Media
- Home
- Details
Abuja – His Lordship, Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial division has declared the purported dismissal of Mr. M. A. Chiroma by Forte Oil Plc as wrongful for non-compliance with the laid down procedures for termination of the appointment of confirmed staff of the company.
The court ordered that the dismissal be converted to termination with effect from 19th January 2010, and also payment of N400,530.37 being one month’s salary in lieu of notice and N6,208,220.74 gratuity to the claimant within 30 days.
This was a case remitted for trial by the Court of Appeal. The claimant had filed this suit on 11th March 2013 at the High Court of Zamfara State sitting in Gusau. On 15th November 2018, the matter came before the court and parties were ordered to file fresh processes in line with the Rules of the Court.
The claimant sought against the defendant among others; A declaration that the defendant’s letter 19th January 2010 dismissing the claimant is ultra vires, unlawful, illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever having regard to the terms of the claimant’s appointment with the defendant and the provisions of the Human Resource Policies and Procedures Manual governing the conditions of service for the defendant’s staff.
Likewise, An order commanding the defendant to pay the salaries, allowances, bonuses, and entitlements of the claimant from 19th January 2010 up to the date of judgment.
The claimant was employed in 1994, and on 19th January 2010, he was summarily dismissed and maintained that such dismissal was done without compliance with the laid down procedures provided by the conditions of service.
To the claimant, he was given a query which he responded to and never faced any disciplinary panel as required by the procedures and the allegations for which he was dismissed did not warrant dismissal, that the allegations against him were not substantiated. That the criminal proceeding filed against him terminated in his favour.
To the defendant, the claimant was accused of certain improprieties for which he was queried. Upon consideration of the response of the claimant to the said query, the defendant, further to the report of the investigation, recommended the claimant's dismissal, which the defendant upon a consideration of the response of the claimant thereafter dismissed the claimant by the dismissal letter tendered in evidence.
The defendant submitted for determination whether the claimant followed the procedure for the dismissal of the claimant under the terms of the contract of employment and Human Resources Procedure and Manual.
The defendant submitted that by a combination of the response to the query and the answers given under cross-examination, the claimant admitted infractions and failure to comply with the defendant’s procedure further to which money was lost to the enrichment of others through fraud was the basis for the dismissal of the claimant, which basis is justified in law.
Also on the issue raised by the claimant was that the query issued by the defendant did not emanate from his functional head. To the defendant, there was no provision in the Employees’ Manual which makes it mandatory that a query to staff must be issued by his functional head.
It was the claimant submission that there was no good or clear evidence that he committed the alleged offenses of gross misconduct to warrant his dismissal and the defendant failed to justify the dismissal.
After careful evaluation of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides, the Court presided by Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip expressed thus;
“All things being equal, the query to the claimant and his answer is sufficient to answer the complaint of want of fair hearing.
“The promotion of fraud is said to be the resultant effect of the high negligence of including the claimant. This does not take away the fact that what the claimant is guilty of is a high level of negligence, the punishment of which, by HR Policies and Procedures Manual, is termination, not summary dismissal. I so find and hold.
“It is my holding, therefore, that the setting up of the disciplinary panel by the defendant is mandatory, not discretionary.
“From all that has been said so far, in terms of relief (i), since the claimant’s employment was not statutory, his dismissal certainly was not in consonance with HR Policies and Procedures Manual. This, however, does not make the dismissal null and void. What it means is that the dismissal is wrongful.
“As it is, the claimant has not been proved by disclosing to the Court the provisions that entitle him to the claim for gratuity and end of service benefits and how he came by the quantum of the sums he claims.
On the whole, the court declared that the purported dismissal is wrongful for non-compliance with the laid down procedures for termination of the appointment of confirmed staff of the defendant.
In addition, his Lordship also declared that the dismissal of the claimant is converted to termination and it takes effect from 19th January 2010, ordered the defendant to pay claimant sum of N400,530.37 being one month’s salary in lieu of notice; and N6,208,220.74 being gratuity within 30 days.
