Adekoyeni Oladejo -VS- United Bank for Africa (UBA) PLCNational Industrial Court of Nigeria- Judgment Portal

BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE AKURE JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT AKURE

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE K.D. DAMULAK

DATED THIS 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

SUIT NO: NICN/AK/25/2022

BETWEEN:

ADEKOYENI OLADEJO .................... CLAIMANT

AND

UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA. ..................... DEFENDANT

REPRESENTATION

Omolegbon. O. Odusola for the claimant.

DR. A. O. Ajana (SAN) with K.T. Duru

and A.O. Lasisi for the defendant.

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. The claimant took out a complaint against the defendant on 27/7.2022.

2. The claimant claims against the defendant as follows;

a. N28,000,000.00 being salary arrears from August 2006 to July.2022.

b. N30,000,000.00 General Damages

c. All outstanding salaries from date of filing this case at N145,000.00 per month.

3. The defendant filed a statement of defence on 16/7/2022 by a motion of same date and the claimant filed a reply on 15/11/2022.

4. By a motion of 24/11/2022, the defendant filed a motion for extension of time to file memorandum of appearance.

5. The defendant also filed a notice of preliminary objection on 14/1/2024 on the ground that the suit is statute barred having been filed outside the time prescribed by the limitation law of Ondo State and the claimant filed a counter affidavit on 9/11/2024.. The defendant filed a further and better affidavit on 9/12/2024.

6. The defendant amended its statement of defence by a motion of 23/7/2025.

7. The defendant filed its final written address on 3/11/2025 while the claimant filed his final written address on 24/11/2025 and the defendant filed a reply on 4/12/2025. .

CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

8. Hearing of evidence commenced on 5/12/2024 with the claimant testifying as his sole witness (CW), by adopting his witness statements of oath of 27/7/2022 and 15/1/2022 at pages 9-14 and 103-108 of the courts file.

9. It is the case of the claimant that he is a staff of the defendant currently on indefinite suspension. That before his indefinite suspension, he was the defendant’s Branch operation manager at Ode-Aye Brach, Okitipupa Local Government Area of Ondo State. He has not been sacked and he has not resigned his appointment.

10. He was promoted on 26/1/2004 to the position of a senior banking officer and to Branch operations manager on 1/9/2005.

11. That sometimes in August, 2006, his business manager, Mr. Ezikiel Olusola Agboola called his attention to the complaint of Unity school Ode-Aye and requested for the vouchers of the school’s lodgments for the months of January to July, 2006 and he obliged him.

12. The said Mr. Ezikiel Olusola Agboola took he vouchers and informed him that 48 deposit vouchers were not debited, amounting to N480,000.00

13. That the Area Operations manager, Mr Abiola Emmanuel, was asked to investigate the matter which he did and reported that the amount missing was N1,258,000 and asked me to pay same but I insisted that investigation be conducted by an unbiased panel.

14. That Mr. Abiola Emmanuel instructed him to handover to Mr. Alaba Sarajudeen to enable him take time to reconcile the account with the Unity school.

15. He was arrested and detained in the police cell.

16. He was put on indefinite suspension since August, 2006 to date without the payment of his monthly salaries.

17. The defendants petition him to the police that he stole N1.9m belonging to the defendant. He was arrested, detained, charged to court for the theftand prosecuted, he was discharged and acquitted. Despite that, the defendant neither recalled nor paid him.

18. That his last monthly and annual salary was N145,000.00 per month and N1,750,000.00 per annum and the defendant has refused to pay him since 2006 to 2022 amounting to 28,000,,000.00.

19. The claimant tendered 11 documents in evidence and learned counsel for the defendant indicated that he would object to all the documents because they were not admissible but that he would reserve his reasons for the final written address and the documents were marked as exhibits AO 1 to AO 11 tendered and ruling reserved till judgment.

20. Testifying in reply, the claimant said that he never resigned, he never at any time wrote any letter of resignation and he never stopped being a staff of the defendant in December, 2006. The defendant never wrote any letter to him in response to any resignation and no document containing terminal benefits was given to him. The said letter dated 13/12/2006 has no known author.

21. That he was never paid one month salary in lieu of notice and his employment was never at any time terminated. His monthly salary as at December 2006 was N145,000.00 and the least salary he was ever paid was N85,000.00.

22. That one month salary in lieu of notice is not part of his terms of employment.

23. That no sum of N257,895.42 or N250,515.23 was paid into his account and that immediately he was suspended, a lien was put on his account and thereby preventing him from having access to his account since 2006 up to date. This is shown in his email communications with the Bank internal customer service center attendant in 2010.

24. That if any such amount was paid, it was the annual package usually paid to staff .In any event it could not have been terminal or severance package as he never resigned and was never terminated.

25. The claimant was cross examined on 27/3/202 wherein he testified that he was charged to court, within that period, he was not going to work because he was already on indefinite suspension. He was verbally instructed by his Area manager Mr. Abiola Emmanuel on 16/8/2006 to hand over his schedule as the branch operations manager to one Alaba Surajudeen to allow for a hitch free investigation. Suspension, transfer etc was not usually in writing.

CASE OF THE DEFENDANT

26. The defendant was heard on 13/5/2025 with one Obafemi Oloyede, a staff of the defendant, testifying as DW for the defendant. He adopted his witness deposition of 23/7/2025 at pages 248-256 of the court’s file.The witness cross examined the same day.

27. It is the testimony of Obafemi that the claimant, of his own volition, resigned from the service of the defendant in 2006 and the defendant responded to the resignation of the claimant on 13/12/2006 and attached the claimant terminal account position detailing his terminal benefit.

28. The defendant paid the claimant one month salary in lieu of notice as applicable to his employment.

29. The terminal benefit of N257, 895.42 was credited to the claimant account with the defendant on 20/12/2006.

30. The severance package of N250, 515. 23 was credited to the claimant account with the defendant on 2/8/2007.

31. Mr. Abiola Emmanuel and Mr. Adetoro Yakubu visited the branch on 16/8/2006 and in line with management directive directed the claimant to handover the Branch Manager Operations duties to Mr. Alaba Surajudeen in acting capacity while the claimant concentrated on reconciling the account with the Unity school.

32. The defendant, after investigation, reported the matter to the Nigerian police who arrested the claimant on 7/9/2006 and he was bailed by Ezekiel Olusola Agboola on the Banks directive and the claimant was granted bail on 9/9/2006 and resumed work in the bank the following day.

33. In the course of police investigation after defendant bailed the claimant, the claimant abandoned his responsibilities, duties and employment and seized coming to the Bank for work

34. The claimant also stopped reporting to the police and he was eventually arrested in Benin.

35. The police subsequently charged the claimant and others in court for fraud but they were discharged and acquitted.

36. The defendant never had course to and did not at any time placed the claimant on suspension, definite or indefinite.

37. That the claimant instituted suits numbers HOK/67/2006 and HOK/60/2007 against the defendant, judgment was in his favour and on appeal, the court of appeal affirmed the decisions and the defendant has now appealed to the Supreme Court.

38. The defendant is not owing the claimant any salary as his salary was paid up to the time he left the defendant’s employment.

39. This witness tendered 6 documents in evidence which were admitted and marked as exhibits OO1-OO6.

40. In cross examination, this witness testified that he had access to all information on all ongoing and concluded investigation. That he had access to the date the bank paid salary in lieu of notice to the claimant and that the salary in lieu of notice was paid on 20/10/2006 from exhibit OO2.That he doesn’t have the said letter of resignation. The claimant employment was not terminated, rather he resigned. I see exhibit OO2, the salary in lieu of notice is N22,674.62. I see exhibit OO1, the attachment said the salary in lieu of notice is N44,495.83.

DEFENDANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

41. The learned Ajana (SAN) filed a final written address for the claimant on 3/11/2025 and formulated a lone issue as ;

Considering the evidence led at the trial of this court, whether the claimant has a subsisting employment with the defendant from August 2006 till date to sustain the claimant’s claim against the defendant.

42. Learned counsel answered in the negative and submitted further that even if the court finds that the claimant was suspended, he will not be entitled to his claim because he did not report back to work even after he was acquitted and discharged of the criminal complaint against him.

CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

43. The leaned O.O. Odusola of counsel to the claimant formulated a sole issue for determination as follows;

Whether from the evidence placed before the court, the claimant has established his claim against the defendant and therefore entitled to the reliefs sought.

44. Learned Odusola answered in the negative and added that since the defendant has admitted that the claimant salary excluding other emoluments is N533,518.00 annual salary at N44,459.00 per month, the court should enter judgment for the claimant in the sum admitted.

45. That the claimant was suspended from August 2006 till the time of writing his address, November,2025, a period of 20 years 4 months, and the sum is N10,848,199.06.

COURT’S DECISION

A. Preliminary objection

47. The defendant filed a notice of preliminary objection on 14/11/2024 on the ground that this suit is statute barred and that the suit is an abuse of court process. It is supported by a 5 paragraph affidavit and a written address. There is also a further and better affidavit filed on 9/12/2024 forwarding the Judgment in consolidated suits numbers HOK/67/2006 and HOK/60/2007(exhibit UBA 1) referred to in paragraph 3 of the supporting affidavit of 14/11/2024.

48. The affidavit in support is to the effect that the claim is based on a simple contract, the placing of the claimant on indefinite suspension from August 2006 and by filing this suit in July 2022, the suit is brought outside the time stipulated by the limitation law of Ondo State. That the suit is an abuse of court process as the claimant had earlier sued the defendant in consolidated suits numbers HOK/67/2006 and HOK/60/2007.That the claimant could have brought this suit together with the other sits at the High court.

49. In his written address learned P.O. Okunola submitted that the cause of action having arisen in August,2006, this case which was filed on 27/7/2022, was filed outside the period of 6 years prescribed by section 4(1) (a) prescribed by the Ondo State Limitation Law for actions founded on Tort.

50. That the claimant instituted two suits against the defendant, suits numbers HOK/67/2006 and HOK/60/2007and consolidated judgment on the suit was delivered on 7/12/2016.exhibit UBA 1.That the cause of action in this suit could have been ventilated in that suit. That it is an abuse of court process by the claimant herein when he had causes of action in 2006 but decided to take them in fragments, two causes of action instituted in 2006 and 2007 respectively while this suit was instituted in 2022.Counel relied APP V OBASEKI (2022) 13 NWLR (PT 1846) P 1 at 35-36 where the court held that;

Where two actions are instituted in court, the second one asking for relief which may however be obtained in the first, the second action is, prima facie vexatious and an abuse of court process.

51. In response, the claimant filed a counter affidavit on 29/11/2024 to the effect that suits numbers HOK/67/2006 and HOK/60/2007 are not the same with the one filed in this suit. That the two previous cases bordered on false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, while this present suit borders on unpaid salaries. That the claimant could not have joined the suit because he was only on indefinite suspension and so could be recalled to resume work. That it was when the claimant wrote to the defendant on 11/4/2022 about his suspension and the defendant responded that the claimant employment has been terminated since 2006 that he now filed this suit.

52 The learned O.O. Odusola made arguments to the same effect in his written address and added with respect to statute of limitation that case of continuing injury or damages and cases involving contract of service are exempted from limitation laws.

53. With respect to abuse of court process, counsel also added that the court held in EMEH &ANOR V MAURICE IWU & ORS (2008) 4 SCM 191P.201 that

The point has been taken that from different suits, though of the same subject matter, may emanate different rights and reliefs and that the question of multiplicity of action in such instance is completely non-sequitor.

1. Whether this suit is statute barred

54. On the issue of limitation, it must be properly understood that the claimant avers that he has been on indefinite suspension from 2006 and he claims for the payment of his salaries during the period of suspension from 2006 up to the time of filing the suit. This was rightly captured by the learned Ajana (SAN) in paragraph 4.3 of his final written address as follows;

The fulcrum of the claimant’s claim is that he was placed on indefinite suspension without pay by the defendant in August 2006 and has not been recalled till date. Claimant is claiming his salary from August 2006 till date.

55. This, I agree, is a continuous injury and cannot be caught by the statute of limitation. See MOBIL PRODUCING (NIG) UNLIMITED V DAVIDSON (2020) 7 NWLR (PT 1722) P.1 at 29 where the court of appeal held that;

There are certain situations in which the application of limitation law will be curtailed and an action which will otherwise be held to be statute barred will escape the hammer of the limitation Act...In these types of situations, the limitation period will be frozen until after the cessation of the damage or injury.

56. In MAUTECH v. YARAI (2020) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1748) 395 at Pp. 412-413, paras. E-B) the court held;

Where however, there is continuing injury being (b) suffered or the wrong is a continuing one, the position of the law is that the Limitation period shall not apply. In the instant case, the injury suffered by the respondent was a continuing one and as such his suit was not caught up by the statute of limitation.

57. See also Akwa Ibom State University v. Ikpe (2016) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1504) 146; A.-G., Rivers State v. A.-G., Bayelsa State (2013) 3 NWLR (Pt.1340) 123

58. This means that when it is a continuing injury, as in this case, the limitation clock is not activated until the injury ceases. The case of the claimant is not statute barred, being a complain of a continuing injury.

59. This issue is resolved against the defendant objector and in favour of the claimant respondent.

2.Whether this suit is an abuse of court process in view of suits numbers HOK/67/2006 and HOK/60/2007.

60. I have read the judgment in consolidated suits numbers HOK/67/2006 and HOK/60/2007. It is true that suits numbers HOK/67/2006 and HOK/60/2007 bordered on false imprisonment and malicious prosecution while this present suit borders on unpaid salaries during period of suspension.

61. The rule against multiplicity of actions is not that if a claimant has several claims against a defendant then he must bring all his claims together in one suit as the argument of the applicant counsel obviously suggests. The rule is as in APP V OBASEKI (2022) 13 NWLR (PT 1846) P 1 at 35-36 where the court held that;

Where two actions are instituted in court, the second one asking for relief which may however be obtained in the first, the second action is, prima facie vexatious and an abuse of court process.

62. However, a claim for unpaid salaries while on suspension, over which the National Industrial Court has exclusive Jurisdiction, cannot be brought together with suits for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution simpliciter, which the High Court can assume jurisdiction to entertain. The fact that the false imprisonment and malicious prosecution arose in the course of employment does not mean that the claimant could not have chosen to sue the defendants for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution simpliciter as he did in suits numbers HOK/67/2006 and HOK/60/2007.

63. The applicable principle in this instance is as in EMEH &ANOR V MAURICE IWU & ORS (2008) 4 SCM 191P.201 where the court held that;

64. In this case, the suits are not even of the same subject matter as a claim for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution and a claim for unpaid salaries during the period of indefinite suspension are not on the same subject matter.

65. On the whole, the preliminary objection fails for want of merits and same is hereby dismissed.

B. MERITS OF THE CASE

66. As earlier indicated above, the claimant tendered 11 documents in evidence and learned counsel for the defendant indicated that he would object to all the documents because they were not admissible but that he would reserve his reasons for the final written address and the documents were marked as exhibits AO 1 to AO 11tendered and ruling reserved till judgment.

67. The learned defendant’s counsel did not raise any such objection in his final written address but rather relied on the documents to argue against the case of the claimant. The implication is that the intended objection is abandoned. Accordingly, exhibits AO 1 to AO 11 tendered are now admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits AO 1- AO 11.

68. Having read the pleadings and evidence as well as the final written addresses of counsels, I am of the opinion that there is a twin issue for determination to properly dispose of this suit. The twin issue for determination is;

1. Whether or not the claimant was put on indefinite suspension and whether the claimant resigned and was paid off.

69. The pleading and evidence on indefinite suspension from the claimant is that Mr. Abiola Emmanuel instructed him to handover to Mr. Alaba Sarajudeen to enable him take time to reconcile the account with the Unity school. see paragraph 13 of the claimant’s statement of facts and paragraph 13 of the claimant’s deposition of 27/7/2022.

70. This evidence was also collaborated by the defendant in paragraph 30 of the statement of defence and paragraph 32 of the DW’s witness deposition of 23/7/2025 to the effect that Mr. Abiola Emmanuel and Mr. Adetoro Yakubu visited the branch on 16/8/2006 and in line with management directive directed the claimant to handover the Branch Manager Operations duties to Mr. Alaba Surajudeen in acting capacity while the claimant concentrated on reconciling the account with the Unity School.

71. The question now is, if the above order to hand over to Mr. Alaba Surajudeen in order to concentrate on reconciling the account with the Unity school is not a suspension, what then does it mean? The defendant did not offer any explanation. This instruction is different from an internal posting or restructuring, as the claimant was not reassigned to any office or duties by the instruction. This necessarily means he was suspended until he has reconciled the account with the Unity School, which amounts to an indefinite suspension.

72. On the other hand, if, as contended by the defendant, the claimant absconded from work, the failure of the defendant to query him or punish him for the absence from work or take any step to address same, is deemed condonation of the offense until when the claimant resigns or his employment is terminated. See ELECTRICITY CORPORATION OF NIGERIA V. NICOL (1968) LPELR-25505(SC) where the apex court held;

It is settled law that if a master did not complain and appeared to be satisfied with a servant's conduct, that complaint cannot be a ground for dismissal on a subsequent occasion. See Smith v. Allen 176 Eng. Rep. 73, and in the case Beattie v. Farmenter (1888-89) 5 T.L.R. 396 Lord Esher, M.R. said as follows- "As to irregularities, the defendant could not rely on them in as much as, after full knowledge of them, he continued the plaintiff in his service.

73. In other words, asking the claimant to handover to another staff and to concentrate on reconciling the account with the unity school without assigning any other duties to him amounts to indefinite suspension.

74. If the claimant was not suspended but absconded, the defendants failure to take any step to address same means condonation and he remains a staff until he resigns or until the defendant terminates his employment.

75. Did the claimant resign or was his employment legally terminated? It is the case of the defendant that;

The claimant, of his own volition, resigned from the service of the defendant in 2006 and the defendant responded to the resignation of the claimant on 13/12/2006 and attached the claimant terminal account position detailing his terminal benefits.

The defendant paid the claimant one month salary as applicable to his employment in lieu of notice.

76. This piece of evidence is suspect, “The claimant, of his own volition, resigned from the service of the defendant”. no date of resignation but there is date of response. Coming to prove, no resignation letter but there is response letter as exhibit OO1. In cross examination, the DW said;

That he had access to all information on all ongoing and concluded investigation. That he doesn’t have the said letter of resignation. The claimant employment was not terminated, rather he resigned.

77. This, to my mind, is clear evidence that the claimant was right when he said that he never resigned. The defendant who said that the claimant resigned should ordinarily have a copy of the resignation letter and is under duty to plead and tender same in evidence. The defendant has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the claimant resigned and the bare statement that “The claimant, of his own volition, resigned from the service of the defendant” without stating the date of resignation and producing the said resignation letter falls short of the standard of proof or credible evidence.

78. Taking a look at exhibit OO1, the response letter of the defendant accepting the resignation, there is no prove of service of same on the face of the document and the defendant did not lead evidence as to how the claimant was served. The letter is purportedly signed by two unnamed signatories so it cannot be ascertained who signed the letter. I agree with the claimant counsel that the letter is unauthored. This lack of proof of service of the letter accepting resignation is fatal .See PHCN V. OFFOELO [2012] LPELR -19717 (SC)1@24-25 PARAS. F, where the Supreme Court held as follows;

“…Proper communication of a message in law has its importance. Where there is a failure to communicate (a break in communication or lack of communication) the whole purpose of the message is completely defeated. If any step or action is taken by the issuing authority in spite of the fact of non-communication (non-service), the step or action taken goes to naught and amounts to a nullity in law” See also; UBA v. Ayangbade [2021] LPELR-56522(CA)1@54-55 paras. C.

79. Similarly the lack of Author or certainty of who signed the letter of acceptance, in the presence of denial of writing same by the claimant, is also fatal. The law on the effect of a signature on a document is that a signature of a person is, simply put, a written name on that document made by that person in his name and signifies an authentication of that document that such a named person holds himself out as bound or responsible for the contents of such a document. It is the signature signed over the name of the person that identifies such a document as the act of the person whose name is subscribed, without which such a document is not only suspect but can hardly also pass for the act of such an unnamed person. It is simply useless and worthless. See MAMMAN V. BWACHA (2017) 1 NWLR (PT. 1547) 425.

80. In Buhari v. Adebayo (2014) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1416) 560, the court held;

Once it cannot be said who signed a process, it is incurably bad.

Also in CHIMA V NKAMA (2001) 11 NWLR (PT.724) P.449 at 461, the court held;

The court will not give weight to a document whose author as well as sources of information therein contained are not stated.

81. It is also the case of the defendant that the terminal benefit of N257, 895.42 was credited to the claimant account with the defendant on 20/12/2006.The severance package of N250, 515.23 was credited to the claimant account with the defendant on 2/8/2007.

82. Looking at the content of exhibit OO1 and the attached computation of terminal benefits, it is contrary to the allegation that “the claimant, of his own volition, resigned from the service of the defendant” and it is also contrary to the allegation that “the defendant never had course to and did not at any time placed the claimant on suspension, definite or indefinite” and also contrary to the allegation that the claimant committed financial fraud.

83. One; the claimant was said to have resigned. By law, a staff who resigns goes home but with no terminal benefits. See WAEC V. OSHIONEBO (2006) LPELR-7739(CA) where the court held;

Tendering of a letter of resignation carries with it the right to leave the service automatically without any benefit subject to his paying any of his indebtedness to his employer.

84. Two; if the claimant had resigned at a time he was being accused of embezzling the sum of N1, 258,000.00. The attached terminal benefits should ordinarily have contained a column of the claimant’s indebtedness to the defendant and such indebtedness deducted from the computed terminal benefits to determine whether it was the claimant or the defendant to pay the balance as calculated. This was not done in the purported attached terminal benefits.

85. The evidence of DW and exhibit OO1, the purported letter accepting the purported letter of resignation, stated that your account has been credited with the net benefit due to you, and that the defendant paid the claimant one month salary as applicable to his employment in lieu of notice, terminal benefits and severance package, a situation expected if the employment of the claimant was terminated by the defendant.

86. The claimant denied receipt of the said letter and the receipt of those amounts as follows;

That no sum of N257,895.42 or N250,515.23 was paid into his account and that immediately he was suspended, a lien was put on his account and thereby preventing him from having access to his account since 2006 up to date. This is shown in his email communications with the Bank internal customer service center attendant in 2010.

That if any such amount was paid, it was the annual package usually paid to staff .In any event it could not have been terminal or severance package as he never resigned and was never terminated.

87. In relation to the averment that immediately he was suspended, a lien was put on his account and thereby preventing him from having access to his account since 2006 up to date. This is shown in his email communications with the Bank internal customer service center attendant in 2010; I have looked at exhibit AO8, emails communications between the claimant and the bank in 2010, the request of the claimant therein is please I just want to know what to do so as to have access to my account.

88. The implication is that even if the defendant paid any such amount into the claimant’s account with it, it has not been accessed by the claimant due to the act of the defendant, and so it is still in possession of the defendant.

89. I am inclined to, and I agree with the claimant, that if any such amount was paid, it was the annual package usually paid to staff. In any event, it could not have been terminal or severance package as the claimant never resigned and his employment was never terminated.

90. It is the claim of the claimant that he had not been paid salaries from August 2006 to date, however, Exhibit AO11. the claimants statement of account covering 31/1/2006 to 26/9/2006, shows that the claimant was paid his salaries from February to September,2006 as follows;

February- N83, 658. 98

March -N83,458.98

April -N65,626.92

May - N65, 626. 92

July -N65.826.94

August- N66,049.24

September -N66,049.24

Accordingly, the non -payment began from October, 2006.

91. Going by the principle of law that a long or indefinite suspension amounts to constructive dismissal. See BALOGUN BABAWANDE V HYPERLINK TECHNOLOGIES &ORS (unreported) suit No. NICN /ABJ/254/2021 a judgment delivered by O. O. Oyewumi JNIC, (as he then was), now JCA, a case in which the claimant was suspended indefinitely from 15/3/2021 and he sued in September,2021, and my lord held.

In fact, from the facts and circumstances of this case, it is obvious the relationship between parties have broken down irretrievably. It is equally abundantly clear that the defendant no longer require the services of the claimant. In the case of Ilodibia v Nigeria Cement CO. Ltd (1997) LPELR-1494(SC)1 at P.18-20 paras C, the supreme court affirmed the decision of the trial Court that the indefinite suspension of the claimant amounted to construction dismissal. See also the case of CBN & Anor V Aribo (2017) LPELR-47932 (SC).The courts have come to accept the constructive termination/dismissal which is occasioned by the act of the employer or employee. It is in the light of the above case law authorities that I find that the employment contract between parties have been constructively terminated with effect from the date of this judgment.

92. The implication is that the employment of the claimant still subsists but only till judgment. The employment of the claimant with the defendant, though still subsisting, the relationship having obviously broken down irretrievably, will be deemed constructively terminated today the 18^th day of February, 2026 and it is so deemed. Accordingly, the claimant will be entitled to his salaries from October 2006 to January, 2026, a period of 19 years four months.

93. In summary, it is the findings of the court as follows;

a. The claimant was put on indefinite suspension by the defendant.

b. The claimant never resigned his employment with the defendant.

c. The defendant never disengaged or terminated the claimant’s employment.

d. The claimant has a subsisting employment with the defendant from August 2006 till date.

e. The employment relationship between the claimant and the defendant has broken down irretrievably.

f. The claimant is deemed disengaged from his employment from today the 18/2/2026.

g. The claimant is entitled to his salaries from October 2006 to January, 2026, a period of 19 years four months.

94. Coming to the reliefs, the claim is as follows;

a. N28,000,000.00 being salary arrears from August 2006 to July.2022.

b. N30,000,000.00 General Damages

c. All outstanding salaries from date of filing this case at N145,000.00 per month.

95. Learned defendant counsel has submitted that the claim is for arrears of salary and the attachment to exhibit AO9 clearly define salary and emolument when it stated the salary of the claimant as N533, 518.00 payable monthly. It is the perquisites of office, including reimbursement, that makes the total yearly emolument to be N1, 750, 000.00. That if the court decides to award any of the salaries sought by the claimant, it ought to be calculated on the basis of his annual salary of N533, 158.00 amounting to N44, 459.83 monthly.

96. I agree with the defendant counsel that if the claimant is entitled to salaries, (as the court has so found), it must be his annual salary as stated on the attachment to his exhibit AO9.

97. According to the attachment to exhibit AO9, Annual salary is N533,518,000.00 payable monthly and this gives the sum of N44,459.83 per month. This must necessarily be so because if you calculate the amount column in the attachment, including the perquisites of office and reimbursement, it will give you about N1,750,000.00 per annum which is stated to be the annual emoluments.

98. With respect to reliefs (A) and ( c ), even though the claimant avers that his salary was stopped from August, 2006, his exhibit AO 11 shows that he was paid salary up to September,2006. The claimant will therefore be entitled to his salaries from October 2006 to January, 2026. a period of 19 years four months.

99. Now, N533,518.00 x 19 = N10,136,842 and N44,459.83 x 4 = N177,839.32 and N10,136,842 + N177,839.32 = N10,314,681.32 being the amount the claimant is entitled to as salaries from October,2006 to January,2026.

100. On general Damages, this is a monetary claim for unpaid salaries, so having awarded to the claimant his annual salaries for the years he was on suspension but not paid, it will amount to double compensation to award damages. The claim for damages is accordingly refused.

101. For the avoidance of doubt, the claim of the claimant succeeds in part and it is hereby ordered as follows;

a. The defendant is hereby ordered to pay to the claimant, the sum of N10,314,681.32 being the amount the claimant is entitled to as salaries from October, 2006 to January, 2026.

b. Cost of N1,000,000.00.

c. The total judgment sum of N11,314,681.32 is to be paid within 30 days of this judgment or the sums shall attract 10% interest per annum.

102. This is the Judgment of the court and it is accordingly entered.

.......................................................

HONOURABLE JUSTICE K.D.DAMULAK

PRESIDING JUDGE