Media
- Home
- Details
Yola --His Lordship, Hon. Justice NCS Ogbuanya of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Yola on Friday 6th July 2018 in a judgment declared the dismissal of Yusuf Ayagbade by the UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC as Wrongful and declared that the Claimant is entitled to be reimbursed full payment of his withheld salaries and entitlements from February 2013 to March 2015, being the period covered by the suspension pending investigation and when he became aware of his subsequent wrongful dismissal.
The Court also ordered Defendant to compute and pay to the Claimant his said entitlements, and the sum of N2, 000,000.00 (two million naira) damages for wrongful dismissal within two months from this Judgment.
The Claimant sought against the defendant among other;: A Declaration that the suspension and purported dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant is wrongful, unwarranted, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void. A Declaration that the employment of the Claimant is valid and subsisting until same is validly determined by the Defendant. The sum of N28,621,734.73 (Twenty Eight Million, Six Hundred and Twenty One Thousand, Seven Hundred & Thirty Four, Seven Three Naira Only) being the accrued earnings and entitlements from the defendant as at 31st December, 2014.
The case of the Claimant as gleaned from his pleadings and testimonies at the trial is that he was a banking officer in the employment of the Defendant since December 1999, until sometime in February 2013, when he was suspended from work without just cause and his salary and other entitlements were stopped.
That sometime in April 2013 he was summoned to appear before a Disciplinary Committee of the Defendant over some transactions he made in the course of his duty based on the instructions of his official supervisor, one Innocent Achor.
That the decision of the Disciplinary Committee was never communicated to him and he did not receive any further communication from the Defendant, and after a long wait, sometime in February 2015, he instructed his Solicitors to write a letter to the Defendant complaining about the unfair treatment and demanding his accrued earnings and entitlements.
And that he was surprised to receive a Reply letter informing him that he has been dismissed from the services of the Defendant as per the attached copy of the letter of dismissal.
From the pleadings and testimonies of the defendant witness, the case of the Defendant is that the Claimant was found wanting over an allegation of misconduct as a result of unauthorized vault lending of the sum of N800, 000.00 which misconduct caused his dismissal, of which he was initially suspended and faced a Disciplinary Committee alongside other members of staff. That the Disciplinary Committee indicted him and recommended his dismissal, and that he was aware of both his suspension and dismissal from the employment of the Defendant, and that as a dismissed staff, he is not entitled to any entailments from the Defendant.
The defendant filed Notice of Preliminary Objection principally challenged the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that the Claimant’s suit was pre-mature as he did not exhaust the internal dispute resolution mechanism of the Defendant Bank, which covers also Ex-Employees, before commencing the suit.
Defendant further stated that the pre-condition set by the Bank in the Group Staff Handbook with Policy Document has not been exhausted and He cannot be heard to say that he is an ex-employee and this provision does not apply to him because the provision covers cases where employees and ex-employees have any dispute with the Defendant.
Hussaini G. Maidawa, Esq, learned counsel for the Defendant, raised for determination Whether having regard to the Dispute Resolution Mechanism put in place by the Defendant, the jurisdiction of this Hon. Court has been activated and the cause of action has arisen?
On the whole, counsel urged the court to uphold his submissions and dismiss the Claimant’s case.
On his part, J. Olu Adebambo Esq., learned Counsel for the Claimant, contended that the provisions of the Defendant's handbook cannot take away or override the powers/jurisdiction of the court and the constitutional rights of the Claimant to ventilate his grievances in court as enshrined in the Constitution. Learned Claimant’s counsel finally submitted that since the Claimant’s purported dismissal was not in line with the HR Disciplinary Policy of the Defendant and the Claimant was not reimbursed his withheld salaries, the Claimant was entitled to recover same, having been unlawfully dismissed from the services of the Defendant.
After reviewing the argument of both parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice NCS Ogbuanya assumed jurisdiction on the suit and expressed thus;
“A close review of the paragraph 6.7 of the exhibit A, would reveal that it tends to compel the ex-employee to first return to the employer with complaints and then exhaust an uncertain procedure of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) within and outside the employer’s setting before exercising his/her right to resort to court to litigate the dispute.
“Where an ADR Clause rather provides an uncertain procedure inhibiting effective dispute resolution, it has failed in its primary mission to provide an alternative to litigation.
“It is, therefore, my humble but sustained view and I hold that such an uncertain and clumsy clause of ADR is certainly not an effective dispute resolution clause as envisaged by the promoters of ADR providing a panacea for congested and often distasteful outcome of litigation.
“The rationale for compelling the Ex-employee to return to the Defendant’s Staff (Head of Human Capital Management) to make complaint and seek resolution upon being aggrieved, is in my view, of doubtful efficacy, as it tends to restrict an Ex-employee who has become an external aggrieved party from litigating an issue against the Defendant organization; the former employer. Such requirement in my humble view, is not in tandem with best practice of labour relations, and can be ‘akin to compelling divorced couple to return to their erstwhile matrimonial bed as forum for resolution of alimony issue’.
“Flowing from the above findings, it is my view and I hold that the Claimant’s Dismissal was not justified by the Defendant. Accordingly, the Claimant’s Relief (a) succeeds to the extent that his said dismissal by the Defendant is wrongful. It is hereby so declared wrongful dismissal.
“For the reasons advanced in the body of the Judgment, the Claimant’s Relief (a) succeeds to the extent that the Claimant’s dismissal by the Defendant is hereby declared wrongful. Consequently, I hold that the Claimant is entitled to be reimbursed full payment of his withheld salaries and entitlements from February 2013 to March 2015, being the period covered by the suspension pending investigation and when he became aware of his subsequent wrongful dismissal.” His Lordship Declared.
The Court also ordered Defendant to compute and pay to the Claimant his said entitlements, and the sum of N2, 000,000.00 (two million naira) damages for wrongful dismissal within two months.
