BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURT.

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HONOURABLE JUSTICE Z. M. BASHIR, PhD

 

Dated: 5th day of May, 2026             

         

SUIT NO:   NICN/PHC/58/2021

 

BETWEEN:

 

MR. JOSEPH SIMEON AKOR  ---------------------------- CLAIMANT      

AND 

 

FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA LIMITED ---------------------- DEFENDANT

 

 

Representations:

O. G. Tony Ogidi with E. P. Ejobeh for the Claimant.

M. O. Osuji for the Defendant.

 

Judgment.

This suit was commenced by way of a General Form of Complaint filed on the 29th of June, 2021 along with verifying affidavit, statement of facts, list of witnesses, witness statement on oath, list of documents and copies of the listed documents to be relied upon at trial. The claimant is seeking several declaratory and monetary reliefs arising from the termination of his employment by the Defendant on the 21st day of December, 2018. 

The matter was originally assigned to Hon. Justice N.C.S. Ogbuanya, following his transfer, the matter was subsequently re-assigned to this Court on the 5th day of May, 2025. 

Arising from the Complaint and Statement of fact, the Claimant’s claims against the Defendant are as follows:

 

1.         A Declaration that the termination of the employment of the Claimant on the 21st of December, 2018 by the Defendant is wrongful, unlawful, null and void as same is in Contravention of Section F, Article 10 of the Defendant's Staff Employee Handbook as well as the (Claimant's constitutional right to fair hearing, amounts to undue victimization and scandalous to the person and reputation of the Claimant as the fraudulent allegation of 21st and 22nd of June, 2018 leveled against the Claimant was unfounded and was never proven.

 

2.         An Order of this Honourable court directing the Defendant to immediately remove the name of the claimant from the Defendant's "Fraud Register" hoisted in the defendant’s bank portal and other statutory financial regulatory bodies/agencies as the allegation of fraud leveled against the Claimant by the Defendant was never substantiated or established by the Defendant.

 

3.         A declaration that the Defendant is liable to pay the Claimant the balance of his salaries and allowances as well as all other benefits being due and payable to the Claimant as an officer of the Defendant which were withheld during the period of the Claimant's suspension, there being no proven allegation of fraud against the Claimant in any way whatsoever.

 

4.         An Order against the Defendant to pay to the Claimant all salaries and allowances as well as all other benefits due and payable to the Claimant as an officer of the Defendant, which were withheld by the Defendant during the period of the Claimant's suspension and which are payable upon the lack of proof of the alleged fraud against the Claimant.

 

Particulars of withheld salaries from the day of suspension to the day of purported termination due to the Claimant but unlawfully withheld by the Defendant:

 

MONTH

DESCRIPTION

AMOUNT(N)

July 2018

Monthly Salary/allowances

537,451.66

August 2018

Monthly Salary/allowances

537,451.66

September 2018

Monthly Salary/allowances

537,451.66

October 2018

Monthly Salary/allowances

537,451.66

November 2018

Monthly Salary/allowances

537,451.66

December 2018

Monthly Salary/allowances

537,451.66

 

TOTAL

3,224,709,9

 

5.         An Order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant, according to his grade level all his salaries and allowances from January, 2019 to the date of the determination of this Suit.

 

6.         An Order directing the Defendant to recall the Claimant for the purpose of tendering his voluntary resignation from the Defendant bank in line with the bank's incentive consideration for early voluntary resignation policy of the bank.

 

7.         An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to publish an unreserved apology absolving the Claimant of any culpability over the fraud which the Defendant alleged that the Claimant had committed in three (3) National newspapers circulating widely for the character assassination brought upon the Claimant as a result of the unproven allegation of fraud by the Defendant.

 

8.         An Order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira Only) being damages for the inconvenience, Pain, Psychological trauma and humiliation suffered by the Claimant as a result of the Defendant's wanton acts of victimization, harassment, false accusation and the subsequent unlawful termination of the Claimant's employment with the Defendant.

 

In response to the foregoing claims, the Defendant on the 24th day of February, 2022 entered a memorandum of appearance and filed a statement of defence accompanied by a list of witnesses and document, witness statement on oath and a copy of the listed document.

 

The Claimant on the 22nd day of March, 2022 filed a reply to the Defendant’s statement of defence. 

 

Both parties elected to adopt trial by record pursuant to Order 38, Rule 33 of the rules of this court and arising from the record, the Claimant pleaded 16 documents through his list of documents filed on the 29th of June, 2021 and 22nd of March, 2022 respectively, which are accordingly marked as Exhibits C1 – C16.

  • Exhibit C1 - Claimant's Letter of Appointment dated 12th May. 2005.
  • Exhibit C2 - Letter of Ratification/Confirmation dated 16th of May, 2006. 
  • Exhibit C3 - Defendant's Internal Memo dated 28th June, 2020.
  • Exhibit C4 - Suspension Letter dated 11th July, 2018.
  • Exhibit C5 - Claimant's Rejoinder via email dated 15th August
  • Exhibit C6 - Reply to the Claimant’s email dated 11th November 2018
  • Exhibit C7 - EFCC invitation dated 11th November, 2018.
  • Exhibit C8 -The Employee Handbook of the Defendant.
  • Exhibit C9 -Termination Letter dated 21st December, 2018
  • Exhibit C10 -Claimant's letter dated 16th May, 2019.
  • Exhibit C11 -Claimant's Pre-action Notice dated 26th June. 2020.
  • Exhibit C12 - Claimant's Staff account Statement from the date of his suspension till the date of termination of appointment.
  • Exhibit C13 - Defendant's Reply to Pre-action Notice dated 2nd July, 2020.
  • Exhibit C14 - List of Staff who made the Final Promotion List dated 11th August2017
  • Exhibit C15 -Electronic mail dated 22nd October, 2018 sent by the Claimant to the Defendant's Regional Control Manager.
  • Exhibit 16 - Techno phone

 

It is imperative to state that Exhibit C6 which is Reply to the Claimant’s email dated 11th November 2018 was not tendered. Consequently, the said document is hereby expunged from the record of this court.

The Defendant on its part tendered one document admitted as the Letter of termination sent to claimant through UPS.

 

Arising from the statement of fact and witness statement on oath, the case of the Claimant is that he was employed by the Defendant on the 12th of May, 2005 as a Banking Officer, and his appointment was subsequently confirmed on the 16th of May, 2006. The Claimant averred that through diligence and dedication to his duties, he rose through the ranks of the Defendant’s employment and had attained the position of Deputy Manager and Resident Control Officer at the Defendant’s Makurdi Branch as at 21st of December, 2018.

 

The Claimant stated that his employment was terminated by the Defendant on the 21st of December, 2018 following an allegation that there had been a series of fraudulent transfers of the Defendant’s funds in the sum of ?35,800,700.00 (Thirty-Five Million Eight Hundred Thousand, Seven Hundred Naira) which allegedly occurred between the 21st and 22nd of June, 2018 through the Defendant’s First Console Platform. The Claimant maintained that the allegation of fraud was never substantiated or proven, yet it formed the basis for his suspension and eventual termination of employment.

 

The Claimant further alleged that, arising from the said unproven allegation, the Defendant withheld part of his half salaries, allowances and bonuses during the period of his suspension as a form of punishment. The Claimant contended that the Defendant’s action was in breach of the provisions of Section F, Article 10 of the Defendant’s Staff Employee Handbook which provides that a staff placed on suspension is entitled to half of his basic salary during the period of suspension, and where at the conclusion of the investigation the staff is found not to be culpable or the allegation is not established, such staff shall be entitled to the payment of the full salaries and other entitlements withheld during the period of suspension.

 

The Claimant averred that prior to his suspension his basic monthly salary, exclusive of other allowances, was ?96,028.25 (Ninety-Six Thousand and Twenty-Eight Naira, Twenty-Five Kobo), but that during the period of his suspension he was paid only the sum of ?31,000.00 (Thirty-One Thousand Naira) monthly until the termination of his appointment.

 

The Claimant therefore instituted this action challenging termination of his employment by the Defendant, the alleged violation of his right to fair hearing, and the damage done to his reputation as a result of the unproven allegation of fraud made against him.

 

On the part of the Defendant and arising from the statement of defence and witness statement on oath, the case of the Defendant is that prior to the termination of the Claimant’s employment, the Claimant served as an Internal Control Officer, also referred to as an internal investigator of the Defendant. The Defendant contended that the Claimant was found guilty of gross misconduct, which led to the termination of his appointment in accordance with the provisions of the Defendant’s Employee Handbook.

 

The Defendant averred that a fraudulent transfer of the Defendant’s funds in the sum of ?35,800,700.00 was made to a third party, which necessitated the commencement of an internal investigation to identify the perpetrator(s) of the fraud. In the course of investigation, one of the suspects, Sule Fedoje Patience, allegedly implicated the Claimant in a report dated 28th June 2018.

 

The Defendant further stated that the Claimant, who at the time was the Branch Resident Control Officer, admitted to collecting staff computer/system IDs from several staff members, including the said Sule Fedoje Patience. The Defendant maintained that staff computer or system IDs are confidential and that for the Claimant, in his capacity as Resident Control Officer, to obtain such IDs from other members of staff for personal purposes constituted gross misconduct, thereby justifying the termination of his appointment.

 

The Defendant denied withholding the Claimant’s salaries, allowances or bonuses and maintained that the termination of his employment was lawful. The Defendant further stated that the Claimant appeared before the Disciplinary Committee (Internal Audit Unit) on 23rd August 2018 in Lagos State, where he participated in the proceedings and was found culpable of misconduct. Consequently, his employment was terminated and he was paid one-month basic salary in lieu of notice.

 

The Defendant also contended that since the Claimant’s appointment was terminated while he was on suspension, he was not entitled to the unpaid balance of half salary during the suspension period. The Defendant further asserted that after deducting the Claimant’s outstanding consumer loan, the Claimant would only be entitled to the sum of ?769,254.25 upon the return of the Defendant’s property in his possession, particularly his staff identity card.

 

The Claimant filed their final written address on the 18th of November, 2025 wherein learned Counsel to the Claimant, Grace O. Tony-Ogidi Esq. formulated two issues for determination as follows:

 

  1. Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment by the Defendant which offers no reason for the termination is wrongful.
  2. Whether the Claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit.

In arguing issue one, learned counsel submitted that the termination of the Claimant's employment by the Defendant is wrongful. Counsel stated that the claimant was placed on a suspension for six months and without conclusion of the investigation of an allegation of fraud against him, the claimant’s employment was terminated without any justifiable reasons. Counsel contended that a careful perusal of Exhibit C8(the Defendant’s Handbook), particularly page 45, which outlines offences that may warrant termination of employment, reveals that the Claimant did not commit any act capable of justifying the termination of his appointment with the Defendant. Counsel added that the Defendant did not state the reasons for the termination of Claimant's employment in Exhibit C9(the letter of termination). 

 

Counsel submitted that although judicial authorities have long upheld the principle that an employer may terminate the employment of an employee at will, this Honourable Court has in recent times departed from that traditional position of the Supreme Court. Counsel relied on Ebere Onyekachi Aloysius v Diamond Bank Plc (2015) 58 N.L.L.R 92, which held that it is unfair labour practice for an employer to terminate the employment of an employee without giving any reason or a justifiable reason. Counsel therefore contended that the termination of the Claimant’s appointment by the Defendant, which merely stated that “your services are no longer required” without providing any reason, is not tenable in law, particularly in light of good or international best practices in labour relations. Counsel stated that Exhibit C9 which is the Termination letter offers no explanation for the termination of the Claimant's Appointment with the Defendant.

 

Counsel contended that the allegation of gross misconduct was never supported by any evidence before this Honourable Court as well as the alleged Consumer loan granted to the Claimant in the sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira). Counsel stated that the burden of proof is placed on the Defendant who asserted to prove such assertion. He relied on Fareast Mercantile Co. Ltd. V. Boothia Maritime Inc. & 2 Ors. (1998) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt, 551) 620. 

 

Counsel pointed out that the suspension of the claimant grossly violates the Employee Handbook of the Defendant. Counsel stated that by the said handbook particularly Section 46 of the handbook, an employee under suspension is entitled to half of his salary during the period of suspension, which shall be for a period not exceeding six months of investigation, but if the investigations are not concluded within six months, the employee shall remain suspended until such a time that the investigations are concluded. Counsel contended that by the defendant’s own defence particularly paragraphs 16 and 20 of the statement of defence, the investigation was not concluded, yet the claimant’s employment was terminated by the defendant in total violation of the provisions of the handbook.

 

Counsel submitted further that in a master/servant relationship, just as in the present suit, it is the Employee Handbook that constitutes the contract between parties. Counsel cited Oforishe V. N.G.C. LTD. (2018)) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1602) 35, pp.53 para H. Counsel stated that the defendant failed to show where in Exhibit C8 a member of Staff who leaves on termination of his appointment from a suspension is not entitled to be paid half of his salary while he was on suspension. Counsel added that the defendant is in breach of Section F Article 10 of the Defendant’s staff employee Handbook (Exhibit C8). Counsel stated further that where the Employee Handbook is not complied with, such determination of employment is wrongful and the Employer is liable to pay damages to the Employee for breach of contract. Counsel cited ZIIDEEH V. R.S.C.S.C. (2007) 3 NWLR (PT. 1022) 554, (PP. 570, PARAS. A- D; 577-778, PARAS. D-G). Counsel emphasized that Defendant failed to comply with the laid procedure as to relates to the suspension and thereafter the termination of the Claimant's employment thereby occasioning a breach of the Employee Handbook which constitutes the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant and therefore, liable in damages to the Claimant. In conclusion counsel urged the court to grant the reliefs of the claimant.

 

Responding to the foregoing submissions, Defendant filed their final written address on the 16th of February, 2026 and arising therefrom, counsel to the Defendant Chief J. K. Mong Esq. formulated two issues for determination as follows:

  1. Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment in the circumstances of this case was wrongful, null and void. 
  2. Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit.

In arguing the first issue counsel posits that the termination of the claimant’s employment by the Defendant is not wrongful, null and void. The termination was as a result of his admitted misconduct of collecting Staff IDs from other members of staff of the Defendant which resulted in his services not being required anymore by the defendant.

Counsel stated that it is within the prerogative powers of the Defendant to determine what amounts to misconduct. Counsel posits that Section F Article 10 of the Defendant's Employee's Handbook stated offences that attract warning letter or termination of appointment. Counsel relied on NEW NIGERIA BANK LTD VS. G.O. ONIOVOSA (1995) 9 NWLR (pt. 419) 327 to state that misconduct is what the employer says is misconduct. Counsel also relied on SHUABU VS. NIGERIA ARAB BANK (1998)4 SCJN 109 where the court defined willful misconduct to be any act prejudicial to the interest of the master or outside the scope of the duties of the servant. Counsel cited ARINZE vs. FIRST BANK (NIG) LTD (2004) 5S CNJ 183.

Counsel added that the reason given for the termination of the claimant’s appointment is that the Claimant's services are no longer required and that is good reason. Counsel relied on WAEC VS. OBISESAN (2008) LPELR-CA/1/133/02. Counsel stated that the Court cannot impute reasons for the termination of the Claimant's appointment, but can only abide by the contents of the letter of Termination which is exhibit C9. Counsel stated that the claimant is wrongly alleging that his employment was terminated on the basis of an allegation of the crime of fraud against him. Thus, seeking to translate the termination of his employment to dismissal because of the allegation of crime. Counsel stated that, the Claimant's appointment was not terminated because of the matters of fraud. Counsel added that Parties and the Court are bound by the terms or contents of Exhibit C9.

 

Submitted that the law is that in determining whether or not a servant's employment was validly or properly terminated malice is generally irrelevant. He relied on Nigerite Ltd Vs. Oremosu (2003) 31 WRN 64. Counsel posits that the Defendant followed the laid down rules in exhibit C8 in suspending and in bringing to an end the services of the Claimant. Counsel added that the claimant was accorded fair hearing as he was suspended, He was also queried, the claimant responded to the query, he was taken to a Disciplinary Committee in Lagos, and he participated in the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee (Internal Audit Unit) proceedings as he was also given opportunity to state his own part of his case. After observing due process as expressed in exhibit C8 the Claimant was found guilty of misconduct and employment terminated on grounds that his employment is no longer needed, while the crime aspect of the matter was referred to law enforcement agencies for investigation. Counsel submitted that an employer cannot be expected to keep an employee whose services are no longer needed.

 

Counsel contended that there is no statutory imposition of what should be the reason an employer must give in order to amount to good and international best practice in labour or industrial relations and that is why the National Industrial Court Act (NICA), 2006 stipulates that what amounts to good and international best practice in labour or industrial relations shall be a question of fact".

On the issue of loan, counsel stated that the claimant did not deny the fact that he took the said loan or the fact that the loan was insured. Counsel submitted that where debt is not denied expressly or by implication by a party, the allegation of debt must be deemed indirectly admitted and the other party will not be obliged to establish it by evidence. Counsel relied on Meridian Trade Corp. Ltd Vs. M. C. (WA) LTD (1998) 4 NWLR (pt.544) 1

In addressing issue two counsel stated that the claimant is not entitled to his reliefs on grounds that the termination of his employment was not wrongful, but proper and lawful, and that the defendant did not contravene the provisions of exhibit C8.

 

In respect to relief 3 counsel stated that the Claimant is not entitled to it. He added that by the provisions of exhibit C8, the claimant while on suspension was only entitled to half his salary and he was being paid accordingly, and that a staff of the Defendant who leaves the employment of the defendant from suspension is not entitled to be paid the unpaid half of his salary.

 

With regards to relief 5, 6 and 7, counsel submitted that the Claimant's appointment having been properly terminated as required by exhibit C8, a Court cannot impose an employee on employer, the employer is free to do away with its employee as long as he keeps to the terms of agreement. He added that directing the Defendant to pay salaries to the Claimant from January, 2019 to the date of the determination of this suit will be unlawful. He relied on Festus Olafimihan Vs. Nova Lex-Tech Nig. Ltd (1998) 4 NWLR (pt.547) 608. 

Counsel contended that it does not amount to character assassination to report an alleged crime to the Police and or EFCC for investigation. Counsel cited Ondo State Housing Corporation Vs. Shitu (1994) 1 NWLR (pt.321) 476 @ 483 where defamation is stated to be a serious claim and that it must be set out clearly in the writ of summons and in the statement of claim, counsel contended that was not done in this present case.

Counsel contended further that the claimant is also not entitled to relief 8, as he could not have suffered any inconvenience, pain, trauma and humiliation for being legally asked to leave the services of the Defendant. Moreso, that the relief is defective for misjoinder of causes of action as it lumped together wanton acts of victimization, harassment, false accusation and the subsequent unlawful termination of the claimant's employment lumped for one claim of N20 million.

 

For relief 4 counsel stated that the Claimant admitted the loan pleaded in paragraph 22 of the Statement of Defence but said it was insured. But he did not tender the insurance documents for the court to see what was insured and the extent covered.

Counsel concluded by stating that the claimant has not established his case against the Defendant and urged the Court to dismiss same.

 

Arising from the totality of the issues raised and argued by the Learned Counsel in the final written addresses for both parties, the issues for determination by this court are as follows:

  1. Whether or not the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendant was wrongful. 
  2. Whether or not in view of the facts and evidence before this court, the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

In resolving these issues together, it is imperative to state that the crux of the claimant’s case is that, the Claimant alleges that his employment was wrongfully and unlawfully terminated in breach of the provision of the Defendant’s Employee Handbook as well as in violation of the principles of fair hearing and international best practices in labour relations.

The Defendant on the other hand maintains that the termination of the Claimant’s employment was lawful and carried out in accordance with the Defendant’s Employee Handbook following a finding that the Claimant was culpable of misconduct during an internal investigation.

Thus, the resolution of this issue must commence upon consideration of what an employee who alleges wrongful termination of his employment must plead and prove. Thus, an employee who complains of wrongful termination of employment is saddled with the responsibility of presenting concrete evidence as to the terms of the employment and how those terms were breached bringing about wrongful dismissal or termination. The apex court in MR. ENIWOMAKE RICAHRD OVIVIE & ORS v. DELTA STEEL COMPANY LIMITED (2023) LPELR-60460(SC) held that:

"It is the law that when an employee complains that his employment has been wrongfully terminated, he has the onus, first, to place before the Court the terms of the contract of employment and, second, to prove in what manner the said terms were breached by the employer. It is not in principle for the employer who is a defendant to an action brought by the employee to prove any of these”.

 

Furthermore, bearing in mind that Reliefs one and three seek declaratory relief in relation to the status of his employment and payment of salary arising from the said employment, the law is settled that the party seeking declaratory relief must present cogent and credible evidence to be entitled to such relief. The court in the case of OBE v. MTN (2021) LPELR-57730 (SC) held that:

 

"It is also settled in numerous authorities that a declaratory relief being discretionary in nature, the onus of proof lies on the claimant and he must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence, except where the case of the defence supports the appellant's case. Thus, the burden of proof on the plaintiff in establishing declaratory reliefs to the satisfactory of the Court is quite heavy in the sense that such declaratory reliefs are not granted even on admission by the defendant, in the event that the plaintiff fails to establish his entitlement to the declaration by his own evidence. See Akande v. Adisa & Anor. (supra) and Chief & Ikechi Emenike v. P.D.P. (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1315) 556." Per SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, JSC (Pp 31 - 32 Paras D - A).

 

In the light of the foregoing, this court shall proceed to consider the reliefs sought by the claimant based on facts and evidence presented before this court. In order to determine whether the claimant has discharged the burden of proof required by the law.

 

Relief one seeks for, “A Declaration that the termination of the employment of the Claimant on the 21st of December, 2018 by the Defendant is wrongful, unlawful, null and void as same is in Contravention of Section F, Article 10 of the Defendant's Staff Employee Handbook as well as the (Claimant's constitutional right to fair hearing, amounts to undue victimization and scandalous to the person and reputation of the Claimant as the fraudulent allegation of 21st and 22nd of June, 2018 leveled against the Claimant was unfounded and was never proven”.

 

It must reiterated that the Claimant having sought for declaratory relief bears the burden of establishing his entitlement to the said relief by cogent and credible evidence as declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course.  It was held in P.D.P v. Abubakar (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 515 at 546 - 547 Paras. D - A (CA) that:

 

"In civil cases, before a court can grant a declaratory relief sought by a plaintiff he must plead and lead evidence to entitle him to the declaration sought. An admission by the defendant will in no way relieve the plaintiff from the onus placed on him of proving his claim. The plaintiff has the bounding duty to satisfy the court by evidence, and not through admission in the pleading of the defendant, that he is entitled to the declaration sought. The court has a discretion to grant a declaration or refuse same. The outcome will depend on how cogent and strong the claimant’s case is. In other words, courts do not make a declaration of right on admissions. See Bello v. Eweka (1981) SC 101; …Kupoluyi v. Phillips (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt. 731) 736." Per. Adekeye JCA.

 

As highlighted earlier, where there is a claim based on alleged wrongful or unlawful termination of employment, the burden of prove is on the claimant. The court in OAK PENSIONS LIMITED & ORS v. MR. MICHAEL OLADIPO OLAYINKA (2017) LPELR-43207(CA) laid down what is required of a claimant who alleges wrongful termination when it held that, "The law is now trite that in cases for claims based on alleged wrongful or unlawful termination of employment, the burden is on the claimant to satisfactorily prove that: - (a) He was an employee of the defendant; (b) The terms and conditions of the employment and; (c) That the employer in fact breached the terms and conditions of the employment and the manner in which the breach occurred in the termination of the employment. See Western Nigeria Development Corporation vs. Abimbola (1966) 4 NSCC. 72 @ 88”.

In an attempt to discharge this burden particularly the fact that the claimant was an employee of the defendant, the Claimant presented, Exhibits C2 his Letter of Appointment dated 12th May. 2005 and Exhibit C3 is his Letter of Ratification/Confirmation dated 16th of May, 2006, to establish the existence of an employment relationship between himself and the defendant. I must state that the fact that the claimant was an employee of the defendant was never in issue as parties are ad idem on that point.

 

On the second limb of the requirement which is the terms and conditions of the employment, the claimant presented the Employee Handbook of the Defendant which is exhibit C8, as the document which regulates his term of service with the defendant. Based on the said document which contains the terms and condition of service, It is expedient to state that, except in employments clothed with statutory flavor, the relationship between an employer and employee is one of master and servant, governed strictly by the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. In the instant case, there is no contention that the Claimant’s employment is governed by statute. Accordingly, the relationship between the parties is purely contractual and regulated by the Employee Handbook. 

 

The next duty incumbent on the claimant is to demonstrate the manner in which the terms governing his employment were breached by the Defendant, thereby resulting in a violation of his right to fair hearing. The Claimant contended that his employment was terminated on 21st December 2018 following an allegation of fraudulent transfers amounting to ?35,800,700.00, which were said to have occurred between 21st and 22nd June 2018 through the Defendant’s First Console Platform. He maintained that the allegation was never substantiated, yet it formed the basis for his suspension and eventual termination. 

 

The Claimant further asserted that he was placed on suspension for six months and that his employment was terminated before the investigation into the alleged fraud was concluded, and without any justifiable reason, contrary to the Defendant’s Staff Employee Handbook. He therefore contended that the Defendant failed to follow the procedure prescribed in the Handbook in suspending and subsequently terminating his employment, thereby breaching the provisions of the Employee Handbook which forms part of the contract of employment between the parties.

 

The Claimant further alleged that the Defendant withheld parts of his salaries, allowances and bonuses during the period of his suspension. He contended that this action was also in breach of Section F, Article 10 of the Defendant’s Staff Employee Handbook which provides that a staff on suspension is entitled to half of his basic salary and, where the allegation is not established, the staff is entitled to the balance of salaries and other entitlements withheld during the period of suspension. The Claimant averred that prior to his suspension his basic salary was ?96,028.25 but he was paid only ?31,000 monthly until the termination of his appointment. 

 

The Claimant also contended that the termination of his employment constitutes unfair labour practice, as it is unfair labour practice for an employer to terminate the employment of an employee without giving any reason or a justifiable reason. Counsel argued that the termination of the Claimant’s appointment by the Defendant, which merely stated that “your services are no longer required” without providing any reason, is not tenable in law, particularly in light of international best practices in labour relations. 

 

The Defendant in response maintained that the Claimant, who served as the Defendant’s Internal Control Officer, was found culpable of gross misconduct following an internal investigation into a fraudulent transfer of the sum of ?35,800,700.00. The Defendant stated that during the investigation, one of the suspects implicated the Claimant, and that the Claimant admitted collecting confidential staff system IDs from other staff members, which constituted misconduct under the Defendant’s Employee Handbook. 

 

Having considered the respective position of the parties, it is settled that where employment is governed by contract, the Court will determine the rights of parties based on the terms of that contract. In PROFESSOR GBOLAGADE AYOOLA v. THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE NIGERIAN NATIONAL MERIT AWARD & ORS (2022) LPELR-57165(CA) the court has rightly held that, "Parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the employment agreement or contract between them”. Also, the court in the same vein stated that, "The duty of the Court is to interpret the contract as contained in the instrument made by the parties on their own volition. The Court cannot rewrite the contract between the parties”.

 

It is equally settled that an employer has the right to terminate the employment of an employee with or without reason, where a reason is given the employer is bound to justify that reason.

 

In INSTITUTE OF HEALTH AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT BOARD v. MRS. JUMMAI R. I. ANYIP (2011) LPELR-1517(SC) the apex court held that,

 

"Although it is trite that an employer is not obliged to give any reason for firing his servant all the same it is settled law that where he has proffered any reason at all it is obliged to satisfactorily prove the same as the onus is on him in that regard, otherwise the termination/dismissal may constitute a wrongful dismissal without more."

 

In the instant case, I have carefully examined Exhibit C9 (also Exhibit D1) being the termination letter dated 21st December, 2018. The said letter unequivocally states that the claimant’s “services were no longer required”. No reference was made to misconduct, fraud or any disciplinary infraction.

 

It is settled law that the Court cannot go outside the contents of a termination letter to import reasons not stated therein. EMEGO VINCENT IKEMBA v. PYRAMMIDT COMPANY NIGERIA LIMITED (2021) LPELR-56145(CA), the court held:

 

"...in determining whether the employment of an employee is wrongful, a Court must confine itself to the letter of termination and nothing more. This Court in IWUOHA V. MOBIL PRODUCING NIG. UNLTD (2011) LPELR-4477 (CA) held thus: "It is settled that where no other reason is stated for the termination of the Appellant's appointment except that the Appellant's service "were no longer required", the Court cannot go outside the said letter to discover the reason for the termination. See... KATTO V. CBN supra at page 408 where Belgore, JSC (as he then was) in dealing with a similar question as in the instant appeal stated - "...The letter of termination never adverted to any fraud, misconduct or dishonesty and the Respondent cannot read into his termination letter what is not contained therein..."

 

In the circumstances, the Court holds that the operative reason for the termination of the Claimant’s employment remains that his services were no longer required, as stated in the termination letter, and not the alleged gross misconduct subsequently pleaded in the Statement of Defence.

 

I must also emphasize that by Section 254C(1)(f) and (h) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), this Court is empowered to apply international best practices in labour and industrial relations and to prevent unfair labour practices. However, the application of such principles must still be anchored on the contractual relationship between the parties. International best practice cannot be invoked to rewrite the contract voluntarily entered into by the parties.

 

I have also taken cognizance of Ebere Onyekachi Aloysius v. Diamond Bank Plc (2015) 58 N.L.L.R 92, cited by the claimant, where it was held that it amounts to unfair labour practice for an employer to terminate the employment of an employee without giving any reason where the surrounding circumstances disclose that the termination arose from allegations of misconduct.

 

I must state that, where the employer has already embarked upon disciplinary proceedings against the employee. Once an employer chooses to investigate allegations of misconduct against an employee, the employer must follow through with a fair and transparent disciplinary process and accord the employee fair hearing. The evidence before this court clearly shows that, the Defendant suspended the Claimant, which is evidenced by Exhibit C4, while Exhibit C3 indicates that the defendant conducted an investigation and alleged that he was implicated by another staff member. These steps clearly indicate that the Defendant initiated disciplinary measures against the Claimant. 

At this juncture, it will be appropriate to consider the provisions of the Handbook alleged by the claimant to have been breached by the defendant, and the said section is Section F, Article 10 of the Defendant’s Staff Employee Handbook, this consideration is imperative in order to determine whether or not the Defendant in fact breached the terms and conditions of the employment and the manner in which the said breach occurred in the termination of the employment. 

 

Section F, Article 10 of the Staff Employee Handbook provides, 

“The following are considered as a misconduct /negligence that attract warning letter of termination of appointment;

 

  1. Absence from the place proper and appointed for the performance of work without leave or other legitimate cause.
  2. Frequent late arrival at work Making himself/herself unfit for the proper performance of his/her work during working hours, for example, by becoming intoxicated;
  3. Neglecting to perform any work, which it was his/her duty to have performed, or carelessly or improperly performing any work, which it was his/her duty to have performed:
  4. Using any abusive or insulting language or becoming guilty of insulting behaviour to any person placed in authority over him or her.
  5. Borrowing money from third parties without a formal approval of management:
  6. Refusing to obey any proper instruction from any person placed in authority over him/her whose instruction it was his/her duty to obey and
  7. Any other act of misconduct/negligence as may be determined by management.

proviso

  1. In the event that an employee receives TWO Warning Letters and is found guilty on the third occasion of committing any act of misconduct/ negligence within a period of 12 months, the employment of such an employee shall be terminated. 
  2. An employee's services may also be terminated without him/her being issued any Warning Letter for any of the offences specified above if the gravity of the offence necessitates such sanction.
  3. An employee whose services have been terminated shall nevertheless be entitled to one month salary if his /her employment has been confirmed and 2 weeks' salary if he/she is on probation, as payment in lieu of notice. Such employee shall be entitled to receive all accrued terminal benefits up to the date of termination of appointment”.

 

It is observed that the defendant relied on proviso B which empowers the defendant to terminate the employment without issuing any warning Letter for any of the offences specified above if the gravity of the offence necessitates such sanction. The issue of the offence that amounts to outright termination is then left to the prerogative of the defendant. 

 

The same Section F, Article 10 of the Staff Employee Handbook provides for suspension of an employee as follows;

 

“An employee may be placed on suspension with pay (1/2 basic salary and full housing,

Utility, transport allowance and medical facilities). The period of suspension shall range from one month to six months as may be determined, and such period shall be recognized in determining the length of employment with the Bank”. 

 

Other conditions regarding suspension are:

  1. If any employee is suspected of dishonesty or any other serious misconduct, he/she will be suspended from duty for a period not exceeding six months during which investigation shall be concluded.
  2. If the investigations are not concluded within six months, the employee shall remain suspended until such a time that the investigations are concluded.
  3. An employee on suspension shall be required to report each working day for 2 hours to an official designated by the Bank and shall sign to indicate compliance.
  4. If after investigations he/she is exonerated, he/she shall be recalled; the balance of his /her basic salary and any other entitlements shall be paid from the date of suspension. 
  5. If however, the employee is found guilty he/she shall be dealt with in accordance with the Bank's disciplinary procedures.
  6. If an employee is suspected of a criminal offence by the Police, he/she may be suspended accordingly.

 

Also, I have considered Section C Article 6 which provide for termination/resignation as follows;

 

After confirmation, employment may be terminated by either party giving the other

one month's notice or payment of one month's basic salary in lieu of the required

Notice period.

 

Resignation (Special Circumstances) Employees covenant not to resign or otherwise terminate his/her employment and agrees that all notices for such shall be ineffectual as if such was not served and may be expressly waived by the Bank at its

sole discretion in any of the following circumstances:

 

  1. The member of staff is suspected of involvement in an incident which is the subject of internal/police investigation;
  2. The member of staff is on suspension;
  3. The member of staff has a case pending before the Bank's Disciplinary Committee; or
  4. The member of staff has outstanding commitment net of terminal benefits.

 

I have carefully considered Section F, Article 10 and Section C Article 6 in view of the claimant’s contention that he was placed on suspension for six months on account of an allegation of fraud and that before the investigation into the allegation was concluded, the Defendant terminated his employment without any justifiable reason. According to the Claimant, this action was contrary to the procedure prescribed in the Defendant’s Staff Employee Handbook which governs the employment relationship between the parties.

 

A careful reading of Section F Article 10 of the Handbook shows that an employee who is suspected of dishonesty or serious misconduct may be placed on suspension for a period not exceeding six months during which investigation shall be conducted. The provision further states that where the investigation is not concluded within the six-month period, the employee shall remain suspended until the investigation is concluded. The provision also stipulates that where the employee is exonerated, he shall be recalled and paid the balance of his salary and entitlements withheld during the period of suspension.

 

This Court observes that the purpose of suspension under the said provision is essentially to enable the employer carry out investigation into an allegation of misconduct without interference from the employee concerned. The provision regulates the conditions of suspension but does not in any way restrict the employer’s general contractual right to terminate the employment relationship.

 

On the other hand, Section C Article 6 of the same Handbook clearly provides that after confirmation, the employment of an employee may be terminated by either party upon giving one month’s notice or payment of one month’s basic salary in lieu of notice.

 

The implication of this provision is that the Defendant retains the contractual right to terminate the employment of the Claimant at any time provided that the stipulated notice or payment in lieu of notice is complied with. Thus, provisions regulating suspension cannot be interpreted as removing the Defendant’s express contractual right to terminate the employment relationship under Section C Article 6. I have noted paragraph 21 of the statement of defence, where it was alleged that upon termination of the Claimant appointment, he was paid one-month basic salary in lieu of notice. I have also observed through Exhibit C12 (the Claimant’s First bank account statement) that the said one-month basic salary in lieu of notice was indeed paid.

Furthermore, the fact that the Claimant was on suspension at the time of the termination does not invalidate the Defendant’s right to determine the contract of employment in accordance with the terms agreed by the parties. I must also add that there is no requirement in law that the employee must be tried before a Court of law where the accusation against the employee is of gross misconduct involving dishonesty bordering on criminality before termination of employment. The only requirement is that the dismissal should not be done without the courtesy of fair hearing accorded to the employee.

 

However, a different consideration arises where an employer reports an employee to the police for investigation to determine whether the alleged offence was indeed committed. 

 

The evidence before the Court shows that the Defendant had already initiated disciplinary steps against the Claimant. Exhibit C4 shows that the Claimant was placed on suspension, while Exhibit C7 confirms that he was invited by the EFCC, indicating that investigations were ongoing.

 

The Defendant also admitted in its pleadings that the matter was reported to the EFCC and that investigations had not been concluded at the time of termination.

 

In such circumstances, the law is settled that where an employer refers an employee to law enforcement authorities for investigation on allegations bordering on criminality, the employer is obligated to await the outcome of the investigation before taking further disciplinary action predicated on the alleged offence. See Nigerian Bottling Company Plc v. Ekpo (2020) LPELR-51997(CA).

 

In the instant case, the Defendant, having set in motion an investigative process involving the EFCC, proceeded to terminate the Claimant’s employment before the conclusion of that process. This, in the view of this Court, amounts to a departure from the disciplinary framework contemplated by the Defendant’s own procedures.

 

Furthermore, with respect to the issue of salary during suspension, the Claimant contended that he was entitled to half of his basic salary in line with Section F, Article 10 of the Handbook.

 

I have examined Exhibit C12, the Claimant’s bank statement, and observed that the Claimant was paid approximately ?31,225.46 monthly during the period of suspension. The evidence also shows that his basic salary was ?96,028.25. Clearly, the sum paid does not represent half of the said basic salary.

The Defendant did not controvert this evidence nor provide any payroll records to contradict the Claimant’s assertion.

 

On the strength of the foregoing, I find that the Defendant failed to comply with the provisions of Section F, Article 10 of the Employee Handbook with respect to the payment of salary during suspension.

 

In the final analysis, this Court finds that:

  • The Defendant failed to adhere to its own disciplinary procedure after initiating investigation into alleged misconduct; and
  • The Defendant breached the terms of the Claimant’s employment by failing to pay the stipulated half salary during suspension.

 

Consequently, this Court holds that the termination of the Claimant’s employment was wrongful.

However, given that the employment relationship is one of master and servant, the Court cannot declare the termination null and void.

 

Accordingly, it is hereby declared that the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendant on the 21st of December, 2018 is wrongful, being in breach of the Defendant’s Staff Employee Handbook.

 

Relief two seeks for “An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to immediately remove the name of the Claimant from the Defendant’s ‘Fraud Register’ hoisted on the Defendant’s bank portal and other statutory financial regulatory bodies/agencies, on the ground that the allegation of fraud leveled against the Claimant was never substantiated.”

 

The law is well settled that he who asserts must prove. See Alechenu Ad’obe Obe v. MTN Nigeria Communications Ltd (2021) LPELR-57730(SC). 

 

Accordingly, the burden rests squarely on the Claimant to establish:

 

  1. That his name was indeed published or entered on the Defendant’s Fraud Register or any regulatory blacklist; and
  2. That such publication or entry was wrongful, unjustified, or made without basis.

 

From the totality of the evidence before this Court, while it is not in dispute that the Claimant was subjected to suspension and internal investigation in relation to alleged fraudulent transactions, there is no credible and cogent evidence establishing that the Defendant formally published the Claimant’s name on any Fraud Register in the manner alleged.

 

More importantly, beyond the bare assertion, the Claimant has not placed before this Court any documentary or direct evidence showing:

  • the existence of such publication on the Defendant’s portal; or
  • communication of same to any regulatory body or third party.

 

On the part of the Defendant, it was contended that the Claimant was implicated during internal investigations and found culpable of misconduct, particularly relating to the unauthorized collection of confidential staff system IDs. The Defendant further maintained that such conduct constituted a serious breach under its internal control and compliance framework.

 

It must be stated that financial institutions operate within a highly regulated environment and are obligated to maintain internal mechanisms for fraud detection, risk management, and compliance. The keeping of internal records relating to suspected misconduct forms part of such institutional safeguards.

 

In this regard, the Court is cautious not to interfere with internal compliance systems of financial institutions unless there is clear evidence of abuse, malice, or wrongful publication affecting the legal rights of the Claimant.

 

While the Claimant argued that the allegation of fraud was never substantiated, it is pertinent to note that the Defendant did not present any evidence of formal exoneration of the Claimant. On the contrary, the Defendant maintained that the Claimant was found culpable through its internal disciplinary process.

 

Furthermore, this Court has earlier held that the termination of the Claimant’s employment was wrongful. However, it is important to draw a clear legal distinction:

a finding of wrongful termination does not automatically translate to proof of wrongful publication or entitlement to reputational remedies such as delisting from an alleged fraud register.

 

Such relief must be supported by independent and credible evidence of publication and wrongdoing, which is lacking in the present case.

 

In the final analysis, the Claimant has failed to discharge the evidential burden required to establish:

  • that his name was wrongfully entered on the Defendant’s Fraud Register; and
  • that the Defendant acted maliciously or without any basis in maintaining such record.

 

Accordingly, this relief fails and is hereby refused.

 

Relief three and four will be considered conjunctively.

 

Relief three seeks for “A Declaration that the Defendant is liable to pay the Claimant the balance of his salaries, allowances and other benefits due to him, which were withheld during the period of his suspension, there being no proven allegation of fraud against him”.

 

Relief four seeks for “An Order against the Defendant to pay to the Claimant all salaries and allowances as well as all other benefits due and payable to the Claimant as an officer of the Defendant, which were withheld by the Defendant during the period of the Claimant's suspension and which are payable upon the lack of proof of the alleged fraud against the Claimant.

 

Particulars of withheld salaries from the day of suspension to the day of purported termination due to the Claimant but unlawfully withheld by the Defendant:

 

MONTH

DESCRIPTION

AMOUNT(N)

July 2018

Monthly Salary/allowances

537,451.66

August 2018

Monthly Salary/allowances

537,451.66

September 2018

Monthly Salary/allowances

537,451.66

October 2018

Monthly Salary/allowances

537,451.66

November 2018

Monthly Salary/allowances

537,451.66

December 2018

Monthly Salary/allowances

537,451.66

 

TOTAL

3,224,709,9

 

In resolving these reliefs, this Court must again examine the relevant provisions of the Defendant’s Staff Employee Handbook which governs the relationship between the parties, particularly Section F, Article 10, which regulates suspension.

 

A careful reading of the said provision shows that an employee suspected of dishonesty or serious misconduct may be placed on suspension with pay, consisting of half of the employee’s basic salary and other stated allowances. The provision further stipulates that where, after investigation, the employee is exonerated, the balance of the basic salary and other withheld entitlements shall be paid from the date of suspension. Where the employee is found guilty, he shall be dealt with in accordance with the Bank’s disciplinary procedures.

 

The clear implication of the provision is that the payment of withheld entitlements is tied to the outcome of the disciplinary process.

 

In the present case, the Claimant was placed on suspension following allegations relating to fraudulent transactions. However, there is nothing before this Court to show that the allegation of fraud was conclusively established against him. Although the Defendant pleaded that the Claimant was found guilty of misconduct by its disciplinary committee, the termination letter issued to the Claimant did not state misconduct as the reason for the termination. Rather, the Defendant elected to terminate the Claimant’s employment on the ground that his services were no longer required.

 

Where an employer terminates employment simpliciter, instead of dismissing the employee for misconduct, the Court cannot import into the termination letter a reason which the employer itself did not state. See Dije Hamza Auwalu v. Managing Director, Unity Bank Plc & Anor (2021) LPELR-55464(CA).

 

Consequently, even if there had been an internal finding of misconduct, once the Defendant chose not to dismiss the Claimant on that ground but instead terminated his employment in neutral terms, the termination must be treated as termination simpliciter and not as disciplinary dismissal.

 

The Defendant cannot rely on an alleged internal finding of misconduct to deny the Claimant financial entitlements attached to the suspension, while at the same time avoiding the legal consequences of a disciplinary dismissal. To permit such a position would allow the Defendant to benefit from two inconsistent positions: asserting misconduct to withhold entitlements, yet issuing a neutral termination letter to avoid the consequences of terminating on disciplinary grounds. This Court cannot endorse such inconsistency as this would defeat the constitutional mandate of this court to prevent unfair labour practice.

 

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Defendant’s decision to terminate the Claimant’s employment on the ground that his services were no longer required cannot be relied upon to deprive the Claimant of the financial entitlements accruing during the period of suspension.

 

The Claimant gave evidence that prior to his suspension, his basic salary was ?96,028.25, but that during suspension he was paid only about ?31,000.00 monthly. This evidence was not effectively rebutted by the Defendant.

 

In order to ascertain the sum claimed under Relief four, the Court considered Exhibit C12, being the Claimant’s statement of account and statement of earnings. The said exhibit shows that the Claimant’s total monthly earnings, inclusive of allowances, stood at ?568,677.12. Upon deducting the sum of ?31,225.46 already paid monthly to the Claimant, the balance is ?537,451.66, being the specific monthly sum claimed. The suspension covered the period of July to December 2018, a period of six months.

 

Based on the documentary evidence before the Court, and the computation presented by the Claimant which was not effectively challenged by the Defendant, the Court finds that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of ?3,224,709.96, being the balance of his salaries and allowances withheld during the period of suspension.

 

I am not unmindful of the Defendant’s contention that the Claimant obtained a loan facility of ?5,000,000.00 during his employment and that the outstanding balance as at termination was ?2,812,500.35.

 

It is trite that he who asserts must prove. See Vincent Ikechukwu Okeke v. West African Ventures Limited (2023) LPELR-60162(CA). Although the Claimant admitted that he obtained a loan facility from the Defendant, such admission does not automatically establish the precise outstanding balance alleged by the Defendant.

The Defendant was still under a duty to place before the Court credible documentary evidence showing the terms of the loan, repayments made, and the exact outstanding balance. No loan agreement, repayment schedule, statement of account, or other documentary evidence was tendered to establish the alleged sum.

 

In the absence of such evidence, the Court cannot rely on the bare assertion of the Defendant. Pleadings without evidence go to no issue, and the Court cannot speculate on financial liabilities not properly proven.

Accordingly, the Defendant has failed to establish the alleged outstanding loan balance of ?2,812,500.35, and there is no basis upon which the said sum can be deducted from the amount due to the Claimant.

 

In the circumstance, Relief three succeeds.

 

Relief four also succeeds to the extent that the Defendant is hereby ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of ?3,224,709.96, being the balance of his salaries and allowances withheld during the period of suspension.

 

Relief five seeks for “An Order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant, according to his grade level, all his salaries and allowances from January, 2019 to the date of the determination of this Suit.”

 

The law is settled that in a contract of employment governed by master–servant relationship, an employee is not entitled to salaries beyond the date of termination of his employment. In Mr. C.C. Nwafor v. Anambra State Education Commission & Ors (2017) LPELR-42026(CA), the Court of Appeal held that an employee is only entitled to wages for work done during the subsistence of the employment.

 

In the instant case, the Claimant’s employment was terminated on 21st December, 2018. From that date, the employment relationship ceased to exist. Consequently, the claim for salaries and allowances from January 2019 to the date of judgment is untenable and unsustainable in law and I so hold.

 

Accordingly, Relief five fails and is hereby dismissed.

 

Relief six seeks for “An Order directing the instant reinstatement of the Claimant to the rank of Junior Cargo Operator in the company of the 2nd Defendant and pay all the claimant salary and other monetary benefits that had accrue and accruing from the position”.

This relief, in essence, seeks a form of reinstatement or re-entry into the employment relationship for the purpose of resignation.

 

The law is trite that in a contract of employment devoid of statutory flavour, the Court cannot impose an employee on an unwilling employer. See Obanye v. UBN Plc (2018) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1648) 375 (SC).

 

In DANGOTE CEMENT PLC. v. PETER ASOM AGER & ANOR (2024) LPELR-61800(SC), the court held that,  "The law, for many years now, has been that in employment that does not enjoy the benefit of statutory favour, but of the nature of pure master and servant relationship, an employee, cannot be imposed or an unwilling employer who rightfully exercises the power and authority to end the employment relationship, even if wrongfully, Longe v. FBN, (2010) 6 NWLR (pt. 1189) 1 (SC), Banke v. Akure North L. G (2015) 6 NWLR (pt. 1455) 400, Agwu v. Julius Berger Nig. Plc (2019) 11 NWLR (pt. 1682) 165 (SC), Nwoye v. FAAN (2019) 5 NWLR (pt. 1665) 193 (SC)."

 

The Claimant’s employment having been validly terminated (albeit wrongfully), the Court cannot compel the Defendant to recall the Claimant for any purpose whatsoever, including resignation.

 

Accordingly, Relief six lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

 

Relief seven seeks for, “An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to publish an unreserved apology absolving the Claimant of any culpability over the fraud which the Defendant alleged that the Claimant had committed in three (3) National newspapers circulating widely for the character assassination brought upon the Claimant as a result of the unproven allegation of fraud by the Defendant”. 

 

It is a settled principle of law that a claim seeking a public apology in national newspapers is in the nature of a remedy flowing from defamation or libel. 

 

This relief is in the nature of a defamation-based remedy. It is elementary that a party seeking such relief must establish that:

 

  1. A defamatory statement was made concerning him;
  2. The statement was published to third parties; and
  3. The publication injured his reputation.

 

In the instant case, while the Claimant alleged that the Defendant placed his name on a Fraud Register and circulated allegations of fraud, no credible evidence was placed before this Court to establish that the Defendant indeed published such allegation to the public or to third parties in a manner that would ground a claim in defamation.

 

The evidence before the Court shows that the Claimant was subjected to internal investigation and disciplinary processes. Such internal regulatory procedures, without more, do not constitute publication of defamatory material to the public.

Furthermore, although this Court has held that the Defendant did not justify the disciplinary basis for the termination in the manner required by law, that finding alone does not amount to proof of defamation or wrongful publication.

 

In the absence of clear and credible evidence of publication, this Court cannot grant an order compelling the Defendant to issue a public apology in national newspapers.

 

Accordingly, Relief seven fails and is hereby refused.

 

Relief eight seeks for “The sum of ?20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) only, jointly and severally, being special and general damages against the defendants for the unlawful interference to the Claimant’s employment/employment rights which include the issuance of unlawful employment letter, the purported letter of indefinite suspension and letter of termination of contract as well as other unfair labour practice meted on the claimant, and the indifference and inaction of the 3rd defendant to the claimant complaints to it (sic) which have occasioned hardship, mental agony and general health crises on the claimant and his family.

 

The primary object of an award of damages is to compensate the claimant for the injury suffered. See Ahile Sekav Daniel v. Akperan Orshi College of Agriculture, Yandev (2018) LPELR-45888(CA).

 

It is settled law that in a contract of employment governed by master–servant relationship, the measure of damages for wrongful termination is generally limited to what the employee would have earned within the period of notice required to lawfully terminate the employment.

 

In the instant case, the contract of employment, as embodied in the Defendant’s Staff Employee Handbook, provides for termination upon one month’s notice or payment in lieu thereof. The evidence before this Court shows that the Defendant paid the Claimant one month’s basic salary in lieu of notice.

 

Ordinarily, that would have marked the extent of damages recoverable for wrongful termination.

 

However, this matter presents an additional dimension.

 

This Court has earlier found that the Defendant breached the terms of the Claimant’s employment, particularly the provisions regulating suspension, by failing to pay the appropriate entitlements due to the Claimant during the period of suspension.

 

The law is trite that where a party breaches a contract, the innocent party is entitled to damages to compensate for the injury occasioned by that breach. See Mrs. Anthonia Agbasi v. Jerome Bem Bula & Anor (2022) LPELR-59055(CA).

 

That said, the Claimant’s claim for ?20,000,000.00 is predicated on allegations of emotional distress, humiliation, and psychological trauma.

 

It must be emphasized that, in master–servant relationships, damages are generally not awarded for emotional distress or reputational injury, except where such claims are specifically proved and grounded in a recognized cause of action such as defamation, which is not established in this case.

 

The evidence before this Court does not disclose any publication, malice, or conduct of the Defendant capable of sustaining an award of damages of such magnitude.

 

Nevertheless, this Court is mindful of its constitutional mandate under Section 254C of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) to apply principles of fairness, equity, international best practices and prevent unfair labour practices.

 

Employers are bound to comply strictly with their own policies. Where an employer disregards its own disciplinary and remuneration framework, such conduct may constitute an unfair labour practice deserving of judicial intervention.

 

In the instant case, the Defendant placed the Claimant on suspension and withheld part of his entitlements in clear breach of its own Handbook. This conduct undoubtedly occasioned hardship, inconvenience, and financial uncertainty to the Claimant which the court cannot overlook.

 

While the sum of ?20,000,000.00 claimed is clearly excessive and unsupported by evidence, this Court finds that the Claimant is entitled to modest general damages to compensate for the inconvenience arising from the Defendant’s breach.

 

Accordingly, the sum of ?2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira Only) is awarded as general damages.

 

In the final analysis, the Claimant’s case succeeds in part.

 

Reliefs one, three, four, and eight are granted to the extent stated in this judgment, while the other reliefs are refused.

 

Judgment is accordingly entered.

 

 

………………………………………………………………..

HON. JUSTICE Z. M. BASHIR, Ph.D

JUDGE.