Abuja –President, National Industrial Court of Nigeria, His Lordship, Hon. Justice B. A. Adejumo OFR in a judgment delivered in Abuja on Wednesday 17th October 2018 dismissed the suit filed AKAGWU AUDU YAKUBU AND 2 Others (claimants) against CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA (defendant) for lacking merit. The Court ordered CBN to pay each of the claimants three months’ salary in lieu of notice, all outstanding allowances, and entitlements due to the claimants in accordance with the defendant’s terms and conditions of service.
The Claimants instituted this action vide General Form of Complaint dated 5th May 2015 but filed on 8th May 2018. The claimants sought against the Defendant among others; A Declaration that the purported termination of the claimants’ appointment with the Defendant is illegal and irregular as it violates the Central Bank of Nigeria Act Cap. C4 LFN 2004 and paragraph 16.5 of the Human Resource Policies and Procedures of the Defendant. An Order of this Honourable Court reinstating the Claimants to their respective employment with the Defendant and with immediate effect.
Likewise, An Order directing the defendant to pay the Claimants all accrued salaries, benefits and allowances that are due to the Claimants since their appointments were irregularly terminated by the Defendant.
The claimants’ case is that the termination of their employment on the ground that their services were no longer required is illegal as it is purportedly done in violation of the Human Resources policies and Procedure of the Defendant which the claimants claimed to be the condition of service regulating their employment with the defendant.
Counsel for the defendant stated that the claimants’ case was brought in respect of the termination of their appointment. He stated that the claimants were involved in certain briquetting operation between 22nd and 26th day of April 2013 and certain incident of unauthorized removal of currency box containing Ten Million Naira (N10, 000, 000.00) did occur during the exercise. It is the case of the defendant that the claimants failed to report the incident to their respective Line Manager as required under the Human Resources Policies and Procedures guiding the terms of their employment and the conditions of their services to the Defendant Bank.
The defendant admitted that the claimants were not indicted for the removal of currency or box stuffing of boxes with newspaper, but hold the position that the panel of investigation found that the three (3) Claimants in this suit had cases to answer on the issue of non-reporting. The claimants were issued query to which they responded. Their cases were considered by the defendant’s Central Disciplinary Committee which recommended sanctions to the Defendant Bank’s Management. It was, however, the Management’s decision that the claimants’ employment as employees of the defendant be terminated.
The defendant counsel formulated the following issues for determination among others: Having regard to the nature of the contract of employment and conditions of services whilst in the employment of the Defendant’s Bank, whether or not it could be regarded that the claimants’ employment enjoyed statutory protection of flavor? Having regard to their employment with the Defendant Bank, whether or not the Claimants were bound by the Defendant Bank’s Human Resources Policies and Procedure Manual – (HRPPM)?.
Counsel submitted that the claimants were afforded fair hearing and there was no defect complained of by the claimants in the Disciplinary Procedures leading to the Claimants being sanctioned, although the claimants have alleged that the termination of their employment is illegal and irregular. Counsel argued that the onus of proof lie on the claimants who claimed that termination of their appointment is illegal and irregular.
In conclusion, counsel urged this court to dismiss all the reliefs sought by the Claimants in this suit in their entirety.
Counsel to the claimants asked for determination Whether the termination of the Claimants’ employment on the ground that their services “were no longer required” is not a nullity as it is a violation of the Human Resources Policies and Procedures of the Defendant.
Counsel submitted that by the admission of the defendant and the documentary evidence before the Court, it is clear that the only reason why the appointment of the claimants were terminated was because their services were no longer required.
Counsel posited that the position of law is clear that termination of the appointment of the claimants, which enjoys the statutory flavor, can only be justified if it is done in strict compliance with the condition of Service governing the contract of employment.
After reviewing the argument of both parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice B. A. Adejumo OFR held that the employment of the Claimants is one that is statutorily flavored.
“I have carefully read this letter viz-a-viz the claims of the claimants that the defendant failed to adopt due process in taking its decision against them. I disagree with the claimants and their counsel in this respect.
“Flowing from the above, I am of the view that due process of the law was observed in deciding the fate of the claimants. The claimants’ position that the defendant’s action was unlawful is unfounded.
“The claimants having failed to prove their case against the defendants are therefore not entitled to the reliefs sought in their claim and I so hold.
“In all, the action of the Claimants is unmeritorious and same is hereby dismissed.” Justice Adejumo stated.
