Uyo --His Lordship, Hon. Justice M. A. Namtari of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Sitting in Uyo, Akwa-Ibom State on Wednesday 24th October 2018 in a judgment dismissed suit filed by MR. DONALD ENOBONG MICAH (claimant) against ECOBANK NIGERIA LIMITED (defendant) for lacking merit held the purported resignation of the Claimant, was a ploy to pre-empt the investigation and the Defendant has the right to place the resignation on hold
On 17th May 2017, the claimant took out an originating summons against the Defendant and sought among others; A declaration that the Defendant's letter of September 29, 2017, rejecting the Claimant's Resignation of employment is ultra vires, illegal, unconstitutional and of no effect whatsoever. A declaration that the Claimant ceased to be in the employment of the Defendant effectively from the date of his resignation letter of the 18th September 2017 and from thence ousted the employment jurisdiction of the Defendant over him. Likewise, An order of injunction restraining the Defendant, their agents, privies or assigns from constituting any Disciplinary Committee to look into the conduct of the Claimant, while he was in the Defendant's employment or to invite the Claimant for any such Disciplinary Committee sitting.
The Claimant was a staff of the Defendant at its Uyo office. The Claimant tendered a letter of resignation dated 18th September 2017 notifying the Defendant of his “resignation of my employment with this great institution effective October 18th, 2017 with this letter serving as my one-month of notice of resignation.” On the 29th September 2017, the Defendant refused to accept the resignation informing the Claimant that since he was implicated in a matter awaiting the deliberation of its Disciplinary Committee, to which he will be invited to give an insight on the matter, his resignation was unacceptable.
Accordingly, the Claimant was invited to appear before the Disciplinary Committee on the 13th October 2017. With this, the die is cast. The Claimant maintains that he was no more in the employment of the Defendant and therefore not subject to any disciplinary measure. The Defendant insisted that until the effective date of his resignation which would be the 18th October 2017, the Claimant was still its staff and subject to its disciplinary control.
The Claimants framed alone issue for determination by this Court “Whether the Defendant did not act ultra vires, illegally and unconstitutionally and therefore of no effect whatsoever, when it rejected the resignation letter of the Claimant of the 18th September 2017 and continued to act or treat the Claimant as though the Claimant was still in defendant's employment; against the Claimant's will and subject to defendant's disciplinary procedures.”
The Claimant submitted that the letter of resignation of the Claimant is sacrosanct and serves as an effective instrument of disengagement from the employment of the Defendant the moment it was received by the Defendant, without more. Claimant’s urged the court to grant all the reliefs as sought.
In the Written Address submitted in support of the Counter Affidavit against the Originating Summons, the Defendant asked for determination: Whether as at 18th September, 2017, when the Claimant tendered his resignation letter, being his one month's notice in lieu of resignation to the Defendant, and the time the Defendant invited the Claimant to appear before its Disciplinary Committee, he was still within the employ of the Defendant to convey vires on the Defendant to direct the Claimant to appear before its Disciplinary Committee in a matter in which he was implicated.
The Defendant also reiterated that having admitted that his resignation was to be effective from 18th October 2017, the Claimant was indeed still in the employ of the Defendant and accordingly, the Defendant was right and had the vires to invite the Claimant to appear before its Disciplinary Committee to explain his role in respect of breach of confidentiality.
After reviewing the argument of both parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice M. A. Namtari expressed thus;
“The coast is now clear for the resolution of the issues in this case, which is the effective date of the Claimant’s resignation dated 18th September 2017 and validity of the Defendant’s rejection letter of 29th September 2017. It is therefore imperative to recapitulate the facts of this case which is not in dispute at all.
“Upon the receipt of the letter of resignation by the Claimant, the Defendant in rejecting same informed the Claimant that he was implicated in a matter awaiting the Defendant’s Disciplinary Committee. The Defendant also invited the Claimant to appear before the Disciplinary Committee to clear his name. So to me, the purported resignation of the Claimant was a ploy to pre-empt the investigation and the Defendant has the right to place the resignation on hold.
“Since the effective date of resignation given is 18th October 2017, it means that the Claimant was still in the employment of the Defendant and subject to its disciplinary procedures and I so hold.
“In all and for the reasons advanced, the Claimant’s suit is lacking in merit and is hereby dismissed.” Justice Namtari Ruled
