Media
- Home
- Details
Owerri – The Presiding Judge of the of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Owerri Judicial division, His Lordship, Hon. Justice I. S. Galadima on Wednesday 13th February 2019 in a judgment declared indefinite suspension of DEACON ONWUATUEGWU UZOMA (Claimant) from employment as a bank officer with STATESMAN MICRO-FINANCE BANK(formerly known as Uzuakoli Finance Bank) as wrongful, ordered Defendants to pay the sum of N6,250.00 being a week’s salary to the Claimant in lieu of notice and sum of N300,000.00 as general damages within 14 Days.
The claimant sought among others; A declaration that the purported suspension and the false allegation against the Claimant that led to charge by the Defendants and the outright refusal to pay the Claimant his arrears of salary, allowances, and other entitlements and increments due to him upon demands are deliberate and calculated infraction of his (the Claimant’s) rights as an employee of the 1st Defendant bank.
A declaration that the suspension of the Claimant “till further notice” as contained in a letter dated 27/06/2012 does not amount to termination of the employment of the Claimant.
An order compelling the Defendants to pay to the Claimant all his entitlements, The arrears of monthly salary at N25, 000 per month from August 2011 till 30/4/2014 amounting to N825,000 and from 1/5/2014 to the end of this case among others.
An order compelling the Defendants to pay to the Claimant N15,000,000 (fifteen million Naira) being general damages as a result of the injury suffered by the Claimant flowing from the false allegations, unlawful suspension, arrests, detentions, outright refusal to pay the arrears of entitlements upon demand and the health hazards the Claimant is exposed to.
In September 2009, the Claimant was employed by Statesman Micro-Finance Bank 1st Defendant as a freelance marketing field officer. He was confirmed as a banking officer On 1/8/2011, the Claimant was queried by 1stDefendant’s Ohafia meeting point in Isusu department. This query was followed by an indefinite suspension from duty and Subsequently, arraigned and remanded.
Being aggrieved, therefore, the Claimant believes that the Defendants’query was malicious and geared towards “dealing” with him.
The Defendants did not call any witness and their Counsel instead opted to rest on the Claimant’s case and address this Court.
The Defendants raised one issue for determination in their written final arguments whether this suit is competent? In the alternative, whether the claimant has proved his case?
Learned Counsel had argued that the instant suit is incompetent because the 1st defendant is non-existent, robbing this court of the jurisdiction to entertain this case.
Furthermore, it was contended that the Claimant merited his suspension, and this case unequivocally amounted to an abuse of court process. It is Counsel’s further opinion that the Claimant’s employment letter provided only for payment of salaries and nothing more. Thus, the reliefs seeking for all manner of entitlements ought to be refused by this court.
On the issues above, Counsel first submitted that this suit is competent having been brought against persons who are juristic persons in law, as there were no evidence in proof of the 1stDefendant’s liquidation.
After careful evaluation of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice I. S. Galadima expressed thus;
“In this case, the purported fact that the 1st Defendant is dead is only a fact known to the 1st Defendant’s Counsel. Therefore, it is my considered view based on the foregone rationale, that the 1stDefendant has not been shown to be nonexistent or incapable of bearing liability for any legal actions.
“However, a cursory look at employment letter indicates that there is no clause or term providing for the procedure for suspension of an employee. From the circumstances of the case, the Defendants stopped paying the Claimant so soon after he was suspended from performing his normal duties as a bank officer.
“Thus, I find and hold that the indefinite suspension of the Claimant without pay through the letter dated 2/8/2011 is indeed wrongful.
“Also and deducible from the conduct of the Defendants’ unwillingness to continue employing the Claimant, this Court cannot, therefore, declare that the contract of employment subsists to date.
“Accordingly, I find that the Claimant’s employment was wrongfully terminated by the Defendants who constructively dismissed him without the requisite notice. The Claimant is therefore entitled to a week’s pay in lieu of the requisite statutory notice.
The court ordered Defendants to pay the sum of N6,250.00 being a week’s salary to the Claimant in lieu of notice of termination of his employment, the sum of N300,000.00 as general damages within 14 Days.
His Lordship stated that no evidence substantiating the injury and health hazards the Claimant was allegedly exposed to. Consequently, relief for injury damages was denied.
