Defendant Bank’s credit policies manual among others.
The Defendant counter claim and sought for A declaration that the Defendant is entitled to recover the sum of =N=2,255,478.98 among others.
The case of the Claimant as revealed from her witness depositions is that she was placed on suspension without pay on 4/6/14 on the allegation that she failed to confirm invoices before facilities were extended to Sodium Brand Solution Limited (a customer of the Defendant Bank); that she was invited to the staff Disciplinary Panel on 12/5/15 where she was told that she did not confirm invoices before facilities were granted to Sodium Solutions Ltd; that she responded to the allegation that she confirmed the invoice for =N=50.1 million in May 2013 verbally from Airtel while the second invoice was confirmed by her colleague Miss Alice Akpoguma; that under the Defendant credit policy manual domiciliation/confirmation of invoices is the absolute responsibility of the Business Managers/Regional Managers ; that she was dismissed on 4/6/15 on the allegation of non-confirmation of invoice before availment of invoice Discount facility; that under the Defendant Credit Policy Manual failure to observe due diligence in the confirmation of invoices financed by the Bank leading to loss shall attract caution letter, recovery suspension or termination not dismissal;
It is the case of the Defendant that the Claimant was placed on recovery suspension without pay in accordance with the rules and policy of the Defendant during which period the Defendant conducted an investigation and made concerted efforts to recover the outstanding sum from Sodium Brands Solutions Limited; that the Defendant discovered in the course of the investigation that the Claimant had lied and had been dishonest in endorsing on the credit approval documents/software that she had confirmed the invoice; that subsequently, the Defendant set up and invited the Claimant to a hearing of the Staff Disciplinary Panel where she was given due hearing and the opportunity to defend herself; that at the end of the hearing the panel found that the Claimant had been untruthful and negligent in the discharge of her duties to the Defendant and recommended that she be dismissed from the employment of the Defendant.
After reviewing the argument, processes filed and the submissions of learned Counsel for both parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice J. D. Peters expressed thus;
“…by the evidence of the Defendant as put forward, the Claimant did not deserve the dismissal for the unsubstantiated infractions attributed to her. Even the Disciplinary Panel was to make recommendation on the available range of sanctions of which Dismissal is not one.
“The report of the staff Disciplinary Panel is not placed before the Court. The Claimant ought not have even been placed on suspension without pay at all. This is because suspension without pay or indefinite suspension without pay is not one of the range of sanctions that could have been recommended to be meted out on the Claimant.
“I declare that the dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant is wrongful not having prove the reason for same as required by law.
“Considering the facts, the circumstances and the evidence led in this case, the Defendant is here ordered to withdraw the letter of dismissal from its employment served on the Claimant. The Defendant is further ordered to replace same with a letter of termination of employment.
“In order therefore for this Judgment to be meaningful and beneficial and as consequential orders, the Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant all outstanding salaries up to the date of termination of employment together with all terminal benefits and emoluments as may be due.
“All the terms of this Judgment are to be complied with within 30 days from today.”
For full Judgment, Click Here
