Page 1 of 44 IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT IBADAN BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE Y. M. HASSAN DATE: 20TH OCTOBER, 2025. SUIT NO.: NICN/IB/62/2024 BETWEEN ONIBU-ORE MICRO FINANCE BANK LIMITED --------------- CLAIMANT AND 1. OKOLIKO UKPAHIUOJO DOMINIC 2. EMMANUEL ENICHOYA ------------------- DEFENDANTS 3. UWAKWE DONATUS C. REPRESENTATION ADEDOLAPO A. IBIYEMI ESQ, FOR THE CLAIMANT OLAWAMAYOWA FASOLA FOR THE DEFENDANTS JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION 1. The Claimant, ONIBU-ORE MICRO FINANCE BANK LIMITED, commenced this suit via General Form of Complaint and Statement of Fact together with frontloaded documents dated the 24th day of October, 2024 and filed same day against the Defendants claiming the following reliefs: Page 2 of 44 1) A DECLARATION that the condition of service contained in the 1st Defendant’s letter of appointment dated 1st November, 2007 subsists and is binding on the 1st Defendant. 2) A DECLARATION that the Resignation Letter tendered by the Defendant is invalid and the 1st Defendant is therefore in breach of his contract of employment with the Claimant. 3) A DECLARATION of this Honourable Court that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for breach of a contract of employment, as well as a guarantorship agreement between the Claimant and the Defendants. 4) The sum of N83,199.74 (Eighty Three Thousand, One Hundred and Ninety Nine Naira, Seventy Four Kobo) being one (1) month’s salary in lieu of notice owed it by the 1st Defendant. 5) The outstanding loans/debts in the sum of N714,900.00 (Seven Hundred and Fourteen Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira). 6) The sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) as general damages for breach of contract of employment. 7) The sum of N3,000,000 (Three Million Naira) being the cost of this action. 2. In response, the Defendants filed joint Statement of Defence dated 26th day of November, 2024 and filed on 27th day of November, 2024. Also, the 1st Defendant counter claimed against the Claimant as follows: 1) The sum of N1,497,595.32 (One Million, Four Hundred and Ninety-Seven Thousand, Five Hundred and Ninety-Five Naira, Thirty-Two Kobo) as his terminal benefit/gratuity, being 150% of his gross annual pay. 2) Interest on the sum of N1,497,595.32 (One Million, Four Hundred and Ninety-Seven Thousand, Five Hundred and Page 3 of 44 Ninety-Five Naira, Thirty-Two Kobo) at the rate of 20% per annum from the date of Judgment till the Judgment is fully paid by the Defendant to the Counter Claim. 3) Exemplary damages in the sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) Only. 4) Cost of this action in the sum of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) Only. 3. In further response, the Claimant filed a defence to Counter Claim dated and filed on 27th day of February, 2025. However, the Claimant did not file any reply to the Defendants’ Statement of Defence. 4. Pleadings having been settled, trial in this suit commenced on the 5 th day of March, 2025 and was concluded on the 20th day of March, 2025. The Claimant and the Defendants called one witnesses each. CASE OF THE CLAIMANT 5. On the 5th day of March, 2025, the Claimant open its case by calling one Mr. Emmanuel Omoyosoye, the Managing Director of the Claimant, who testified as CW1, adopted his Statement on Oath as his evidence-in-chief and tendered some documents in evidence which were admitted and marked as Exhibits A1 to A12 as well as E1 to H respectively. It is the case of the Claimant as revealed from the pleadings and evidence led that the 1st Defendant was employed by the Claimant as Office Assistant on 1st November, 2007 and rose through the rank and become the Acting Head of Information Technology. That the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are Guarantors of the 1 st Defendant to the Claimant. Page 4 of 44 That the fundamental conditions of service contained in the 1st Defendant’s letter of appointment is that either party can terminate the contract of employment by giving one month notice or payment of one month salary in lieu of notice. That the 1 st Defendant however resigned his appointment with the Claimant by giving five (5) days notice vide his letter dated 5th February, 2024, which is clearly a breach of the contract of employment between the Claimant and the 1 st Defendant, and as result of this, the Claimant rejected the said letter of resignation. That the 1st Defendant had the Claimant’s customers’ outstanding debt (customers’ money) in the sum of N714,900.00 (Seven Hundred and Fourteen Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira) yet to be recovered by him as at the time he tendered his letter of resignation and has refused to recover same till date despite undertakings signed by him. The said sum continue to attract interest at the Central Bank of Nigeria prevailing rates of 27.5%. that the 1st Defendant stopped work immediately he tendered his letter of resignation and absconded from his duty without handing over any of the Claimant’s properties in his custody, after enjoying various benefits in the course of over 16 years of working with the Claimant. That the Claimant through its Managing Director, Mr. Emmanuel Omoyosoye, wrote a letter dated 27th of February, 2024 to the 3rd Defendant, to inform him of the 1st Defendant’s outstanding loans/debts in the sum of N714,900.00 (Seven Hundred and Fourteen Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira) and requesting that they prevail over him to recover same. 6. Under cross examination by the Defendants’ Counsel, CW1 stated among other things that the one month notice is not written on this offer letter but it is implied in our Staff Handbook which is given to all staff after confirmation of appointment. That the loan referred in Page 5 of 44 the deposition are loans granted to customers of the Claimant totaling N714,900.00 brought and recommended by the 1st Defendant. That as a Managing Director, he has years of experience in Banking. That when Bank grant loan to customers, is not only between the bank and the customers, it involves the marketer that brings the customer too and the marketer are employees of the Bank (Claimant). That in Exhibit A2, he said nothing about the property of the Claimant taken by the 1st Defendant. CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS 7. The Defendants opened their defence on the 20th day of March, 2025 and 1st Defendant testified as DW1 for himself and on behalf of the 2 nd and 3rd Defendants. He adopted his Statement on Oath dated 27th day of November, 2024 as his evidence-in-chief and tendered some documents which were admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibit A13 to D2 respectively. 8. DW1 testified under cross examination by the Claimant’s Counsel and stated inter alia that he worked for Claimant for 16years and he is a permanent staff of the Claimant. That he is aware that there is Handbook which apply to every staff most especially the permanent staff. That Exhibit C applies to him. That notice of resignation depends on the staff resigning. That Exhibit A4 was written on 10th February, 2024. That he knows Mr. Ali Ambrose Okoye and 11 other people listed in Exhibit A5 as the customers of the Bank (Claimant) and he is their Account Officer. That he did the KnowYour-Customer report and the customer visitation report for all of them. That he knows the customer of the Bank are still owing as at the time he resigned. That he is aware and was given the weekly allowances for airtime and transport fare. That he is not the only one that knows Ali Ambrose and 11 other people. That after his Page 6 of 44 visitation, the recovery team of the Bank also visited. That he understands the practice of the Bank that he was exposed to. That Mr. Uwakwe Donatus is his Guarantor. That he has given report on the undertaken after the said date and is among the Exhibits he tendered. That he did not know that interest on the loans are still accruing. FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESSES 9. At the conclusion of trial and pursuant to the Court’s directive, Learned Counsel on either side filed their final written addresses. 10. The Defendants/Counter Claimant’s Final Written Addresses is dated the 2nd day of April, 2025 and filed on 3 rd April, 2025. In it, Learned Counsel to the Defendants, Oluwamayowa Fasola Esq, formulated three issues for determination, to wit: 1. (a) Whether this Honourable Court has the powers to grant relief (v) of the Claimants claims given that it arose from banking matters. 1.(b) Whether the Claimant has shown a cause of action against the Defendants regarding relief (v) of her claim in light of the Parties to the various loan transactions contained in Exhibits E1-E6. 2. Whether, given the pleadings and evidence led in this case, the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in his Claims. 3. Whether, in light of the pleadings and evidence led in this case, the Counter Claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought in his counter claim. 11. Arguing issue 1(a), Counsel submitted that this Honourable Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain relief (v) of the Claimant’s Page 7 of 44 claims given the clear provisions of Section 251(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). Counsel submitted that jurisdiction is life wire of every Court. He relied on the case of OGBUJI & ANOR v. AMADI (2022) LPELR-56591(SC). 12. Learned Counsel argued further that from the Claimant’s Statement of Facts it is clear that the money sought to be recovered are loans granted by the Claimant to its customers. That the loans were not granted to any of the Defendants. To this extend, Counsel submitted that the claim for N714,900.00 (Seven Hundred and Fourteen Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira) arose from the matter connected with or pertaining to banking which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court pursuant to Section 251(d) of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on the case of FBN LTD v. OGWEMOH (2023) LPELR-60298(CA) and paragraph (6) of the Statement of Fact. 13. Consequently, Counsel submitted by urging this Honourable Court to hold that it lacks the jurisdiction to determine relief (v) which is connected with Banking. 14. On issue one (b), Counsel submitted that the Claimant has not shown any cause of action against the Defendants with respect to relief (v) of her claim on claim. On meaning of cause of actions, Counsel referred the Court to the case of EGBUE v. ARAKA (1988) LPELR-1038(SC). 15. Counsel contended that the loan sum sought to be recovered in the suit is premised on the various loan agreement between the Claimant and her different customers. Counsel referred the Court to the Page 8 of 44 testimony of CW1 under cross examination and stated that none of the Defendants benefitted from the loan facilities. 16. In his further argument, Counsel referred the Court to evidence of CW1 and submitted that the acts of the 1st Defendant were acts of the Claimant. Again, Counsel submitted that the parties to various loan transactions sought to be recovered are the Claimant (as Creditor, Lender) and the individual customers (as Debtors/Borrowers) and that the Claimant’s cause of action is against her customers and the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendants as they are not privy to the loan transaction. Reliance was placed on the cases of AHMED v. FISHERIES NIG. LTD & ORS (2020) LPELR-51225(CA); REICHIE v. NIGERIA BANK FOR COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (2016) LPELR-40051(SC); VITAL INVESTMENT LTD v. CHEMICAL AND ALLIED PRODUCTS (2021) LPELR58457(CA). 17. In addition, Counsel referred the Court to paragraph (6) of the Statement of Fact and submitted that it is against the Public Policy to recover the said sum from the Defendants where the debts are not theirs. 18. In another argument, Counsel referred the Court to Exhibit E1 to E6 and stated that none of the customers listed in the offer letter bears the names of any of the Defendants and submitted that documents speak for themselves. Also, Counsel referred the Court to Exhibit F and submitted that it cannot be interpreted to transfer liability of the Claimant’s default to service loan to the Defendants and urged the Court to so hold. 19. Finally on issue 1(b), Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the said relief (v) of the Claimant’s claims as the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant on the said relief. Page 9 of 44 20. Arguing issue two, Counsel submitted that the Claimant has not proved her entitlement to the relief sought. That the law is settled in Civil Proceedings the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Reference was made to the cases of EYEI UDUAK USORO & 5 ORS v. EBUKIDIOK UDUAK USORO & 2 ORS (2024) 12 NWLR (pt. 1952) 357 and Section 134 of the Evidence Act. 21. On reliefs (i) – (iii) claim by the Claimant, Counsel submitted that the Claimant has failed to establish any of her claims before the Court. Counsel referred the Court to paragraph (4) of the Statement of Claim and submitted that parties are bound by their pleadings. Reliance was placed on the cases of OZOMGBACHI v. AMADI & ORS (2018) LPELR-45152(SC); AJIDE v. KELANI (1985) LPELR-302(SC). 22. Therefore, Counsel submitted that the Claimant is bound by her pleadings and reliance on the letter of employment – Exhibit A1. Under cross examination, the Claimant’s evidence that Exhibit A1 required the 1st Defendant to give the Claimant one month notice or one month salary in lieu of notice was impeached. CW1 admitted under cross examination that Exhibit A1 did not contain such requirement. 23. Arguing further, Counsel stated that the CW1’s claim that the requirement of notice or salary in lieu of notice was implied by the Staff Handbook was not pleaded. The said evidence is therefore at variance with her evidence and submitted that the said evidence goes to no issue and urge Court to expunge it from the record of the Court. He cited the case of BABA v. INEC (2024) NWLR (pt. 1957) 155(SC). 24. In another argument, Counsel stated that the Claimant failed to show where in the Staff Handbook the 1st Defendant was required to give Page 10 of 44 one month notice or salary in lieu of notice. The law is trite that a Court of law neither speculates nor engages in a voyage of discovery. He relied on the case of MADUKA v. NWOSU (2013) LPELR-20679(CA). 25. To this extend, Counsel argued that assuming without conceding that the 1st Defendant did not give due notice to the Claimant, it is trite that Court cannot force unwilling employer to retain a willing employee. Reference was made to the case of SKYE BANK PLC v. ADEGUN (2024) LPELR-62219(SC). 26. Consequently, Counsel submitted that reliefs (i) and (ii) cannot be granted and urged the Court to so hold. Also, Counsel argued that the Claimant has failed to demonstrate any breach of Exhibit A1 and submitted that the Claimant has failed to establish any entitlement to reliefs (iii) and (iv). 27. On claim (v), Counsel adopted his argument under issue 1(a) and (b) and submitted that the Claimant did not challenge paragraphs (8) and (9) of the Statement of Defence. That in the said paragraphs, the Defendants pleaded the reason for the Letter of Undertaking – Exhibit A6. In support of these pleadings, the 1st Defendant in paragraphs (11) and (12) of his Written Deposition explained that the undertaking was made under duress. The particulars of duress were specifically pleaded. That the Claimant however failed to file a reply to the Statement of Defence denying these pleadings in her Statement of Facts as required by the Rules of this Honourable Court. Reference was made to Order 30 Rule 6(1) and (2) of the Rules of this Court and the case of ADAKA v. OMESSAH (2023) LPELR60857(CA). Page 11 of 44 28. Consequently, Counsel contended that the Claimant’s failure to file a reply or plead any fact contradicting the material fact raised in paragraph (8) and (9) of the Statement of Defence, Counsel submitted therefore that the Claimant has admitted the facts deposed to in paragraph (11) and (12) of the 1st Defendant’s Written Deposition. 29. In another submission, Counsel stated that the said undertaking (Exhibit A6) was made under duress and cannot be relied upon by the Claimant in this case to establish any liability against the Defendants and that the Defendants made no undertaking to take over the customers’ indebtedness and urged the Court to so hold. 30. To this end, Counsel submitted and urged the Court to hold that the Claimant has failed to prove his entitlement to relief (v). 31. Arguing on claims (vi) and (vii), Counsel stated that the Claimant has failed to show that the Defendants breached the terms of the letter of offer dated 1st November, 2007. That the Claimant failed to establish any breach of contract and also the Claimant failed to tender any document to prove that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants agreed to take up liability should the 1st Defendant breach the contract of employment. Counsel referred the Court to the testimony of CW1 under cross examination and the cases of IPINLAIYE v. OLUKOTUN (1996) 6 NWLR (pt. 453) 148; ABALAKA v. AKINSETE & ORS (2023) LPELR-60349(SC). 32. In his further argument, Counsel referred the Court to paragraphs 18-20 of the Statement of Defence and paragraphs 21-23 of the 1st Defendant’s deposition and submitted that the law is settled that facts uncontroverted need no further proof. Reliance was placed on the cases of VINCENT v. EGHAREVBA v. DR. OROBOR OSAGIE (2004) LPELR-1044(SC); IYERE v. BENDEL FEED AND FLOUR MILL LTD (2008) LPELR-1578(SC). Page 12 of 44 33. In another submission, Counsel stated that the Claimant is not entitled to any damage given that the 1st Defendant assisted her in filing her returns with the CBN and went to train her staff and that would be against public policy to award damages when it is on record that the 1st Defendant assisted the Claimant in training her staff. That the Claimant has suffered no loss. On the contrary, the 1st Defendant has been beneficial to the Claimant even after resigning his employment and urge the Court to so hold. 34. Consequently, Counsel urged this Honorable Court to resolve this issue against the Claimant and dismiss the Claimant’s claims for lacking in merit. 35. On issue three, Counsel submitted that it is trite law that a counter claim is a separate and independent action and the Counter Claimant has the burden to prove his case. Reliance was placed on the case of OYEKAN & ORS v. ABERUAGBA & ORS (2023) LPELR62196(SC). 36. The Learned Counsel submitted that Counter Claimant has led credible evidence which has not been challenged nor disputed and urged the Court to grant the claims sought by the Counter Claimant. Reference was made to the cases of BUA v. DAUDA (2005) LPELR-810(SC); EROKWU & ANOR v. EROKWU (2016) LPELR-41515(CA). 37. In this respect, Counsel urged the Court to find that the Counter Claimant is entitled to terminal benefit in the sum of N1,497,595.32 (One Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Seven Thousand, Five Hundred and Ninety Five Naira, Thirty Two Kobo) only. 38. Counsel argued that the Defendant to the Counter Claim failed to file a Written Deposition in support of her defence and the law is trite that pleadings without oral evidence in support are worthless. Page 13 of 44 It is also trite that where a Defendant (in this case to a Counter Claim) fails to call evidence in support of his pleadings, he is deemed to have abandoned his defence. He cited the case of AMBASSADOR YAHAYA KWANDE & ANOR v. AIR MARSHAL MOUKTAR MOHAMMED (RTD) & ORS (2014) LPELR-22575(CA); OGBUMGBADA v. OGBUMGBADA & ORS (2018) LPELR-44291(CA). 39. In another argument, Counsel stated that the Counter Claimant raised new issues in the Statement of Defence and counter claimed in support of the Counter Claim. That the Defendant to the Counter Claim failed to plead any contrary fact to controvert the pleadings in support of the Counter Claim. That the law is trite that facts not disputed, need no further proof. Reference was made to the case of CITEC INTL ESTATES LTD. v. E. INTL INC. AND ASSOCIATES (2018) 3 NWLR (pt. 1606) 332 pp. 359, para. D. 40. On Exhibit C, Counsel submitted that the Counter Claimant has satisfied the conditions necessitating the admissibility of Exhibit C and the Counter Claimant issued notice to produce on the Claimant to produce the signed copy. Reliance was placed on the cases of AKINREMI v. SULEIMAN & ORS (2022) LPELR-56903(CA); ASHAKACEM PLC v. ASHAKARATUL MUBASHURUN INVESTMENT LTD (2019) LPELR-46541(SC); AWOLAJA & ORS v. SEATRADE G. B. (2002) LPELR-651. Therefore, Counsel urged the Court to hold that Exhibit C is admissible and can be acted upon by this Honourable Court. 41. The Learned Counsel argued on Exhibit B1 and B2 wherein the Counter Claimant requested for the payment of his benefits. That the Defendant to the Counter Claim did not respond to the letter to deny that he is entitled to what he requested for. Consequently, that the law is settled that where a party fails to respond to a letter such as Page 14 of 44 Exhibit B1 and B2, the party will be deemed to have admitted the contents of the letter. He relied on the case of NIGER ALUMINIUM MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. & ANOR. v. UNION BANK (2015) LPELR-26010(CA). Therefore, Counsel submitted that the Defendant to the Counter Claim has submitted the contents of Exhibits B1 and B2 and urged the Court to grant relief (a) of the Counter Claim. 42. On relief (b) of the counter claim, Counsel submitted that it is govern by the Rules of this Honourable Court. Reliance was made to the cases of IFEMESIA v. ECOBANK (2018) LPELR-46589(CA); FBN PLC v. EXCEL PLASTIC LTD (2003) 13 NWLR (pt. 837) 412 at 417. 43. On relief (c) of the counter claim, Counsel submitted that the actions of the Defendant to the Counter Claim warrants the grant of exemplary damages to deter the Defendant to the Counter Claim and other employers from abusing their positions to deprive employees their entitlement. 44. On cost, Counsel submitted that the law is trite that cost follows event and that the Counter Claimant is entitled to be compensated for money expended in this suit and urged the Court to so hold. Reliance was placed on the case of AFRO-STUFF SAS (NIG) LTD v. AZEDAMA INVESTMENT CO. LTD. (2015) LPELR25797(CA). 45. Consequently, Counsel submitted urging the Court to hold that the Counter Claimant is entitled to all the reliefs as contained in his Counter Claim and urged the Court to dismiss the Claimant’s claims, having failed to prove her case. 46. Finally, Counsel urged the Court to grant the Counter Claimant’s reliefs as contained in his counter claim. Page 15 of 44 SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT 47. The Claimant’s final Written Address is dated and filed on the 6th day of May, 2025. In it, the Claimant’s Counsel distilled six (6) issues for determination, to wit: 1) Whether the 1st Defendant breached his employment contract by resigning with only five (5) days notice, contrary to the mandatory one-month notice period in the 2019 Staff Handbook. 2) Whether the 1st Defendant is liable for N714,900.00 in unrecovered customer loans, pursuant to his undertaking dated 21st December, 2023. 3) Whether the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are jointly and severally liable as guarantors for the 1 st Defendant’s breaches and financial obligations. 4) Whether the Claimant is entitled to all reliefs sought, including declarations, monetary awards, interest, damages, and costs. 5) Whether the 1st Defendant’s counter claim for terminal benefits of N1,497,595.32 (One Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Seven Thousand, Five Hundred and Ninety Five Naira, Thirty Two Kobo) is sustainable given his breaches of contract. 6) Whether this Honorable Court has jurisdiction over the Claimant’s claims, including the recovery of customer loans arising from the 1st Defendant’s employment duties. 48. In arguing the issues, Counsel submitted on issue one that the 1st Defendant’s resignation with a paltry five days notice is textbook breach of his employment contract. He referred the Court to Exhibit C, section 2.15 of the Claimant’s 2019 Staff Handbook. 49. The Learned Counsel argued that the 2019 Staff Handbook (Exhibit C) is incorporated into the 1st Defendant’s contract by virtue of his Page 16 of 44 16 years tenure and senior role, explicitly stipulates a one-month notice period before resignation is effective. Moreso, Counsel referred the Court to Exhibit A10 and submitted that it amounts to an admission against interest. Reliance was placed on the case of OKONKWO v. CCB (NIG) LTD (2003) 8 NWLR (pt. 822) 347. 50. On the Defendants’ defence that the appointment letter (Exhibit A1) is silent on post-probation notice periods, thus validating the fiveday notice, Counsel referred the Court to the cases of AFRIBANK (NIG) PLC v. OSISANYA (2000) 1 NWLR (pt. 642) 599; OLADIPO v. UBN PLC (2001) 13 NWLR (pt. 730) 304. 51. The Learned Counsel contended that the Claimant’s swift rejection of the resignation on 9th February, 2024 (Exhibit A2) was not an act of spite but a lawful assertion of its rights. Reference was made to the case of MOROHUNFOLA v. KWARA STATE COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY (1990) LPELR-1912(SC) and urged the Court to declare the resignation invalid and award N83,199.74 as salary in lieu of notice. 52. On issue two, Counsel stated that the 1st Defendant’s liability for N714,900.00 in unrecovered customer loans is as clear as daylight. Counsel referred the Court to Exhibits A6 and A10 and submitted that it is an admission of his responsibility and failure. Reliance was placed on the case of EZE v. SPRING BANK PLC (2011) 18 NWLR (pt. 1278) 113 as well as Section 5.3 of the 2019 Staff Handbook (Exhibit C). Therefore, Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Defendants are liable for the unrecovered loan sum in the sum of N714,900.00, ensuring justice for the Claimant’s losses. 53. On Defendants’ claim for duress, that the undertaking was executed under threats of salary withholding and a lien on the 1st Defendant’s account, Counsel argued that it is a hollow defence unsupported by evidence not even during trial. Page 17 of 44 54. On the Defendants’ argument that the 1st Defendant was a mere agent not personally liable for customer loan, Counsel referred the Court to the case of OFORISHE v. NIGERIAN GAS CO. LTD (2018) 2 NWLR (pt. 1602) 35 and urged the Court to hold the first Defendant liable for this sum of N714,900.00 unrecovered. 55. On issue three, Counsel argued that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants cannot escape their joint and several liability for the 1st Defendant’s glaring breaches and financial obligations. Counsel referred the Court to CW1 testimony on oath, paragraph (4) of joint Statement of Defence, Exhibits D-F and the case of FBN PLC v. BAMGBOSE (2017) 8 NWLR (pt. 1567) 304. 56. On issue four, Counsel stated that the Claimant’s entitlement to its reliefs is unassailable, grounded in law, evidence and the profound harm inflicted by the Defendants and urged the Court to grant these reliefs in order to restore the Claimant to wholeness, deters future breaches and upholds justice. 57. On issue five, Counsel stated that the 1st Defendant’s counter claim for N1,497,595.32 in terminal benefits under Section 4.17 of the Staff Handbook 2019 is a bold but baseless bid for reward amidst wrongdoing. He cited in support the case of AFORISHE v. NIGERIAN GAS CO. LTD (2018) 2 NWLR (pt. 1602) 35. 58. Consequently, Counsel submitted that the 1st Defendant’s litany of breaches, five days notice, abscondment, and failure to recover N714,900.00, disentitle him to any largesse and urged the Court to dismiss the Defendant’s counter claim to prevent 1st Defendant from reaping where he sow chaos. Counsel argued that gratuity requires a regular resignation and Board approval and that these conditions were not met due to his irregular and the bank’s financial Constraints caused by his actions. Page 18 of 44 59. On issue six, Counsel referred the Court to Section 254C(1) of the 1999 Constitution and the case of SKYE BANK PLC v. IWU (2017) 16 NWLR (pt. 1590) 24 and argued that the loan recovery claim stems from the 1st Defendant’s undertaking (Exhibit A6), a direct extension of his role in his contract of employment. The guarantorship claim, tied to employment obligations, falls squarely within this Court purview. 60. Arguing further, Counsel urged this Honourable Court to hold that the Defendants’ jurisdictional challenge that loan recovery is a banking matter is a smokescreen to misdirect the Court from the substantive issues underlined in this address and to escape liability for their wrongdoings. That the Claimant’s claims are employmentcentric, not banking disputes, and submitted that this Court is the proper forum to resolve them. 61. In another argument, Counsel stated that the Defendants’ reliance on Section 251(d) of the 1999 Constitution is misplaced, as this matter involves an employer-employee dispute, with the loan sum becoming payable due to the 1st Defendant’s resignation, as stipulated in Section 5.3 of the Staff Handbook (Exhibit C). 62. In conclusion, Counsel urged this Honourable Court to dismiss the Defendants’ counter claim and grants all their prayers as prayed. DEFENDANTS/COUNTER CLAIMANT REPLY TO CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS 63. The Defendants/Counter Claimant filed their reply to the Claimant’s final Written Address dated and filed on the 13th day of May, 2025. Page 19 of 44 COURT’S DECISION 64. I have taken my time and read and understood all the processes filed by Learned Counsel on either side. I listened patiently to the testimonies of the witnesses called at trial, watched their demeanor and carefully evaluated all the Exhibits tendered and admitted. I, in addition, listened attentively to the oral submissions of the Learned Counsel for the parties at the point of adopting their final Written Addresses and reply on point of law. Having painstakingly done all these, it is my humble view that the issues formulated by Counsel in their respective Final Written Address can be narrowed into two, to wit: 1) Whether the Claimant has prove its case as required by law to be entitled to the reliefs sought. 2) Whether the 1st Defendant/Counter Claimant has prove his counter claim to be entitled to grant of same. I shall take the issues one after the other. 65. On issue one which is whether the Claimant has prove its case as required by law to be entitled to the reliefs sought. Let me begin by saying that it is the case of the Claimant principally that the 1st Defendant who was employed by the Claimant as Office Assistant and rose through the rank to become the Acting Head of Information Technology of the Claimant, resigned his appointment with the Claimant giving only five (5) days notice in breach of contract of employment between 1st Defendant and the Claimant and that the 1st Defendant had outstanding Claimant’s customers’ debt yet to be recovered in the sum of N714,900.00 at the time he tendered his resignation despite his undertaking. 66. Having pointed out this, it is therefore the law as settled that he who asserts must prove with credible and admissible evidence. Page 20 of 44 In this respect, I refer to Section 131(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 which provides thus: “Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts shall prove that those facts exist” See also the case of IREWA & ANOR v. BAIYEROHI & ANOR (2023) LPELR-59713 per MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, JCA at page 33-33, paras A-A where it was held thus: “He who asserts has the burden of proving the existence of his assertion…” Similarly, it was held in the case of EGURIDU & ANOR v. UGHAKPOTENI (2023) LPELR-60864 per TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE, JCA at page 7-8, paras D-B that: “…the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence unless it is provided by any law that proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person but the burden may in the course of a case be shifted from one side to the other…” See also the cases of OBAJE v. NAMA (2023) LPELR61645(SC); OKEKE v. OKEKE (2019) 17 NWLR (pt. 1701) 288. 67. Let me pause here and note that reliefs one, two and three sought by the Claimant are declaratory. To that extend, the law is settled that declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course nor are they Page 21 of 44 granted on the weakness of the case of the Defendant. Such reliefs must be proved by credible and admissible evidence before the Claimant can be entitled to the grant of the declarations sought. In this respect, I refer to the case of EMENIKE v. P.D.P. & 3 ORS (2012) 12 NWLR (pt. 1315) 556 at 590, paras A-B where it was held thus: “The burden of proof on the Plaintiff in establishing the declaratory relief to the satisfaction of the Court is quite heavy in the sense that such declaratory reliefs are not granted even on admission by the Defendant where the Plaintiff fails to establish his own entitlement to the declaration by his own evidence.” See also the case of SULE v. HABU (2012) ALL FWLR (pt. 912) 664. 68. At the trial and in proving its case, the Claimant called its sole witness by name Mr. Emmanuel Omoyosoye, the Managing Director of the Claimant who testified as CW1, adopted his Statement on Oath as his evidence in-chief and tendered some documents which were admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibits A1 to A12 as well as E1 to H respectively. From the evidence of the Claimant before the Court, the Clamant stated inter alia that the 1st Defendant did not comply with the terms and conditions as contained in Exhibit A1 when he tendered his resignation and the 1st Defendant has outstanding loans which he was yet to recovered which made the Claimant reject the resignation letter. Page 22 of 44 For clarity and ease of reference, let me reproduce hereunder paragraphs 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of CW1 Statement on Oath. Paragraph (5) reads thus: “That I am aware that the terms of contract of employment between the Claimant and the 1st Defendant is contained in his letter of appointment dated 1st November, 2007.” Paragraph (8) reads thus: “That one of the fundamental conditions of service of the Bank, which is contained in the 1st Defendant’s letter of appointment is that either party can terminate the contract of employment by giving one month notice or payment of one month salary in lieu of notice as stated in paragraph 2 of the Claimant’s Letter dated 20th February, 2024.” Paragraph (9) reads thus: “That meanwhile, at the time of auditing the accounts in care of the 1st Defendant sometime in 2023, it was discovered that he had an outstanding loans/debts, given to customers by him, in the sum of N714,900.00 (Seven Hundred and Fourteen Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira) yet to be recovered by him, and when he was queried, he wrote Page 23 of 44 an undertaking on 21st December, 2023 to recover same within six months.” Paragraph (10) reads thus: “That the 1st Defendant however came to office on 5th February, 2024, to drop his letter of resignation dated same day and indicating that the resignation would take effect from 10th February, 2024, thereby giving just FIVE (5) DAYS notice contrary to the terms of his contract of employment.” Paragraph (11) reads thus: “That the 1st Defendant’s customers’ outstanding loans/debts (customers’ money) in the sum of N714,900 (Seven Hundred and Fourteen Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira) was yet to be recovered by him as at the time he tendered his letter of resignation.” Paragraph (12) reads thus: “That I informed the management of the Claimant about the letter of resignation submitted by the 1st Defendant and thereafter informed the Defendant vide my letter dated 9th February, 2024, of the rejection of his letter of resignation.” Page 24 of 44 69. On the other hand, the Defendants in defence of this suit, called one witness by name OKOLIKO UKPAHIUOJO DOMINIC, the 1st Defendant who testified for himself and on behalf of the other Defendants as DW1. He adopted his Statement on Oath as his evidence in-chief and tendered some documents which were admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibits A13 to D2 respectively. From the evidence of DW1 as contained in his Statement on Oath is to the effect among other things that the letter of offer did not provide for a period of termination of employment after six (6) months of probationary period and that he exercised his right and tendered his resignation letter in compliance with offer letter and the rejection of same by the Claimant amounts to unfair labour practice. That his involvement with the outstanding loan is as an agent of the Claimant. For clarity and ease of reference, let me equally reproduce hereunder paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15 of the DW1 Statement on Oath. Paragraph (8) reads thus: “The letter of offer only made provisions for termination of my employment during the probationary period of six (6) months. The letter of offer did not provide for a period of time for termination of the employment after the said six (6) months probationary period.” Paragraph (9) reads thus: “I exercised my rights and tendered my letter dated 5th February, 2024 Page 25 of 44 resigning my employment with the Claimant. I did not breach my contract of employment with the Claimant. My resignation was in compliance with offer letter.” Paragraph (10) reads thus: “I know that Claimant’s rejection of my resignation amounts to unfair labour practices as same is tantamount to forced labour.” Paragraph (13) reads thus: “I deny the Claimant’s averment that it was a fundamental condition of service for either party to terminate the contract of employment by giving one month notice or payment of one month salary in lieu of notice. No such term is contained in the contract of employment.” Paragraph (14) reads thus: “The Claimant has no cause of action against any of the Defendants with respect to loans granted by the Claimant to its customers. We are not privy to the bank loan agreements between the Claimant and its Customers. We are neither parties nor Page 26 of 44 beneficiaries of the loans which the Claimant granted to its customers.” Paragraph (15) reads thus: “In addition, my involvement with the outstanding sum of N714,900.00 (Seven Hundred and Fourteen Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira) only (which the Claimant is yet to recover from its own customers) is as an agent of the Claimant. The loans were granted by the Claimant. The defaulting customers, if any, are the Claimant’s customers and not my customers. The Claimant’s cause of action with respect to the outstanding balance is against its customers and not the Defendants.” 70. At this juncture, let me examine Exhibit A1 which is the offer letter dated 1 st November, 2007 which contained the terms of contract of service between the Claimant and the 1st Defendant which is the bedrock of any case of this nature. Exhibit A1, second page, Roman figure (i) and (ii) provides thus: “(i) The offer of employment is for a probationary period of (6) months from the date you assume duty but the period may be reviewed at the discretion of the Board of Directors of the Bank depending on your performance most especially on Page 27 of 44 deposit mobilization. You are also expected to submit to the undersigned Fidelity bond forms duly signed by two referees within two weeks of the receipt of this letter. (ii) During this period, your appointment may be terminated by giving two (2) Weeks notice on either side or payment of two (2) Weeks salary in lieu thereof.” 71. From the above portion of Exhibit A1 reproduced above, it is apparently clear that there is no provision for period of notice after probationary period of 6 months. It is not in dispute from the evidence before the Court that the 1st Defendant was a confirmed staff of the Claimant as shown by Exhibit A11 – Letter of Confirmation of Appointment dated 9th October, 2008. 72. However, the 1st Defendant testified under cross examination by the Claimant’s Counsel inter alia thus: “ Q – How many years did you spend working at the Microfinance Bank i.e. the Claimant. A – 16 years Q – Am I correct to say that you were a permanent staff when you tendered your resignation letter. A – Yes Q – You are always aware that there is a Handbook which applies to every Page 28 of 44 staff most especially permanent staff. A – Yes Q – Show the witness Exhibit C, go to section 2(8) of Exhibit C, does it apply to you. A – Yes Q – Also go to Section 2 subsection 2.9, were you given a letter of confirmation as stated there. A – Yes Q – In general practice, any staff who is to resign, should they tender a month or a week notice. A – It depends on the staff resigning.” 73. Also, CW1 stated under cross examination inter alia that: “ Q – Show the witness Exhibit A1, can you show to the Court where that term is contain that either party can terminate the contract by issuing one month notice or one month salary in lieu of notice. A – The one month notice is not written on this Offer Letter but it is implied in our Staff Handbook which is given to all staff after confirmation of appointment.” Page 29 of 44 74. From the foregoing, it is safe to say that the terms of contracts of service between the 1st Defendant and the Claimant are not only contained in Exhibit A1 but also included in Exhibit C i.e. Staff Handbook as well. Therefore, it is the law that where terms of contract are contained in a series of documents, they must be read together. Having said this and in line with Exhibit C particularly Section 2.15 (Employee Exit) which provides thus: “Employee exits are either voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary exit are those initiated by the employee and may either be by resignation or retirement or death or abscondment from duty. Involuntary exists are those initiated by the bank. It may be released due to inability to perform duties satisfactorily or discharge for conduct not in the interest of the bank. For resignation, the bank requires one months notice or payment of one month salary in lieu of notice for confirmed staff: and two (2) weeks notice or payment in lieu of notice for unconfirmed staff. Termination of appointment requires similar notice or payment in lieu. In case of retirement, the bank must give at least six (6) month notice to any employee who is due for retirement. Any Page 30 of 44 staff leaving services of the bank must hand over all the bank’s properties in his/her possession, including the staff Identity Card, to Head of Operation.” 75. At this point, let me refer to the case of ESSET PETROLEUM ENT. (NIG) LTD v. PETROLEUM EQUALIZATION FUND (MGT) BOARD & ANOR (2019) LPELR-47355 per MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, JCA at pages 25-27, paras E-A, where it was held thus: “Also, in the construction of the terms of a contract as in the instant case, the meaning to be placed on it, is that which is plain, clear, and obvious result of the terms used. A contract or document is to be construed in its ordinary meaning as question of fact. Thus where the words of a contract agreement or document are clear, the operative words in it should be given their simple and ordinary grammatical meaning…” See also the case of GURARA SECURITIES AND FINANCE LTD v. T.I.C LTD (1998) LPELR-6420(CA). 76. Therefore, a community reading of both Exhibits A1 and C will show that the 1st Defendant is required to give a month notice to the Claimant or payment of one month salary in lieu of same upon his desire to resign his appointment. Page 31 of 44 From the evidence before this Honourable Court, the 1st Defendant only gave five (5) days notice as shown by Exhibit A4. As such, the said notice given by the 1st Defendant falls short of the requirement as contemplated by Exhibit C. I so hold. In addition, the 1st Defendant even admitted this fact as clearly shown in Exhibits A10 and Exhibit B2. Consequently, it is trite law that facts admitted need no further proof. See the cases of AUDU v. FRN (2024) LPELR-62977(SC); OKOLIE v. ELUMELU & ORS (2023) LPELR-61110(CA). 77. Nevertheless, the Claimant’s reliefs that the Court should declare Exhibit A1 subsisting and binding as well as the resignation letter invalid, may not see the light of the day in view of the Court of Appeal decision in the case of FBN MERCHANT BANK LTD v. OWOTEMU (2023) LPELR-60451 per OGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JCA, at pages 41-41, paras A-D held thus: “It is abecedarian law that the resignation of an employee needs not be formally accepted before it takes effect. The resignation letter becomes effective from date the letter is received by the employer... Resignation needs not be formally accepted before it takes effect… A notice of resignation is effective, not from the date of the letter or from the date of the purported acceptance, but from the date the letter was received by the employer or his agent… There is absolute power to resign and no discretion to refuse to accept notice…” Page 32 of 44 See also the cases of ONUKWUBIRI & ANOR v. IBEAKANMA & ORS (2014) LPELR-23804(CA); IBRAHIM v. ABDALLAH (2019) LPELR-(48984) 1 at 21-22; YUSUF v. GOVERNOR OF EDO STATE (2001) LPELR (3526) 1 at 24; SUNDAY v. OLUGBENGA (2008) LPELR (4995) 1 at 24. 78. Therefore, from the evidence before the Court, Exhibit A4 (Letter of resignation for a new job opportunity) which was dated 5th February, 2024 becomes effective from the date it was received by the Claimant as shown on the face of the said Exhibit that is 6th February, 2024. The rejection of same by the Claimant is of no moment. I so hold. 79. However, from the evidence before the Court and in view of the foregoing, the 1st Defendant’s resignation is a wrongful resignation having not complied with the conditions of service as stated in Exhibit C. Therefore, the Claimant is entitled to damages which is payment of one month salary in lieu of notice. I so hold. 80. The Claimant is equally claiming for the sum of N714,900.00 (Seven Hundred and Fourteen Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira) only as the outstanding loans/debts. Before I dwell on it, let me briefly comment on the argument of the Defendants’ Counsel that this Honourable Court has no jurisdiction to hear this claim on the ground that it is a matter connected with or pertaining to banking which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. He cited Section 251(d) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). It can be seen from the facts and circumstances of this case that the outstanding loans/debts claimed by the Claimant arose in the course of employment of the 1st Defendant with the Claimant which vested this Honourable Court with an unfettered jurisdiction to hear and determine same. See Section 254(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Therefore, I align myself with the argument of the Page 33 of 44 Claimant’s Counsel in their final Written Address and discountenance the argument of the Defendants’ Counsel in this respect. 81. Having clear the coast, I will now dwell on the said claim of N714,900.00 (Seven Hundred and Fourteen Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira) being the outstanding loans/debts. CW1 stated in his Statement on Oath particularly at paragraph (9) and (11) as follows: Paragraph (9) reads thus: “That meanwhile, at the time of auditing the accounts in care of the 1st Defendant sometime in 2023, it was discovered that he had an outstanding loans/debts, given to customers by him, in the sum of N714,900.00 (Seven Hundred and Fourteen Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira) yet to be recovered by him, and when he was queried, he wrote an undertaking on 21st December, 2023 to recover same within six months.” Paragraph (11) reads thus: “That the 1st Defendant’s customers’ outstanding loans/debts (customers’ money) in the sum of N714,900.00 (Seven Hundred and Fourteen Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira) was yet to be recovered by him as at the time he tendered his letter of resignation.” The Claimant tendered Exhibit A6 – letter of undertaking by Dominic O. Page 34 of 44 82. On the other hand, the Defendants’ witness i.e. DW1 stated in his Statement on Oath particularly at paragraphs (14) and (15) as follows: Paragraph (14) reads thus: “The Claimant has no cause of action against any of the Defendants with respect to loans granted by the Claimant to its customers. We are not privy to the bank loan agreements between the Claimant and its Customers. We are neither parties nor beneficiaries of the loans which the Claimant granted to its customers.” Paragraph (15) reads thus: “In addition, my involvement with the outstanding sum of N714,900.00 (Seven Hundred and Fourteen Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira) only (which the Claimant is yet to recover from its own customers) is as an agent of the Claimant. The loans were granted by the Claimant. The defaulting customers, if any, are the Claimant’s customers and not my customers. The Claimant’s cause of action with respect to the outstanding balance is against its customers and not the Defendants.” Page 35 of 44 83. From the foregoing, it can be seen that the said loans were granted by the Claimant to its customers while the 1st Defendant was acting as an agent of the Claimant. To put it differently, from the evidence before this Honourable Court, the 1st Defendant acted as an agent of the Claimant when the said loans were granted to the Claimant’s customers. The Claimant did not show to the Court that the said loans were granted to the 1st Defendant personally or that the 1st Defendant acted outside the scope of his authority. Moreso, CW1 stated under cross examination by the Defendant’s Counsel among other things thus: “ Q – The loans referred to in your depositions are loans granted to customers of the Claimant totaling N714,900.00. A – Yes, they are loans granted to the customers of the Claimant brought and recommended by the 1st Defendant. Q – As a Managing Director, you have years of experience in banking. A – Yes, I have. Q – And you will agree with me that when a Bank grants loan to a customer, it is between the bank and the customer. A – No, it is not only between the bank and the customer. It involves the marketer that brings the customer too. Page 36 of 44 Q – Are these marketers employees of the Claimant. A – Yes, all the marketers are employees of the Bank (Claimant).” 84. It should be noted that Exhibit A6 though an undertaking to see to the recovery of the said loans, cannot be equated to mean taking personal responsibility to repay the said loans by the 1st Defendant. I so hold. 85. In addition, the submission of the Claimant’s Counsel in the Claimant’s Final Written Address particularly at paragraph 4.09 to the effect among other things that the Handbook stipulates that loan granted exclusively to staff who then dispose them to clients, is to say the least, amounts to leading evidence, as this was never pleaded by the Claimant and no evidence of same giving at trial. Consequently, it is settled law that address of Counsel cannot take the place of evidence. In this respect, I refer to the case of NWAANYAJIKE & ANOR v. INEC & ANOR (2023) LPELR60317, per KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, JSC (NOW CJN) at pages 33-34, paras F-B where it was held thus: “It is settled position of law that address of Counsel, no matter how brilliant, cannot take the place of oral evidence.” See also the cases of UCHA & ANOR v. ELECHI & ORS (2012) LPELR-7823(SC); OLAGUNJU v. ADESOYE & ANOR (2009) LPELR-2555(SC). Page 37 of 44 86. To this extend therefore, it is my considered opinion in the light of the foregoing that the Claimant having failed to proof that the said loans were granted to 1st Defendant personally, or that the 1st Defendant acted outside the scope of its authority as an agent of the Claimant when the said loans were granted to the Claimant’s customers. On that note and without much ado, the claim for the sum of N714,900.00 (Seven Hundred and Fourteen Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira) being the outstanding loans/debts has failed. I so hold. If I must add, the Claimant if it desires to recover the loans, it knows who should be proceeded against. I say no more on this. 87. On the claims for general damages and cost of action, it is my humble view that the grant of these claims are at the discretion of the Court. I therefore hold the view that this is not appropriate for the grant of these claims. I so hold. 88. On the whole, it is my considered opinion that the Claimant’s case has succeed in part. To that extend, I hereby resolve issue one in favour of the Claimant and against the Defendant. 89. That takes me to issue two which is whether the 1 st Defendant/Counter Claimant has prove his counter claims to be entitled to grant of same. 90. The 1st Defendant counter claimed against the Claimant/Defendant to Counter Claim as follows: 1) The sum of N1,497,595.32 (One Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Seven Thousand, Five Hundred and Ninety-Five Naira, Thirty-Two Kobo) as his terminal benefit/gratuity, being 150% of his gross annual pay. 2) Interest on the sum of N1,497,595.32 (One Million, Four Hundred and Ninety-Seven Thousand, Five Hundred and Ninety-Five Naira, Thirty-Two Kobo) at the rate of 20% per Page 38 of 44 annum from the date of judgment till the judgment is fully paid by the Defendant to the Counter Claim. 3) Exemplary damages in the sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) only. 4) Cost of this action in the sum of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) only. 91. It should be borne in mind at the onset that the law is settled that a counter claim is a separate suit from the main claim before the Court and to succeed, the Counter Claimant must adduce credible evidence to prove his counter claim to the satisfaction of the Court. In this respect, see the cases of NBC PLC v. EKPO (2020) LPELR51997(CA); TATU v. ESTATE OF LATE ALHAJI I. ADAMU (2015) 13 NWLR (pt. 1474) 364. 92. Having said this, it is clear from the pleadings of the 1st Defendant/Counter Claimant that the counter claims against the Claimant/Defendant to the Counter Claim is rooted or based on the facts that the 1st Defendant has served the Claimant for over 16 years. In other words, the 1st Defendant is seeking via the Counter Claim his terminal benefit/gratuity. Therefore, as stated earlier, the burden of proof lies on the 1st Defendant to proof his counter claim. 93. DW1 stated in his Statement on Oath particularly at paragraph 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 35 which for ease of reference, I shall reproduce same hereunder: Paragraph (28) reads thus: “By letter dated 21st May 2024, titled “LETTER OF REQUEST FOR TERMINAL BENEFITS”, which I sent Page 39 of 44 through my email address ukpahiugjo@gmailcom to the Claimant’s email address, onibuoremfb@yahoo.com on the 21st day of May, 2024, I requested for payment of my terminal benefits. In an attempt to resolve the misunderstanding between the parties, I apologized for the short notice and suggested that the Claimant deduct one month salary in lieu of my notice. The Claimant refused to accede to my request. I place reliance on the email which I sent to the Claimant on 21st May, 2024 and letter attached thereto.” Paragraph (29) reads thus: “The Claimant fails to respond to my email and letter.” Paragraph (30) reads thus: “My letter of 21st May, 2024 was sequel to my numerous demands for payment of my terminal benefits/gratuity which the Claimant failed to pay. At a point, I visited the office of Claimant’s Counsel, Dele Akinmusuti Esq, who is Claimant’s Board Chairman to appeal for the payment of my gratuity.” Page 40 of 44 Paragraph (31) reads thus: “Mr Akinmusuti stated that I had insulted the Board with my resignation and that I must write an apology letter before the Board could look into my case. In order to toll the path of peace, I wrote a letter of apology dated 10th May, 2024. In the said letter, I pleaded for mercy asking the Board to look into my case.” Paragraph (32) reads thus: “Unfortunately, the Claimant’s Board refused to show mercy. Instead, the Claimant continued to hold on to my gratuity despite serving the Claimant for over 16 years.” Paragraph (33) reads thus: “To date, the Claimant has failed, refused, and/or neglected to pay my terminal benefits. By virtue of 4.14 of the Claimant’s own Staff Handbook, I am entitled to 150% of my annual gross pay having served the Claimant Bank for over 16 years. I shall rely on the Claimant’s Staff Handbook titled “HUMAN RESOURCES STAFF HANDBOOK OF ONIBU-ORE MICOFINANCE BANK LTD 2019.” Page 41 of 44 Paragraph (35) reads thus: “My terminal benefits/gratuity became due upon submission of my resignation letter, that is, 5th February, 2024.” The Defendant tendered in evidence Exhibit B1 to B4 and Exhibit C. 94. From the evidence of Counter Claimant through DW1 reproduce above, it is clear as daylight that the Counter Claimant led evidence that he served the Claimant/Defendant to Counter Claim for over 16 years and that his terminal benefits/gratuity became due upon the submission of his resignation letter on 5th February, 2024 and that he wrote a letter of demand for his terminal benefit which he sent through his email to the Claimant which was not responded to and his terminal benefit/gratuity to date was not paid. 95. However, in defence of the Counter Claim, the Claimant/Defendant to the Counter Claim filed a defence to counter claim dated 27th day of February, 2025. 96. I should point out here that the Claimant/Defendant to the Counter Claim did not specifically deny the facts leading to the Counter Claim that is, the fact that the Counter Claimant has served the Claimant for over 16 years, the fact that the Counter Claimant has sent demand letter i.e. Exhibit B series and the fact that the Counter Claimant is entitled to counter claim as stated in Exhibit C. All that the Claimant/Defendant to Counter Claim did as stated in defence to counter claim particularly at paragraph (1) is a general denial. The said paragraph (1) of the defence to Counter Claim reads thus: “The Claimant vehemently denies paragraph 2 a–d of the Counter Claim as it was maliciously generated to mislead this Honourable Court.” Page 42 of 44 97. This averment quoted above is, as stated earlier, a general denial. In that respect, I refer to the Case of THOMPSON & ANOR v. AKINGBEHIN (2020) LPELR-58287 per MARY UKAEGU PETER-ODILI, JSC at pages 46-46, paras E-F where it was held thus: “When the respondent testifying gave evidence at the trial Court that Exhibit GA4 was served personally on the appellant, the appellant did not deny the fact of that service and so the general denial in the Statement of Defence of the appellant went to no issue in the absence of a specific denial…” See also the cases of OROKE & ANOR v. SURVEYOR GENERAL EBONYI STATE MINISTRY OF LANDS SURVEY AND HOUSING & ORS (2024) LPELR-62183(CA); AGHOGHO & ANOR v. OKUMAGBA (2014) LPELR22855(CA). 98. Therefore, going by Section 4.17 of Exhibit C, and the evidence led by the Counter Claimant before this Honourable Court, it is my considered opinion that the Counter Claimant has proved his Counter Claim as required by law to be entitled to same. I so hold. 99. Let me also state here categorically that the submission of the Claimant’s Counsel in their Final Written Address particularly at paragraph 4.22 inter alia that gratuity requires a regular resignation and board approval, is to say the least, amounts to leading evidence, as same was neither pleaded by the Claimant/Defendant to Counter Claim nor evidence led on it at trial. Consequently, I refer to the case Page 43 of 44 of NWAANYAJIKE & ANOR v. INEC & ANOR (SUPRA). To that extend, I hereby discountenance the submission of the Claimant’s Counsel in that respect. 100. On claim for 20% interest, the Counter Claimant has not lead any credible evidence to show that he is entitled to same. Having not done that, this claim for interest has no bases to stand. It fails. I so hold. 101. Also, on claims for exemplary damages and cost of this action, there is no doubt that they are granted at the discretion of the Court. That being the case, I do not consider this case appropriate for the grant of these claims. I so hold. 102. To this end therefore and in view of the above analysis, it is my considered opinion that the Counter Claim has succeed in part. As such, I without much ado, resolve issue two in favour of the 1st Defendant/Counter Claimant against the Claimant/Defendant to Counter Claim. 103. In the final analysis and for the avoidance of doubt as well as the reasons contained in this judgment, I hereby entered judgment for the Claimant in the main suit and declared as follows: 1) That the Resignation Letter tendered by the Defendant is invalid and the 1st Defendant is therefore in breach of his contract of employment with the Claimant. 2) That the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for breach of a contract of employment, as well as a guarantorship agreement between the Claimant and the Defendants. 3) The Defendants are hereby ordered to pay to the Claimant forthwith the sum of N83,199.74 (Eighty Three Thousand, One Hundred and Ninety Nine Naira, Seventy Four Kobo) Page 44 of 44 being one (1) month salary in lieu of notice owed it by the 1st Defendant. 4) Other reliefs are hereby refused and dismissed. 104. I equally entered judgment in the counter claim for the 1st Defendant/Counter Claimant against the Claimant/Defendant to Counter Claim and Ordered the Claimant/Defendant to Counter Claim to pay forthwith to the 1st Defendant/Counter Claimant the sum of N1,497,595.32 (One Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Seven Thousand, Five Hundred and Ninety Five Naira, Thirty Two Kobo) only as his terminal benefit/gratuity being 150% of his gross annual pay. Other reliefs claimed in the Counter Claim are hereby refused and dismissed. 105. Judgment is entered accordingly. --------------------------------------------------- Hon. Justice Y. M. Hassan Presiding Judge