Media
- Home
- Details
Lagos---His Lordship, Hon. Justice J. D. Peters of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in lagos on Tuesday 25th September 2018 in a judgment dismissed suit against Mainstreet Bank Limited and 2 others in its entirety for lacking merit. His Lordship advised the learned Counsel to properly advise their clients on the basis of the law and judicial authorities, expressed it would have been a decent practice of law for the learned Counsel for the Claimant to have advised the Claimant in this case in the light of the unchallenged and subsisting Judgment of this Court in the earlier case the Judgment of which was delivered on 9/3/17.
The Claimant Alex Okpako Emako commenced this suit in this Court via his General Form of Complaint & Statement of Facts on 27/5/13 sought against the defendants among others; A Declaration that the 2nd Defendant illegally terminated the contract of employment of the Clamant and that the Claimant is still in the employment of the 1st Defendant. A Declaration that the actions of the 2nd Defendant as it relates to the purported illegal termination of the Claimant’s employment is null and void. An Order directing the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants jointly and severally to pay the Claimant’s annual emolument and salary in the sum =N=16,652,333.33 from 1st June 2009 until his employment is lawfully determined by following laid procedures or any other sum deemed fit by this Honourable Court and interest at the rate of 10% till the sum is fully paid.
The case of the Claimant as seen from his written deposition is that he was at all material time an employee of the 1st Defendant; that he was employed by the 2nd Defendant on 17/6/83 while 2nd Defendant was carrying on business under the name International Bank for West Africa following which it changed its name to Afribank Nigeria Plc; that the 3rd Defendant is the statutory body responsible for the liquidation of the 2nd Defendant; that by a letter dated 28/5/09, 2nd Defendant notified him of its acceptance of his supposed letter of offer dated 28/1/09 in which he allegedly voluntarily retired; that he did not write the said letter and that the illegal termination of his employment which forced him into the labour market has negatively affected his matrimonial home and relationship with his dependants.
Under cross examination, the witness stated that International Bank for West Africa was his employer but later changed to Afribank; that the last day he worked for Afribank was 28/5/09; that he was not consulted before payment was paid to him; that he did not indicate desire to return any money to Afribank.
On 7/6/17, the 1st Defendant opened its defence. The case of the 1st Defendant is simply that it was not the employer of the Claimant and hence not liable to him for any sums of money.
The case of 2nd & 3rd Defendants is that the Claimant voluntarily sent in his letter of retirement; that he was dully paid all his terminal benefits and that the Claimant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought. learned Counsel submitted inter alia that the evidence shows that the Claimant's letter of voluntary retirement was received and accepted by the 2nd Defendant; that assuming the Claimant did not write the said letter dated 28/1/09, the Claimant having received the sum of =N=13,971,646.06 and, the Claimant could not be heard to complain of unlawful termination of his employment.
Learned Counsel to the claimant submitted that the 2nd Defendant did not terminate the Claimant's employment; that if there was one the purported termination is invalid and hence a nullity.
After reading all the processes filed by learned Counsel, watched the demeanor of all the witnesses called at trial and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted on either side. His Lordship, Hon. Justice J. D. Peters expressed thus;
“…I note that throughout the length and breadth of this trial the alleged letter of voluntary retirement was never tendered. No reason was offered for not producing same. It is apparent that the 2nd Defendant would not produce the alleged letter of voluntary retirement. In a circumstance as this, it is open to the Court to hold that the refusal of the 2nd Defendant to produce the document was because if produced it would be against its interest and support the case of the Claimant.
“In the absence of the evidence of the alleged letter of voluntary retirement of the Claimant I hold that the Claimant did not voluntarily retire from the services of the 1st Defendant.
“There is no evidence before the Court to the effect that the Claimant worked for the 2nd Defendant or any of the Defendants after 1/6/09. There is also no contest by the Claimant that he was paid the net sum as his terminal entitlements. Therefore notwithstanding the fact that no letter of voluntary retirement was produced by the 3rd Defendant the fact remains that the purport and necessary intendment of defendant is to terminate the services of the Claimant.
“The law is also trite that once an employee accepts payment of terminal benefits he cannot be heard to complain of failure to comply with the terms and conditions of his engagement.
“I thus hold that the Claimant has not proved his entitlement to any of his claims. Claimant's claims are liable to be dismissed and I so dismiss same accordingly.
“Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons stated in this Judgment, I dismiss the case of the Claimant in its entirety.” His Lordship declared.
For Full Judgment, Click Here
