Back

The court has exclusive jurisdiction in civil causes and matters relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the conditions of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matter incidental thereto or connected therewith.

LIVE Proceeding VIRTUAL COURT

News


Peter Clarke V. Miniso Lifestyle Nigeria Limited: Industrial Court Validates Employment Termination, Dismisses Suit For Lacking Merit


1281 Friday 10th May 2019

 

Lagos– His Lordship, Hon. Justice Elizabeth Oji of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Sitting in Lagos has declared the employment termination of Peter Clarke by Miniso Lifestyle Nig. Ltd not wrongful.

 

The court held that the Claimant’s case hinged on wrongful termination on the grounds of the conduct of the Defendant was not proved, and therefore failed.

 

On 20th August 2018 by a General Form of Complaint, the Claimant sought against defendant among others; A DECLARATION that failure of the Defendant to pay the Claimant three months’ salary in lieu of notice upon his immediate termination constitutes a breach of the Claimant’s contract of employment with the Defendant.

 

Likewise, AN ORDER directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of N1,359,743.04 (One Million, Three Hundred and Fifty-Nine Thousand, Seven Hundred and Forty­ Three Naira, Four Kobo) being the Claimant’s monthly income (including benefits) of N453,247.68 (Four Hundred and Fifty- Three Thousand Two Hundred and Forty­ Seven Naira Sixty- Eight Kobo) for 3 (three) months and other terminal benefits.

 

The Defendant in response, counter-claimed for AN ORDER directing the Claimant to pay general damages of N 5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) only for breach of contract of employment.

 

The Claimant was the Information Technology (IT) Manager of the Defendant and there was an altercation between the Claimant and a colleague on the 20th April 2018 which led to being prevented from entering the premises of the Defendant and further denial of access to his official email. To the claimant, these acts constitute wrongful termination of his employment, demanding for the entitlement of three months’ salary as provided in his contract. 

 

The Defendant alleged that Claimant absconded from work, and refused to attend to his work after being served a notice of termination a day after Claimant’s purported prevention to enter the Defendant’s premises.  Defendant argued that Claimant’s refusal to attend to his work amounted to resignation without notice.

 

It was the Defendant’s case that MD does not have any direct communication links with the security men to prevent access to the office. Defendant stated that the termination of the Claimant was part of the business exigency for the year as the Claimant was not the only employee affected by the downturn as a total of five (5) managers were affected, including the Claimant.

 

Defendant stated that if Claimant’s employment was indeed terminated orally by HR Manager as erroneously claimed by him, the Defendant Company would not have paid his full salary for the month of April 2018, that the Claimant walked away without a formal resignation and is liable to pay three months’ salary in lieu of notice to the Defendant.

 

Counsel for Defendant in their final written address formulated for determination whether the Claimant’s employment was wrongfully terminated in view of the agreed terms and condition of the Claimant’s Employment.

 

After careful evaluation of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides, the Court presided by Hon. Justice Elizabeth Oji expressed thus;

 

The only manner, by which this Court can determine if Claimant’s employment was determined wrongfully by Defendant; or as counter-claimed by the Defendant, is by a consideration of the terms of the employment relationship between the parties. 

 

I find the evidence of CW2, which Claimant relies on, to be unreliable.  The law is well positioned that where there are material contradictions in the evidence adduced by a party, the court is enjoined to reject the entire evidence as it cannot pick and choose which of the conflicting versions to follow.

 

“The above evidence does not suggest termination; rather, it informs the Claimant that he has been placed on suspension.  I find therefore that on the 23rd of April, 2018, (the very next working day after 20th April) the Claimant was informed that he has been suspended from work, after having gone to work on the 20th of April.  Subsequently, on 24th April, a termination letter was issued. 

 

“Based on the above, I do not find that Defendant had terminated Claimant’s employment by ‘conduct’, prior to the termination letter of 24th April.  Consistent with the termination letter, Claimant was paid his salary for the month of April on the 25th of April, 2018. By this, I find that Claimant’s case, which is hinged on wrongful termination on the grounds of the conduct of the Defendant, is not proved, and therefore fails.

 

On the whole, the court dismissed both Claimant’s claim and the Defendant’s counter-claim for lacking merit.

 

Full Judgment, Click here