Media
- Home
- Details
Akure – His Lordship, Hon. Justice A. A. Adewemimo of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Akure, Ondo state, on Monday 21st January 2019 in a judgment declared the termination of Sunday Osayande (Claimant) employment as wrongful not being in accordance with the contract of employment, Orders OANDO Group Plc and OANDO ENERGY SERVICES (defendants) To pay claimant N1,286,109.00k being his three months basic salary in lieu of notice and cost of N100,000.00K within 30 days.
The Claimant by a complaint before this Court on the 9th of April, 2015, sought against the defendants amongst others; A DECLARATION that the defendants are in breach of the terms and conditions of the claimant’s employment. A DECLARATION that the termination of claimant’s employment was wrongful not being in accordance with the terms of his letter of permanent employment and the Oando Staff Handbook.
Likewise, The sum of N26,128,959.00 (Twenty Six Million, One Hundred and Twenty Eight Thousand, Nine Hundred and Fifty Nine Naira) being three years annual basic salaries the claimant would have earned until his retirement in 2012.
It is the claimant’s case that he was offered a permanent and pensionable appointment as a Management Cadre staff in the drilling unit of a subsidiary of the 1st Defendant vide a letter of Offer of Permanent Appointment dated 23rd October 2008.
Claimant however alleged that his confirmation letter was withheld until 12th August 2009, when the Human Resources Manager of the 2nd Defendant served him with a letter terminating his appointment.
He stated that contrary to the terms and conditions of service, he was not given any notice of intention to terminate his employment or given 3 months basic salary in lieu of notice.
He stated that throughout the duration of his service with Oando Energy Services, he was never in breach of any rule, regulation or involved in any misconduct detrimental to the well-being of the company and he was not given fair hearing/ the opportunity to defend himself against whatever cause, if there be any that warranted the termination of his permanent employment.
The Defendants stated that the claimant’s appointment was terminated on the ground that his services were no longer required.
Further to this, the claimant was paid three months basic salary in lieu of notice less tax deductions, The Defendants pleaded that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit as this suit does not disclose any reasonable cause of action. He also stated that the suit is frivolous, vexatious and lacking in merit.
Counsel noted that claimant failed to plead his last two pay slips for the months of June and July 2009 which preceded his termination which would have shown without doubt his last basic salary.
Counsel argued that the claimant could not identify and state the specific days which he worked for the defendants which entitles him to any allowance outside his monthly salaries, let alone adduce any proof that such work was performed. He therefore urged the court to hold that the claimant’s appointment was validly terminated.
Finally, counsel submitted that the only entitlement due to an employee in the claimant’s cadre whose employment was terminated was three months’ salary in lieu of notice. Counsel therefore urged the court to dismiss this suit in its entirety with substantial cost for being vexatious and lacking in merit.
Counsel urged the court to reject the argument of the defendants’ counsel that the defendants complied with the provision of notice before termination.
Counsel submitted that there was no reason adduced for terminating the employment of the claimant on the ground of “service no longer required” which is contrary to the terms and conditions governing claimant’s employment and international best practices.
After careful analysis of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice A. A. Adewemimo expressed thus;
“However, Oando handbook provided for payment in lieu of the notice, that is, the employer can pay a stipulated amount which would equally mean the employment has been terminated.
The defendants chose the option in the company Handbook which provides for payment in lieu of notice instead of the three months’ notice in. I, therefore, find that the Defendants were at liberty to terminate the Claimant’s appointment by paying three (3) months basic salary in lieu of notice in accordance with letter of Offer of Permanent Appointment and company handbook. I so hold.
“It is in view of the facts adduced above, that has led this court to the inexorable conclusion that, what was paid to the claimant falls short of the 3 months requisite basic salary in lieu of notice especially in the light of the Claimant’s evidence that he is being owed some allowances by the defendants and what was paid to him was his offshore salary.
“I find however that the defendant was in breach of the contract of employment as the 3 months basic salary in lieu of notice due to the Claimant was not paid contemporaneously, and the actual computation of the payment remained unproven by the evidence available in this case, even though the defendants had the right to terminate the Claimants employment but in accordance with the terms and conditions of service. I, therefore, hold that the termination of the claimant’s appointment is wrongful.
The court ordered defendant to pay claimant N1,286,109.00k being his three months basic salary in lieu of notice and cost of N100,000.00K within 30 days.
His Lordship refused claim for lacking merit.
