Media
- Home
- Details
Portharcourt –His Lordship, Hon. Justice P. I. Hamman of the National Industrial Court, Portharcourt Judicial division on Wednesday 6th February 2019 in a judgment dismissed suit filed by MR. OKAFOR GREAT ENDURANCE –claimant against C & I LEASING PLC –(defendant) for lacking merit. The court held that the contradictions in the evidence of the Claimant are so fundamental as to affect the justice of the case and no basis for the court to rely on such inconsistent evidence.
By a Complaint dated and filed on 6th November 2015 the Claimant commenced this suit against the Defendant, sought amongst others; A declaration that the purported letter of Termination of appointment on the 24th June 2015 terminating the Claimant’s employment is null and void.
An Order of court directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of N30,000 (Thirty Thousand Naira) per month commencing from the month of June 2015 till judgment is given in this case and at the same sum of N30,000 per month till judgment sum is liquidated, being the basic salary per month of the Claimant.
Likewise, An Order of court directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant N20,000,000 (Twenty Million Naira) as damages for the unlawful termination of the Claimant appointment.
It is the case of the Claimant that, he was employed on 8th April 2014, and attached to one defendant's client as personal and official driver. The Claimant alleged that in 2015 when he closed from work, he was called and directed to hand over the car and without hesitation complied with the instructions and handed over the car keys to the client’s wife.
According to the Claimant, to his surprise when he resumed his duties the next day, he was denied access to the car keys. That he called his supervisor and informed him of the action taken by clients and wife. He was then instructed to stay put until company received a formal complaint/report.
That to his dismay, his supervisor informed him that client had visited the Defendant’s office and informed the Defendant orally that he was no longer interested in the Claimant’s services, and he was directed to sign a letter of termination of appointment from one Miss Jessica which he refused to sign.
That he had never been issued any query, warning or found guilty of any act of misconduct; and the Defendant neither gave him two weeks’ notice nor paid two weeks basic salary in lieu of notice as stated in the Condition of Service.
According to the Defendant, that on 22nd of June, 2015, officers of the Defendant received calls from the client who complained about the conduct of the Claimant. That when the Claimant informed the Defendant that he was having some misunderstanding with the family of the Defendant’s client, the Defendant directed the Claimant to be reporting to duty in the Defendant’s office and that the Defendant would look into the matter.
That instead of reporting for duty as directed, the Claimant absconded from duty and has since not been seen.
To the Defendant, it did not at anytime issue any letter of termination of appointment to the Claimant, that the Claimant for reasons best known to him absconded from duty since June 2015 after his alleged quarrel.
The Defendant asked for the determination among others Whether the Claimant has proved his case by credible evidence to be entitled to his claim.
After careful evaluation of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice P. I. Hamman expressed thus;
“During cross-examination, the witness maintained his position that it is not true that the Claimant stayed away from the office because the Defendant issued to him letter of termination and asked him to hand over his ID Card and other office items.
“There is, therefore, a clear case of contradiction and inconsistency in the evidence of the Claimant, and in the circumstance, it is not the duty of the court to pick and choose which one of the contradictory evidence to believe and which one to disbelieve.
“I, therefore, agree with the submission of the counsel to the Defendant that, the contradictions in the evidence of the Claimant are so fundamental as to affect the justice of the case. There is, therefore, no basis for the court to rely on such inconsistent evidence. I so find and hold.
“The Claimant would seem to have out of anger or annoyance frustrated his contract by himself as he informed the court that out of annoyance he left the letter of termination of appointment.
“In the final result, I hold that the Claimant has failed to prove his case and same fails and is hereby dismissed.” His Lordship stated.
Click Here To Read Full Judgment
