** *** NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT ** NIGERIA

** THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN ** LAGOS

BEFORE HON. JUSTICE JOYCE A. O. DAMACHI 

 

Date: 29^th July 2026                          

SUIT NO:NICN/LA/191/2023      

 

BETWEEN

TAYO **** *****                                                                CLAIMANT

 

AND 

 

1.         POLARIS BANK LIMITED                                            1^st DEFENDANT

2.         CENTRAL BANK ** NIGERIA                                        2^nd DEFENDANT

 

JUDGEMENT 

1. The Claimant instituted this ****** against *** Defendants vide a ******* Form of COMPLAINT dated and filed on 18^th ** **** 2023. Accompanying the said Complaint are *** Statement of Facts, Witness ********* on Oath, List of Documents and copies ** the documents. 
2. ** ** seeking for *** following reliefs: 
3. ** ORDER mandating the 2nd Defendant to immediately delist the name of *** ******** from its "Register of Terminated, Dismissed or Convicted staff of Banks and ***** Financial ************ on the grounds of ***** *** dishonesty" otherwise ****** the Blacklist
4. ????AN ***** directing the 1" ********* to apologize in writing to the Claimant *** ************* forwarding his name to *** 2** Defendant to be included in the "Terminated, ********* or Convicted Staff of Banks and Other Financial Institutions on *** Grounds of ***** ** Dishonesty"
5. ????Damages ** *** sum of =N=100,000,000.00 (One ******* Million Naira) against the 1" Defendant.

 

The claimant’s case 

3. *** Claimant, Tayo Wale Oshin, was an employee of *** Lawrence and Associates ******* who was seconded to ******* domestic ********** ** the Dispute *** ********** Department of *** 1st Defendant, Polaris **** Limited. The 2nd Defendant, the Central Bank of Nigeria, ** the statutory apex ********** authority for all banks and ********* institutions ** Nigeria.
4. In November 2020, an alleged fraud involving ?827,000,000.** occurred within the 1st Defendant’s system, leading the bank ** conduct ******** ************ hearings and report *** matter to *** Economic *** Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). Following investigations ** the 1st Defendant’s ***** ************ Committee into alleged password compromise, the ******** resigned **** *** ********** with Vic Lawrence and Associates ******* on 9 March 2021. The 1st Defendant thereafter reported the Claimant's details to the 2nd Defendant, who placed the Claimant's name on its ********* ******** ** terminated, dismissed, or ********* **** ***** on the ******* of fraud *** dishonesty.

 

 

** –Claimant letter ** employment 

C2-Claimant’s Letter of Resignation from Vic Lawrence and Associates Limited

C3-***** Letter dated 02 November, 2022 **** ******* International Payments Services Nigeria Limited ** the Claimant

C4- Letter titled “Failed Background Check” dated21 February, 2023 from Network International Payments Services ******* Limited ** the Claimant

C5-Claimant’s Solicitor’s Letter dated ******** 23, 2023 ********* to the 1^st Defendant

C6-Claimant’s ******** ****** to the 1^st Defendant dated 22^nd March 2023.

C7-1^st Defendant’s Reply dated ***** 6, 2023

C8-2^nd Defendant’s ****** to all Banks dated **** 28, 2016 titled “****** of Operational Guidelines for Backlisting” and the ******* Bank of Nigeria’s “Review ** Operational Guidelines for Blacklisting”

 

DEFENDANTS CASE 

The 1^st Defendant witness testified on the 3^rd day of April 2025 . He tendered 

Exhibit D1- OPERATIONAL GUIDELINE

Exhibit D2-Disciplinary *********  REPORT 

Exhibit D3 - ******* ********* Deposed ** the 1^st Defendant’s witness on 9^th *** of October 2023. (tendered through *** witness under cross examination)

Exhibit D4- Appendix ** *** Minutes ** *** ***** 20, 2021 Exco Meeting- Consideration of ****** of Disciplinary Committee (Dc) Meeting ** *** 5, 2021 & ****** March 5, 2021. (tendered through the ******* ***** ***** examination)

 

8. *** 2** Defendant ***** its Statement of Defence on 5^th  December 2023, ********* that *** ************ of the Claimant was carried out in **** faith pursuant ** the official returns *** compliance declarations ********* by *** 1st Defendant. 
9. DW2 tendered Exhibits 2D5- *** Review of Operational Guidelines *** ************ dated 28^th *** of June 2016” and 2D6- Return of Notification ** dismissed/terminated and ********** ***** for ***** of March 2021 

 

*** 1st Defendant submits that the Claimant is not entitled ** the reliefs sought based ** the ********* legal and factual grounds: that the blacklist arose from the findings of the 1st Defendant’s ************ Committee, ********* in the Report (Exhibit D2), which indicted *** Claimant for password compromise and fraud. That ***** the Claimant has *** sought to *** aside Exhibit D2, which remains valid. The Court cannot ********* the effect (the blacklist) ***** leaving the cause (******* D2) intact. The Court ****** grant a relief not ********* sought by a party (******* v. ***** Oil Nig. *** (2019) ** NWLR (Pt 1679) 1. Granting the reliefs without a prayer setting ***** Exhibit D2 would violate this ********* and deny the members of the ************ Committee (who are not ******* to this suit) their right to a fair hearing. The Disciplinary Committee acted as a quasi-******** body *** complied with *** rules of ******* ******* (Ani v. Egbo 2024 LPELR 62050 CA).

He argued that Evidence ******** ****** cross-examination confirmed that *** ******** appeared before *** ********* *** was ***** the opportunity to respond to the allegations. Having failed to ***** ******* the opportunity, the Claimant cannot complain ** a ****** of **** ******* (Eze v. FRN 2017 LPELR 42097). He ****** that pursuant to Section 133 of *** Evidence Act 2011, the ****** ** proof ***** ** *** Claimant *** does not shift ***** a ***** facie **** is *********** (******* v. APC (2023) ***** 61492 SC).

The fact that the  Claimant admitted in his ********* that a third party shared their ******** **** him, which constitutes a serious violation of bank ****** *** amounts ** a password compromise. The 1st Defendant’s *** of ********** the Claimant’s name to the ******* Bank ** ******* (2** Defendant) was not malicious but a mandatory ********** **** under Clauses 7.0 and 10.3 of *** CBN Review ** Operational Guidelines for Blacklisting. An act done in compliance with a statutory or regulatory duty cannot attract ***** liability or be ****** ** be in bad faith. Clause 10.1 of the CBN Guidelines mandates that delisting can **** occur upon a *** ********* ***** ********** upon a prior Court Order clearing *** individual. No **** clearing order *** been obtained by the Claimant. Non-compliance with **** ********** procedure is fatal to the suit (Dongtoe v. Civil ******* Commission, Plateau State (2001) LPELR 959 SC 

He objected to the ********** of ******* D4, **** it is unsigned, unstamped, *** *** tendered **** the bar ******* being tied to *** ******* witness statement. ** unsigned ******** is worthless in law (Omega Bank v. O.B.C. Ltd 2005 8 **** Pt 928 547 587). ** submitted that even if considered, Exhibit D4 is ** incomplete, discarded draft ******** ** a main ******** not before the Court. Furthermore, it recommends that the Claimant "return to employer and continue with EFCC Investigation," ***** confirms a prima facie ********** rather than exculpation. That the claimant ** not entitled to Damages. The Claimant’s claim  ** in the ****** of exemplary damages, which requires ***** of malice, fraud, or outrageous conduct (Ukpai v. Omoregie (2019) ***** 47206 CA. Finally that the *** ********* acted purely in regulatory ********** following ** investigation **** an N827,000,000 fraud. No malice *** established, *** the Court cannot ***** damages based on sentiment (Global West Vessel ********** v. NLNG Ltd(2017)***** 41987 SC .

 

 2ND DEFENDANT'S SUBMISSIONS

11. Learned Counsel to the 2nd Defendant, O.Y. Alika, ********* that *** Claimant is not entitled ** any ** *** ******* sought ******* the 2nd Defendant and that the suit ** speculative, lacking in merit, and ****** be dismissed.
12. On Issue 1: ******* ** not the 1st Defendant ******* ********* the Claimant’s name to the 2nd Defendant for blacklisting
13. Learned Counsel submitted that the burden of ***** in ***** matters lies ******** on the Claimant to establish that he was *********** ************* *** ******* a fair hearing, ******* ** ******* 131 of *** ******** Act 2011, Okoro v. Obadiaru(2025) ***** 81025 CA;, ******* v. Izuchukwu(2019) LPELR 49102 CA;, ****** v. Kpongbo(2008)7NWLR ** 1089 342;, *** Tumbido v. INEC(2023) LPELR 6004. Counsel argued that the Claimant ****** to discharge this burden. He submitted **** the evidence elicited ****** cross-*********** ** the Claimant ********** ********** his claim of a **** of fair hearing, as the Claimant ******** **** he was invited to *** ************ Committee, asked questions, and given *** opportunity to respond. Counsel argued that fair hearing simply ******** that both ***** be given an opportunity to present their case, relying on ******* v. Girko(2021) LPELR 54953 CA;, ***** v. State of Ekiti,(2020)LPELR 51162 CA and Akinola v. Awhapuye(2016) LPELR 45499CA. He submitted that evidence elicited under cross-examination constitutes **** evidence **** ***** the court can legitimately act, relying on African ***** Ltd v. Adegeye (2019)2 NWLR ** 1656) and MTN (Nig.) Ltd v. Corporate Comm. Inv. Ltd(2019) 9 NWLR ** 1678)427 SC. Counsel contended **** the 2nd ********* acted ** good faith ***** on the mandatory monthly returns *** supporting disciplinary report submitted ** the 1st Defendant in accordance **** the *********** ********** for Blacklisting, and that the 2** ********* *** satisfied that due ******* was followed.
14. On Issue 2: If the submission of the Claimant’s name to the 2** Defendant is wrongful, is *** Claimant ******** ** an apology and damages
15. Learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant is not ******** to an order of ********* or *** ********* ******* against the 2nd Defendant. He referred to Clause 10.0 of the Operational ********** for Blacklisting, ***** ******** that a *********** ****** can only ** delisted upon the CBN's issuance of a Delisting Order ********** upon a Court's Order, or a ******* from the ********* institution ********* the CBN's concurrence to a motion for reconsideration. Counsel argued that ******* the Claimant failed to prove that his referral was wrongful or that *** right ** a fair hearing was breached, there is no ***** basis *** *** court to order his delisting. He ********* that where the main ***** fails, *** ***** connected *** ancillary reliefs must fail. 
16. Counsel further argued **** *** 2nd Defendant's evidence regarding regulatory compliance and the receipt ** regular returns was unchallenged *** **** be accepted as proof by the court, ******* on Bronwen Energy Trading Co. Ltd v. Oan Overseas Agency(2022) LPELR 57307 SC;, ******** v. Oshunkeye,(2007) LPELR 2355SC.

 CLAIMANT'S FINAL WRITTEN ADRESS

33. 2 issues were raised for determination 

 1. Whether or *** *** 1st Defendant rightly submitted *** Claimant’s name to *** 2nd ********* for blacklisting.

*** ********* that *** core ***** ** ******* the Claimant was properly *** lawfully *********** by the *** ********* in **** with the ******* Bank ** Nigeria (CBN) Operational Guidelines for Blacklisting (Exhibit C8/2D5) and the ***** of natural justice.

34. The submissions on this issue ***  under **** key legal pillars:

i)The Statutory Framework *** Conditions for Blacklisting,***** ******* 48(4) of the ***** and Other Financial Institutions *** (BOFIA) Cap B3, LFN 2004 and ********* 4.0 of the *** Guidelines (******* C8), blacklisting is a ****** ********* penalty ******** strictly for ********* who have **** terminated or dismissed ** the ******* of: Fraud; Acts ** dishonesty; or Conviction. Which is not an omnibus punishment for ***** administrative infractions.

ii). Failure ** ***** and Prove Fraud. *** argued that *** ***** Standard ***** ******** law, where ***** is alleged in civil proceedings, it must ** ************ pleaded *** proved beyond reasonable ***** -Unity Bank v. *********** (2017) LPELR-43244(CA); Fabunmi v. **** (1985) 1 **** (Pt. 2) 299. He submitted that Fraud cannot be inferred *** Abdulrahman v. Oduneye (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1170) 220). ** emphasized that the 1st Defendant ****** ** prove **** the Claimant committed or facilitated fraud. The fraudulent transactions **** executed using the ID of another ***** member (Stephanie Igbanoi). The sole ********** against *** Claimant—**** a colleague (Emmanuella Agbu) shared her password with him—was ********** denied by the Claimant and retracted by the colleague ****** the ************ committee. The 1st Defendant's ***** Executive Committee Report (Exhibit D4), which ratified the disciplinary proceedings, did not find *** Claimant guilty of fraud.

iii) He argued that the 1st Defendant reported the ******* fraud to the **** but ********* to blacklist *** Claimant without ******** *** outcome ** the investigation. ******* on NBC v. Ekpo (2020) LPELR-51997(CA), once ** ******** ****** to report ** employee to a law enforcement agency for criminal investigation, ** is duty-***** ** await *** outcome of the ************* ** prosecution ****** ****** adverse disciplinary action. *** EFCC *** *** indict or ****** *** Claimant.

4. That there *** a Denial of **** Hearing, *** Guidelines mandates a strict fair hearing procedure. The financial institution must notify *** employee in writing of the blacklisting complaint filed against them; The specific grounds and consequences ** blacklisting; *** The *********** to present documentary ** ****** ********* in defence. The ******** was ***** given written ****** of *** blacklisting complaint. He *** ****** verbally conscripted **** his desk to face ** internal audit panel *** a disciplinary committee. He ********* that Under Nigerian law, the mere appearance ** an employee before a panel **** *** satisfy the requirement of fair hearing if *** ******** was *** pre-******** ** ******* of *** specific allegations and consequences-*** Plc v. Oranuba (2013) LPELR-20692(CA).

5. LCC submitted that under ********* 4.0 of *** CBN Guidelines, ************ strictly ******* **** to persons who **** been "********** or dismissed". In the ******* case, *** ******** voluntarily ******** his employment, and *** *********** was ******** by his ******** (Vic Lawrence Nigeria Limited). Since the Claimant was neither dismissed nor terminated, the condition ********* for blacklisting was never ********* (Ibama v. ***** Petroleum Company of ******* Ltd (2012) NILR 75).

35. On ***** 2, The Claimant seeks ******* ******* of N100,000,000.** (One Hundred Million Naira) for the ********** of his career and the loss of *** livelihood.

36. LCC submitted that there was Proof ** Harm, following his *********** from the ******* of the 1st Defendant's agent, *** Claimant ******* new employment with Network International Payment ******** Limited at a ******* salary of N450,000.** **** benefits (Exhibit C3). This employment was terminated solely due to the 1st Defendant's wrongful blacklisting. Therefore he is entitled ** general ******* at *** court's ********** to assuage losses that **** naturally from the defendant’s wrongful act. **** **** not be ************ ******* or mathematically calculated see ******** v. Akaolisa [2022] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1848) 487; ******** ******** v. Otutuizu (2011) 4 **** (Pt. 1238) 512).

37. LCC submitted **** *** *** Defendant’s contention that the Claimant's claim must fail as it constitutes "********* damages" requiring proof of malice is legally misconceived. The claim ** for ******* ************ damages to remedy a ************ ***** wrong (******** Intl Ltd v. S.K Intl *** Ltd (2022) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1851) 471).

38. LCC argued **** *** 1^st ********* submission that the  ******** cannot ********* the blacklist ******* first ******* to set aside *** disciplinary report (******* D2). He submitted that   Exhibit D2 was ** internal document never communicated ** *** Claimant ***** to **** suit. ** employee is not legally required to challenge an *********** ******** report before suing for the wrongful ******* arising from it. 39. ** 1st Defendant’s ******** that *** ******** failed to prove *** name was ************* forwarded. *** Claimant argued that ** ************ proved the facts ****** his knowledge: his employment, his resignation, and *** fact of his blacklisting (which **** Defendants admit). Since the 1st ********* ******* that the blacklisting was justified by fraud, the burden of ******* that fraud ******** ***** on the 1st ********* he cited Unity Bank v. Oguntimehin).

40. LCC also argued that it is legally incorrect for *** Defendant to ****** that the ******** **** ***** obtain a delisting order against the 2nd Defendant (CBN) before seeking other reliefs against the 1st Defendant. Because the Claimant’s primary relief is an order ** **** Court directing the *** to delist him, which is ***** ****** *** court's ******** powers under Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution. Furthermore, under Order 13 Rule 4 ** the ******** Industrial ***** of Nigeria (NICN) Rules 2017, ** is procedurally proper to join both the ********** bank (1st Defendant) and *** listing ********* (2nd Defendant) ** a single action.

41. *** LCC rebutted ** 2nd defendant’s (CBN) ********** that *** Claimant ****** to prove he *** ************* blacklisted, ** ****** ****  *** Claimant cannot ** required ** ***** a ******** (i.e., **** he did not commit fraud). The **** lies ** the party asserting *** ********** ** the crime -Section 138 of *** ******** Act).

The LCC ******* argued that the 2** Defendant failed ** ****** with **** Hearing, *** **** that he answered questions before a panel contradicts *** CBN’s own guidelines. As *** creator of Exhibit C8, the CBN ****** ***** that informal, verbal *********** of an unprepared employee satisfies *** strict ******* pre-notification requirements of Paragraph 6.0 of *** Guidelines. *** ******** ***** the court to declare the blacklisting null and void.  

 

                                                COURT DECISION 

42. The first issue adopted for determination is ******* or not the 1st Defendant rightly ********* *** Claimant’s name ** the 2nd ********* *** ************ ***** the ******** ********** guidelines. 

43. In resolving this issue, **** Court must first address the *********** *********** objections ****** by the ******* during the trial, as the admissibility and proper ************* ** the exhibits are central to *** determination of the *********** dispute. The *** Defendant ******** to the admissibility of Exhibit D4, which is the Exco Minutes Appendix, on several grounds, ********* that it is unsigned, it is computer-generated without a *********** ** ********** under Section 84 of *** Evidence Act, 2011, *** ** was tendered through a previous witness statement on oath, Exhibit D3, which was *** ******** adopted by *** witness. 

44. In evaluating this objection, this Court looked at the reality of *** court file and the records *** noted that indeed, Exhibit D4 was originally listed and frontloaded by the *** Defendant in its own pleadings, meaning there is ** dispute as to its origin, *** it is ******** ** show the inconsistency ******* the Disciplinary Committee's initial report and *** Executive Committee's actual ratification.

45. ** the admissibility ** Exhibit D4, ** is trite that a Court is ******** to **** at a document ** its file ***** writing its judgment ** ruling despite the fact that the document was *** ******** *** admitted as an exhibit at *** trial." See ******* V Akande (2009) LPELR-2879(SC), **** ******** has **** consistently upheld and elaborated **** by *** ***** ** ****** see Shaba V Gara (2025) LPELR-82538(** ). *** underlying purpose for this principle, as highlighted ** **** "the Court ** designed to ** substantial ******* ******* the parties." *** Nigeria Engineering Works ***  V NCS **** (2023) LPELR-60620(CA); Akinola V ** ******** (2004) LPELR-10898(CA); ***** V Mandan (2021) LPELR-56146(CA). 

46. A party who *** pleaded, frontloaded, and relied on a document in their own processes ****** subsequently object to *** ************* or rely on the absence of a ********* to ****** it, as the court will not allow a party to benefit **** its own ********* omissions or ****** ********* ** *** adversary. This principle of estoppel *** waiver ** ****** rooted in *** decisions ** the appellate courts in Ajide v. Kelani (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt. 12) 248 and **** Nigeria Ltd. v. Sterling Bank Plc (2016) LPELR-40566(CA). 

48.  Furthermore, the ********* **** Exhibit D4 lacks ************* under Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011 is ********* because the document was ******** from the custody ** the **** itself, and *** **** ****** be heard ** ********* the integrity ** its own ******** ********** records, ** *********** ** Dickson v. Sylva (2017) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1567) 167. In all, this ***** shall also hinge on S. 12(2) of *** Act ***** gives procedural *********** to the NICN   to ensure that technical rules ** evidence do *** defeat substantial justice in ****** and ********** disputes see Victor Adegboye V UBA(2022) LPELR 58778 CA. Consequently, the 1st Defendant's objection to ******* D4 ** overruled, and the document ** ******** ******** *** **** be considered ** this judgment.

49. Conversely, *** ******** objected to the admissibility ** Exhibit 2D6, which ** the Return ** Notification ** dismissed or terminated staff for ***** 2021, ******** through the 2** Defendant's witness, DW2, ** the ****** that it *** neither listed nor frontloaded ** *** 2nd Defendant's pleadings. A search ** the record reveals that ******* 2D6 was ****** ******* from *** 2nd Defendant's *********** processes, ** clear violation of ***** 15 **** 1 ** *** ******** Industrial Court of ******* Rules, 2017, which ******** mandates that *** documents intended to be relied **** at trial must be listed and frontloaded. To allow *** 2nd ********* to ****** such a document on the Claimant mid-trial without prior notice would amount ** a ****** of a **** trial and an unfair surprise. 

50. On *** ************* ** Exhibit 2D6, the *** requires strict ********* to the rules ** court, and on the ******** ****** this Court, that requirement ** not met ******* the document was completely omitted **** the 2nd Defendant's frontloaded processes. ***** of court *** made to be obeyed and are not mere academic exercises, as emphasized in Obi v. INEC (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1046) 565 *** Solanke v. Somefun (1974) 1 *** NLR 141. Therefore, *** Claimant's objection is sustained; ******* 2D6 is hereby rejected *** ******** from the record ** this Court.

51. Having disposed of these preliminary *********** matters, **** ***** **** *** address *** allocation of the burden ** proof as it relates to the substance of *** dispute. In civil proceedings, the burden of proof ***** ** the party who ************* asserts the affirmative of ** issue, and this burden is discharged on a preponderance ** evidence and *** balance of ************* as enacted under Sections 131, 133, and 134 ** the Evidence Act, 2011.

However, ***** a civil claim is founded ** ** allegation ** crime, **** as the ********** of fraud or dishonesty, S.135 of the ******** Act, 2*** mandates **** such criminal allegation must be ****** strictly beyond reasonable doubt. 

52. ** the ******* case, while the ******** bears the ******* burden ** ******* that ** *** ************* blacklisted *** that his constitutional and ********** rights to a fair hearing **** breached, the 1st Defendant, ****** asserted in *** pleadings that the Claimant perpetrated, connived in, or facilitated a ***** of ***** ******* and twenty-seven million Naira through password compromise, ***** *** burden of ************ ***** specific **** of fraud and ********** beyond reasonable doubt. This ***** **** therefore examine whether the parties have *** credible, cogent, and ********** ******** ** discharge their ********** burdens.

53. In ***** ** his case, the Claimant, Tayo **** Oshin, testified ** CW1. ** adopted his written statements ** oath wherein ** asserted that he ***** perpetrated any fraud, *** never accused ** found guilty of fraud ** *** *** Defendant ** *** security agency, *** that his personal password *** never used or compromised to facilitate *** fraud. CW1 testified that "I alongside some other employees of the 1st Defendant were ******* for questioning by the Economic and Financial ****** ********** ('EFCC'). I was questioned *** ** phone was seized for over a month. It was later returned ** me and since **** I have not heard anything regarding the allegation from the EFCC." 

54. Regarding *** disciplinary panels, CW1 testified **** "I attended *** ****** set ** by the *** Defendant to *********** *** ******* fraud, I *** not ******** invited, I *** never given notice that a complaint of ************ has been **** against me. I was ********* summoned into the sessions ** *** panels on *** occasions, ** I *** never given any *********** to prepare for a defense ***** no formal ********** *** ************ to me." 

55. ** support of his testimony, CW1 tendered ******* documents. Exhibit C1 ** *** Letter of ********** and Deployment dated ******* 10, 2017, proving his employment by Vic Lawrence *** Associates Limited and deployment ** *** 1st Defendant. ******* C2 is his Letter of *********** **** Vic Lawrence and Associates Limited, proving he ******** voluntarily. Exhibit C3 ** ** Offer Letter ***** November 2, 2022, **** Network ************* ******** Services Nigeria ******* offering *** a job. ******* C4 is a ****** ****** "Failed Background Check" dated February 21, 2023, **** Network International Payments ******** Nigeria Limited, which ****** that *** employment *** terminated ******* of a failed background check showing he had been blacklisted. ******* C5 *** Exhibit C6 *** his appeals to the 1st Defendant, *** Exhibit C7 is the 1st Defendant's reply. Exhibit C8, ***** ** ********* to the 2nd Defendant's Exhibit 2D5, is the CBN's "Review of *********** Guidelines *** Blacklisting." 

56. *** ***** noted that Exhibit C8 states that "The Blacklisted Person ** anyone who *** **** terminated ** dismissed strictly as a result of: Fraud, Act of dishonesty, Conviction." 

57. It further outlines *** fair ******* process, requiring that *** ********* institution notify *** staff in writing that a complaint *** ************ has been filed, stating *** grounds and consequences, *** ***** the staff to present testimony, **** the final ******** communicated ** *** staff in writing. 

58. Under cross-examination, CW1 admitted that he appeared before the Disciplinary Committee *** clarified that "I was asked only *** question and that could not have ***** me *** opportunity to express myself."

59. To counter the Claimant's case, the 1st ********* called its sole witness, **** Animashaun, who testified ** DW1. *** adopted his ******* ********* ** oath wherein he ******** that the Claimant acted in concert with other ******** in a ******* password compromise **** *********** the fraud. *** ********* that "the ******** was well aware that the compromise ** *** ******** ******** in the fraud perpetrated ******* the 1st Defendant and that the ********* of his name in the ********* is a foreseeable *********** ** his action ** line **** *** procedure **** **** by the Operational Guidelines for Blacklisting issued by the 2nd Defendant." 

60. DW1 ******** Exhibit D1, which ** *** *** Defendant's **** of *** *********** Guidelines, and Exhibit D2, ***** is the Disciplinary Committee Report. 

Exhibit D2 states in its ******** regarding *** Claimant: "Wale denied Emmanuella’s assertion at **** ************* that *** gave him her password. He stated **** ** ***** shared or collected passwords **** anyone but ************ that ********** sometimes uses her *** ** details on his system to enable him decline transactions. His ********* conflicts with Emmanuella’s." 

 

61. Under cross-examination, *** admitted that the system ID used ** access *** bank's system *** perpetrate the fraud did not belong to the Claimant, *** to another officer in *** Card Operations Unit. Specifically, *** ******** under cross-*********** that "*** ID which was **** for access was an officer in the Card ********* unit *** was supposedly on leave at that time" and confirmed that "**** ******* is ********* Igbanoi." 

62. *** ***** noted that DW1 further ******** under cross-examination **** the sole basis of *** *** Defendant's allegation against the Claimant was a retracted statement by another staff, Emmanuella Agbu. DW1 admitted that "At the EFCC, *** said *** ****** her password with her team including the Claimant. However, ** the ************ Committee she retracted **** she did not ***** *** password." 

63. DW1 also admitted ***** cross-*********** **** *** 1st Defendant's ********* Committee considered the ************ Committee report, and this consideration was captured in ******* D4, which was tendered through DW1.  

64. ******* D4, the EXCO Minutes Appendix, contains the same remarks regarding *** Claimant but lists his recommendation as "****** to employer *** ******** with **** Investigation," ******* ********** no finding ** indictment ** "fraud/********* fraud" against *** name, unlike ******* D2.

65. The 2nd Defendant called its **** witness, ****** Saidu Audu, who ********* as DW2. DW2 adopted his witness statement ** oath and testified that the 2** Defendant blacklisted the ******** in reliance on *** ******* ******* and reports submitted by the 1st Defendant. 

66. Under cross-examination, DW2 admitted that "*** 2nd Defendant blacklists **** receiving the ******* ****** forwarded ** it by the 1st Defendant together with a declaration from the Bank **** it followed *** ******* before ******** ** *** decision ** prescribed ** *** guidelines." DW2 tendered ******* 2D5, which ** the ****** of Operational Guidelines for Blacklisting.

67. A direct confrontation of the competing evidence reveals deep *** irreconcilable conflicts, which must ** resolved by this Court. ** the ******** issue ** ******* *** Claimant ********* or facilitated fraud, DW1's ********* **** the Claimant's ******** was compromised and **** he connived to facilitate the fraud is ******** ************ by DW1's own admissions under cross-examination. 

DW1 ************* admitted **** the ***** was ******** committed ***** the personal ID of ********* Igbanoi, who was on leave, and *** the Claimant's ID. 

Furthermore, DW1 ******** that ********** Agbu ********* her assertion that *** shared her password with the Claimant. This ********** is corroborated ** Exhibit D2 itself, ***** records that the Claimant ****** receiving the password and that Emmanuella retracted the allegation. Therefore, the 1st Defendant's allegation ** fraud rests ** absolutely nothing *** a retracted ********* *** a theory of password sharing, which does not even ******* the ******** that was **** to perpetrate the fraud. 

 

68. In *** process of evaluating these exhibits, this court *** ******** *** *** Defendant did not call Stephanie Igbanoi, the officer ***** ID *** actually used ** ****** *** system, nor did **** **** Emmanuella Agbu ** ******* ****** this Court. While *** law **** not ****** an obligation ** call every possible witness, where a party's case relies ******** ** ** allegation ** crime that has **** retracted by *** key ******* during *** internal disciplinary process, the failure to call that vital ******* to give direct, tested **** testimony ****** this Court creates a ***** gap. 

69. It must be noted that ** uncontroverted denial ** the Claimant ***** oath ******* *** superior to a retracted, uncross-******** statement. This Court finds CW1's denial of fraud *** password ********** highly credible and ********** with *** documentary evidence, while DW1's ********* ** contradictory, speculative, and ********** ****** to **** the standard ** proof beyond ********** doubt ******** for *********** of ***** under Section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011. , "** the ********** of a ***** by a party to any ********** is ******** in issue ** any civil or criminal proceeding, ** **** ** proved beyond reasonable doubt." The 1st Defendant bears *** heavy burden of ************ this allegation of fraud to **** high standard, *** it ****** **** ** **** suspicion, speculation, or shifting narratives-see S. 135(1) Evidence Act; ******** V Joseph (2008) 13 **** ** 1104 307. In addition, the blacklisting was done while the EFCC investigation was ***** on going, as collaborated in the recommendation ** the **** that ******** should be ******** to *** ******** ***** EFCC ********* **** its investigation. In otherwords the blacklisting *** **** precipitously ***** forensic *** **** ************** were still active and Inconclusive.   

70. On the ******** issue of fair hearing, the fair hearing procedure ******* in Exh C8 ** precise. ** requires **** *** financial institution notify the staff ****** in ******* *** a complaint for ************ has been filed against him, detailing the specific ******* *** consequences, and afford *** a full ***********  to present his defense, with the final ******** communicated to *** in ******* see S. 36(1) **** 1999; ***** V *** MAIDUGURI (1986)1 **** (Pt 18) 550. The *** Defendant's assertion that *** Claimant was afforded a **** hearing ******* he ******** *** panel is confronted by CW1's evidence that ** *** never formally invited, was never ******** of any ************ complaint, and was ****** *********** **** his desk to answer questions. **** court shall resolve **** conflict by ********* to the strict provisions of Exhibit C8 and ******* 2D5. 

71. *** guidelines lay down a mandatory (4) four-**** **** hearing procedure, which includes first, notifying the ***** in ******* that a complaint for blacklisting has been filed against him, detailing the ******** grounds and consequences; second, allowing him to ******* a defense; third, conducting ** impartial hearing; *** fourth, communicating *** final decision to him in writing. 

72. *** evidence shows **** the 1^st ********* completely bye ****** these safeguards. *** ********* that ‘ I ******** the ****** set up by the 1^st ********* ** *********** the alleged fraud, I was *** formally invited, I *** never given notice that a complaint of blacklisting has been made ******* me. I *** summarily summoned into the ******** ** the panels on two occasions, ** I was never given ** opportunity ** prepare for a ******* ***** no formal ********** was communicated to me”. ***** cross examination, *** admitted that ** ******** before the panel but clarified **** “ I *** ***** **** one question and **** ***** *** **** given ***** *********** ** express myself”. 

73. The *** ********* did not produce *** written notice, invite, or query sent to *** Claimant ********* blacklisting, nor did it show that the ***** decision was ever ************ ** him. Indeed inviting an employee from his desk or **** station to a panel to ****** a single question, ** ******** by the Claimant, does not satisfy *** requirements of ******* ******* ** the specific ********** safeguards mandated by the CBN. This Court finds that *** 1st Defendant's failure ** follow its own regulatory guidelines constitutes a flagrant ****** of the Claimant's right to a **** hearing as guaranteed ***** Section 36(1) of *** Constitution of *** Federal Republic ** Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). 

74. ** satisfy *** constitutional and regulatory standard of a fair hearing, a party must be given ******** ****** of the specific allegations against *** and a reasonable opportunity to prepare and present his defense. 

This ***** is convinced to reject the 1^st &2^nd Defendant contention that the **** physical ******** of the ******** at *** panel satisfied the requirement of a fair hearing. To satisfy the ************** and regulatory ******** of a fair hearing, a party must be given ******** notice of the specific allegations ******* *** and a reasonable opportunity ** ******* *** present his defense. 

From *** ******* ****** this ***** which was never rebutted, he was ******* from his desk to ****** before an ******* panel session, ** answer a single question, at **** panel, it was never disclosed ** him **** his name *** ***** considered for a career-ending blacklist register, **** to the mind ** this court ** a sarcasm of natural justice and falls short of ********** fairness.            

75. There is **** a ******** inconsistency and gap ****** the 1st Defendant's own evidence. ** *** ******* statement of defence and DW1's deposition, the *** ********* pleaded that *** Claimant's password *** compromised. Yet, the Disciplinary Committee Report, ******* D2, ******** no such finding, but rather ******* on an allegation that Emmanuella Agbu ****** *** ******** with him. ** worsen *** contradiction, ******* D4, ***** ********** the ********* Committee's (EXCO) consideration *** ************ of the Disciplinary Committee's report, ***** **** the EXCO did *** **** the Claimant guilty of *** fraud, but simply *********** that he be returned ** *** ******** and **** the EFCC ************* should continue. 

76. **** is a ******* *** in the 1st Defendant's case. ** the EXCO of the **** did not **** the Claimant guilty of fraud, *** merely ******** *** to his ******** pending **** investigations, ***** was absolutely no ***** or ******* basis for the 1st ********* to ******* *** name ** the 2nd ********* for blacklisting as a "terminated, dismissed, or convicted" staff on *** grounds ** fraud. This inconsistency directly supports the Claimant's contention that his ************ was whimsical, hasty, and unjustified.

77. Furthermore, the court ***** that the Guidelines in Exhibit C8 *** Exhibit 2D5 ******** limit the blacklisting of *********** to those who have been ********** or ********* strictly ** a ****** of fraud, dishonesty, or conviction. The Claimant was ***** a permanent ******** ** the 1st Defendant; ** was an employee of Vic Lawrence and ********** ******* *** *** ****** ******** to the 1st Defendant, ** ********* by Exhibit C1. Following the ************ investigations, the Claimant voluntarily ******** **** his employment with *** Lawrence and Associates ******* on ***** 9, 2021, ** conclusively ****** by Exhibit C2, which ** his Letter of Resignation. He was neither terminated *** dismissed by his direct employer, nor *** he terminated ** ********* by *** *** Defendant. By forwarding the **** of an employee *** voluntarily resigned, the *** Defendant ***** in flagrant disregard of the clear boundaries of ******* C8. ** employer cannot ********* an ******** who has ******** ******* any subsisting indictment of ***** ratified ** its management. The failure of this ******* ********* ********* renders the entire blacklisting ******* ************ invalid from its inception, as a court of law **** *** ***** an administrative action to ***** when a statutory condition precedent has **** bypassed, in line **** *** classic authority of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All *** 587. The 1st Defendant's defense of regulatory compliance is untenable. 

78. *** the ******** before *** court is whether the 2nd Defendant's ******* **** ** acted in good ***** is a bar to the Claimant's relief. Good faith on the **** of *** regulator ****** cure a fundamentally void, wrongful *** unconstitutional act of the ********** bank. **** the foundation of *** ************ is ***** to be non-existent—specifically that the ******** resigned and *** never dismissed ** terminated *** fraud—the entire administrative edifice of the blacklist collapses. The *** does *** permit an illegal act to stand merely because the regulator ***** in **** faith on false returns. Indeed, ****** 10.0 ** the Operational Guidelines in Exhibit 2D5 expressly ********** **** a *********** person can be delisted upon a Court's Order. This Court ****** ***** the ************ ** be wrongful and illegal, *** 2nd Defendant has a statutory and regulatory duty to *********** ******* the Claimant's name from its blacklist register. I ** find and hold.

79. **** ***** must also address *** 1st Defendant's highly technical argument **** because the ******** did not ************ seek a relief to set aside *** internal Disciplinary ********* Report, Exhibit D2, **** ***** lacks jurisdiction to ***** reliefs ******* the blacklist. 

80. A ***** ** not ******** to challenge an internal, uncommunicated, and *********** disciplinary ****** before ******* a ****** for a subsequent, distinct, and ****** ****** wrongful act—such ** blacklisting. *** ***** ** ****** arose when the Claimant’s ********** ***** with ******* International Payments Services ******* Limited *** terminated on ******** 21, 2023, ** proven by ******* C4, *** to the failed background check, *** **** the internal panel finished *** secret sessions. This argument is ********* a ******** legal non sequitur.

81. *** blacklist is the injury; the report is merely part ** the background. ** hold **** ** employee must first seek to set aside ***** internal report of an employer before *********** a ******** ****** registry listing would ** to erect ** artificial, non-existent barrier to justice. Consequently, this Court finds that *** 1st Defendant ********** failed to prove *** *** of ***** ** ********** against *** Claimant, failed to comply **** the ********* condition precedent ** termination ** dismissal, and flagrantly breached the fair hearing ********** of the Operational Guidelines. The submission of *** Claimant’s name to the 2nd Defendant for blacklisting was ******** wrongful, illegal, and unjustified. ** the first issue, I **** in favor of the Claimant. I so hold. 

82. The second issue for determination is whether, having ***** that the ********** of *** Claimant's name was wrongful, ** *** Claimant entitled to an apology, damages, *** ** order of delisting **** the blacklist. It ** a fundamental maxim of equity and law that where there is a wrong, there must be a remedy—*** *** ibi remedium, as established ** the ******** case of Bello v. Attorney-******* of Oyo State (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 45) 828. The ******** inclusion of the Claimant's name ** *** 2** Defendant's blacklist register is not a ******* administrative error; ** ** a permanent professional stagnation. 

83. *** ********* register ** the Central Bank of Nigeria is ******** to exclude individuals of questionable character from employment within the ****** financial and banking sector of the country. To ********** place an   young professional's name on such a register is to *********** destroy *** reputation, stagnate *** career, and ******* him ** his livelihood.

84. *** devastating ****** ** this wrongful act is ***** established by the evidence. *** Claimant proved that he secured an employment offer with Network ************* Payments Services Nigeria ******* on November 2, 2022, **** a monthly salary of ?450,000.00, as evidenced by ******* C3. However, on ******** 21, 2023, **** employment *** abruptly terminated. ******* C4, which ** *** letter titled "Failed ********** Check," states in ***** terms that his ********** was terminated ****** because of a ****** ********** check ******* **** *** **** was on the CBN 2nd Defendant's blacklist register.

85. The 1st Defendant's contention that *** ******** is not entitled to damages because the bank acted ** good faith ** protect the ********* ****** is untenable. A party cannot hide ***** the cloak of good ***** **** *** ******* are characterized by ***** procedural irregularities, a total failure to investigate, and a reckless disregard for *** rights ** ** employee. The **** of good faith or ********** ********** cannot validate an ************** action carried out in gross violation of procedural natural justice or ***** the ****** completely lacks factual basis.

86. The bank suffered a fraud of ?827,000,000.00, which is ****** a serious matter, but **** *** give it a ******* ** incriminate an ******* whose password *** never **** *** against whom *** *** ********* Committee found no guilt. The ****** suffered by *** Claimant—the **** ** his job, *** *********** of his career prospects, and *** severe psychological trauma of being branded a fraudster—***** directly and naturally from *** *** Defendant’s ******** *** ******** submission of his name ** the 2nd Defendant.

87. In the circumstances, the ******** is ***** entitled ** general damages to compensate him for *** severe injury to his reputation and career. General damages are such ** *** *** will ******* ** ** the direct, natural, ** probable consequence ** the act ********** of, and their ********** is within the sound discretion ** the court, as guided by *** decisions in UBN *** v. Alhaji Adams Ajabule (2011) 18 **** (Pt. 1278) 152.

88. Having ****** to the loss of his employment ***** he ****** ?450,000.00 monthly, the career ********** ** over two years, and the ******** ****** to his professional reputation, **** Court ******** and awards general damages in the sum of ?20,000,000.00 ******* the 1st Defendant. 

89. Furthermore, because the wrongful blacklisting has severely ********* the Claimant's standing in *** financial industry, a monetary award ***** is insufficient to ***** restore his character. *** Claimant is entitled to a written apology from the 1st Defendant to assuage the ****** ** his reputation. On *** second issue, I **** in favor of *** Claimant.

90. ** conclusion, the court makes the following *** ********** findings on the issues. First, the 1st Defendant failed to prove any act of fraud, dishonesty, or password ********** ******* the Claimant, *** the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt *** not met, *** C4  *** 1st Defendant's ******** EXCO report (******* D4) did not indict the Claimant.

Second, *** 1st Defendant failed to afford the ******** a fair ******* as mandated by common law and the explicit provisions of the Central Bank of Nigeria Guidelines. 

Third, the mandatory ********* ********* for blacklisting—**** the person **** **** been dismissed or terminated for fraud—was completely absent, as the ******** voluntarily resigned his employment. Fourth, the wrongful and unjustified blacklisting directly ****** *** termination ** the Claimant's new ********** with Network International Payments ******** Nigeria Limited, ** ****** by ******* C4, resulting in severe career stagnation and financial loss.  

91. Overall, these findings are carried forward, judgment is entered *** the Claimant, and the Court makes the following orders:

1. It ** ****** declared **** *** 1st Defendant's submission of the Claimant's name to the 2nd Defendant for inclusion in its blacklist register was wrongful, illegal, *** a flagrant ********* of *** Central **** ** Nigeria's Review of Operational ********** for Blacklisting and *** Claimant's right to a fair hearing.
2. The 2** Defendant is hereby ordered and directed to immediately delist the name of the Claimant, **** Wale Oshin, from its ******** ** Terminated, Dismissed, or convicted ***** ** banks and Other ********* Institutions on the grounds of Fraud and dishonesty otherwise called the  blacklist.
3. *** 1st Defendant is ordered ** *********  ** writing to the Claimant for ************* ********** his name to the 2^nd defendant to be included ** the ******** of “Terminated, Dismissed, or convicted ***** ** banks and Other Financial Institutions on the ******* ** Fraud and dishonesty”. within thirty (30) days from the date of this judgment.
4. ******* damages in the *** of ?20,000,000.00 (twenty  Million Naira) *** hereby awarded against the 1st ********* and in favor ** the Claimant for the ******** blacklisting, **** ** employment, and ****** ** his professional reputation.
5. The Defendant shall comply with the orders of this Court ****** 30 days from today, failing which *** entire ******** sum shall ******* simple interest at *** rate ** 10% per annum from *** **** of this judgement until ** ** ***** liquidated.
6. ******** is ******* accordingly.

  

  HON. JUSTICE JOYCE . A.  O.   DAMACHI

                      JUDGE 

 

 

Appearances            

O. C. Olagunju  *** --- For Claimant 

C. Maduneme Esq --For 1^st Defendant  

A. G. Abubakar…..*** 2^nd Defendant