Media
- Home
- Details
PortHarcourt –The Presiding Judge, Portharcourt Division of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Hon. Justice F. I. Kola-Olalere on Monday 5th November 2018 in a judgment declared as wrongful the employment termination of Suleiman Adigun (claimant) from the service of Keystone Bank Limited (defendant), ordered Keystone Bank Limited to pay claimant Six months’ gross salary as compensation, the sum of N7,602,219.73 as his gratuity within 60days.
The claimant filed this complaint against the defendant, sought among others; A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to be paid his end of service benefits under redundancy as contained in the Defendant’s Human Capital Policies and Procedures (HCP) Manual Revised 2013; to wit: the payment of monetary compensation of the sum of ₦8, 716,672.57K (Eight Million, Seven Hundred and Sixteen Thousand, Six Hundred and Seventy-two Naira, Fifty-seven Kobo) being the 75% of the gross annual salary (less tax and bonus) of a Senior Manager.
Likewise, A Declaration that it is wrongful for the Defendant to have continued to apply interest charges and other debits charges on the Claimant’s indebted sum to the Defendant (Mortgage Loan Balance) after the date of exit (November, 2013) when parties ought to have settled account as at the time of exit through the Defendant’s netting off policy as contained in the Defendant’s Human Capital Policies and Procedures (HCP) Manual Revised 2013.
The claimant was formally an employee of the defendant before his employment was terminated on the ground that the claimant’s service is no longer required. He went on that Bank PHB Plc. was fully operational before it was nationalized by the Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) in 2011 to become the Defendant. That it is the practice of the Defendant in her retrenchment exercise of its employees to pay end of service benefits under redundancy to them when their services are no longer required. He continued that while the defendant paid 3 months’ basic salary in lieu of notice to him when his own service was determined, the defendant failed to pay him his end of service benefits under redundancy and gratuity.
The defendant pleaded that the Claimant was its former employee before his employment was terminated and that the claimant only worked with the defendant for a period of 2 years, 3 months and 3 days. The defendant expressed that claimant is not entitled to his claims before the court because he is only entitled to the 3 months’ salary in lieu of Notice paid to him out of the abundance of the Defendant’s heart.
In his final written address, counsel to the defendant formulated among others; Whether the Claimant has been able to prove that his employment in 2006 by Bank PHB was transferred to Keystone Bank Ltd. in August 2011?
Counsel submitted that the Defendant joined issues with the Claimant on his claim that his employment was transferred from Bank PHB to the Defendant Bank. To counsel, the foundation of the relationship or Agreement between the parties and it is to the effect that the Claimant was employed on 5th August 2011, not 2006.
Counsel continued that the Claimant did not protest his end of service entitlement either orally or in writing when the money paid until it finished, more than three (3) years after the payment, saying that his contract of employment was wrongfully terminated, and claiming more benefits. Counsel maintained that it is the law that the effect of accepting the termination of employment is the validation of the termination.
In reply, Counsel to the claimant submitted that the Defendant was established without any assets of its own or its own employees but was simply created for the sole purposes of carrying on and continuing the banking business of Bank PHB Plc. and to assume all the recorded deposit liabilities and other liabilities of Bank PHB Plc. including the employment agreement between Bank PHB Plc. and its staff.
After carefully considered all the processes filed, the evidence led and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice F. I. Kola-Olalere held that the defendant has undertaken, accepted, adopted, taken up or taken responsibility for the years of service of all legacy staff; all bequest or inherited staff of the bank acquired or purchased by the defendant, including Bank PHB; there is no evidence that the claimant’s previous employment was properly determined and his entitlement under it was paid to him and declared that the employment of the claimant with the defendant was with effect from February 15, 2006.
“Moreover, in as much as the claimant was not found wanting in any way by the defendant and the Bank still no longer wanted his services, the option the Bank had in determining the claimant’s employment was to declare him redundant as provided in paragraph 8.2 at pages 80 – 81 of the Policy Manual.
“Consequently, I hold that the claimant’s contract of employment with the defendant was wrongly determined by the Bank. I again hold that, for the wrongful determination of his employment from the Bank, which was for no fault of his, the claimant shall be paid his gross salary for six months as compensation.
“I declare and hold that the Claimant’s exit from the Defendant’s employment was not as a result of redundancy as contemplated in his contract of employment neither was it in compliance with any of the laydown ways of determining the claimant’s employment as stated in the terms and conditions of his contract.” Justice Kola-Olalere declared.
The court also ordered defendant to pay claimant Six months’ gross salary as compensation for the wrongful determination of his employment; which is a total sum of N8,208,703.98, the sum of N7,602,219.73 as his gratuity within 60days from today; thereafter, the judgment sum begins to attract10% interest per annum until it is finally liquidated.
