BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

IN THE NATIONAL ********** COURT ** NIGERIA

** *** LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

****** AT LAGOS

SUIT ** NICN/LA/512/2019

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON. ******* (DR.) I. J. ESSIEN 

 DATE:21st July 2026

 

BETWEEN

OLADIPO OLUSOLA OSHODI                                    Claimant                                                                                         

AND 

******* **** LIMITED                                        Defendant

 

JUDGMENT

 

INTRODUCTION

*** Claimant, Oladipo Olusola Oshodi, and the Defendant, Polaris Bank Limited (formerly Skye Bank Plc), stood in the relationship of employee *** employer. *** Claimant was employed as a Business Development Manager ** *** ********* on *** 1st day of January, 2006, *** rose through the ***** to the ******** of Group Head, Victoria Island Region, by 2018. The ********* ** a commercial bank licensed *** regulated under the laws ** the ******* Republic of Nigeria.

 

The pre-litigation events that gave rise to **** **** centre on the ************ of a dormant account belonging to TOF Energy Limited at the Defendant's ****** ******** Branch in ****** 2018. Between 17th ****** *** 6** September, 2018, the account received a total of *** 4,920,305.00 from the United ****** of America, a substantial portion ** which was withdrawn ****** the sending bank, Fifth Third Bank ** Michigan, issued a recall notification ****** ******** theft and fraud. The Defendant's Internal Audit Department, by emails ***** 11th *** 16th October, 2018, requested the Claimant ** explain *** **** in the transactions. The Claimant ********* by email on 16th October, 2018. *** Defendant ********** constituted a ************ Committee, before which the ******** appeared *** made representations. *** ************ Committee, by its ****** tendered as Exhibit D3, recommended the dismissal ** the Claimant. The Claimant, on the 15th day of January, 2019, submitted a letter ** *********** *********** relying on his accumulated unused leave **** as the period of notice. The Defendant, by its letter dated 17** January, 2019, communicated the ********* of the Claimant, ****** grounds including ******** ** parallel banking activities, acceptance of brokerage *** commission, facilitation of ******* *** unauthorised foreign exchange trading, money laundering, and other transactions in violation of statutory and ********** provisions. The Defendant **** rejected the Claimant's *********** by a letter tendered as ******* C9. The Claimant appealed the dismissal decision on ******** occasions, and *** Defendant *********** an Appeal ********* which ****** the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee. The ******** further alleged **** his ********* caused *** to **** a prospective *********** as ********* Director ** Unity Bank and resulted ** his **** being blacklisted **** the ******* **** of ******* as a dismissed bank employee.

 

*** ******** commenced this action by filing a Complaint ***** and filed on the 9th day ** October, 2019, before *** National Industrial ***** of Nigeria, Lagos Judicial Division, in Suit No. NICN/LA/512/2019. By **** Complaint, the Claimant sought, ***** other reliefs:

  1. A Declaration that the ********* dismissal of *** ******** **** the employment of *** Defendant as contained in the Defendant’s letter dated 17th *** ** January 2019 ***** *** Claimant *** determined his ********** via his resignation letter dated 15th day ** January, 2019 is unwarranted, illegal, unconstitutional, **** *** void.
  2. A *********** that the Claimant’s employment has been determined ** *** resignation letter dated 15th ******* 2019 in accordance with *** terms of ********** and **** the ********* has no power ********** to reject his resignation.
  3. A *********** that the letter of ********* of the Claimant employment dated 17th day of January 2019 is a violation of the Claimant’s ***** ** fair hearing and therefore wrongful, null and void.  
  4. An order directing the Defendant ** pay the Claimant all his allowances and emolument *** from the date of *** resignation letter.
  5. ** ***** directing *** Defendant to pay the ******** all his ********** and emolument *** from the date of *** *********** letter.
  6. ** Order Directing the ********* to take steps and write to Central Bank ** Nigeria (CBN) ** de-blacklist the Claimant’s **** ** a dismissed bank employee.
  7. The sum of N14,437,500 (Fourteen Million, **** Hundred and ****** Seven thousand and **** Hundred Naira) as Special Damages *** lost of earning from February, 2019 until the **** ** determined.
  8. The sum of N5,500,000) (Five Million and Five Hundred Thousand Naira)   as general damages for *** wrongful dismissal of *** Claimant in the Defendant’s employment.
  9. *** *** of N3,000,000 (***** ******* Naira)   being the professional fees already **** to the Legal Practitioner handling this **** ** behalf of the Claimants.   

 

*** ******** filed a ********* of Facts ******** with frontloaded documents and a ******* ********** ** support ** his claim. Upon being served with the originating process, the Defendant filed an ******* Statement of Defence and Counter-***** on the 15th day of July, 2021, ***** *** further amended ** order ** ***** **** on the 6** day of March, 2024, *** filed on *** 11th day of March, 2024. By *** counter-claim, *** Defendant sought *** following reliefs 

  1. A declaration that the Claimant's purported resignation of 15th January, 2019 was ******* *** non-compliance **** the Defendant's Employee Handbook 2019 *** the Claimant's Offer of Employment ****** dated 21st September, 2018;
  2. An order setting aside the purported resignation; 
  3. The sum of N13,000,000.** being the ********* sum ** a **** advanced to the Claimant together with *** ******* ******** until the date of judgment; post-judgment interest at *** rate ** 25% *** annum until *** judgment debt was liquidated; *** costs of the action. The Claimant filed a reply ** the ******* statement ** defence and a defence to *** counter-claim ** the 4th day of November, 2024.

 

Hearing in this matter commenced on *** 28th day of January, 2026. The Claimant testified as CW1, adopted his two depositions, and tendered the following documents ** evidence: Offer of Employment (******* C1), ******* ** ********* (******** C2a and C2b), Letter ** Introduction (******* C3), ******* Bank Employee ******** (Exhibit C4), EFCC Invitation Letter (Exhibit C5), ****** ** Resignation (Exhibit C6), Letter of Dismissal (Exhibit C7), ****** ** Protest Against Wrongful Dismissal (Exhibit C8), Notification of Rejection of *********** (******* C9), Appeals Against Disciplinary ******** (Exhibits C10a, C10b, and C10c), Certified True Copy of the Federal High Court Ruling ** Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1586/2018 (Exhibit C11), ********* True **** of the Ruling ** the Michigan ******** ***** (Exhibit C12), USA ********** ** ******** ******** Document (Exhibit C13), *** Certified True **** of *** ***** ******* Police ************* Report (******* C14). *** ******** was cross-******** by defence counsel, and *** Claimant's case *** ********** closed. 

 

The Defendant ****** their defence ** *** 29th day ** January, 2026, calling Mr. **** Animashawun as DW1. The defence witness adopted *** ******* deposition *** tendered the following documents: Letter of Dismissal (Exhibit D1, also ******** by the ******** as ******* C7), Letter ** ******* Against Dismissal (Exhibit D2), Report *** ************** of the Disciplinary Committee (Exhibit D3), Defendant's Staff Disciplinary Policy (Exhibit D4), Appeal ******* Disciplinary Decision (Exhibit D5), Responses to Appeal (******** D6 *** D7), Email Documents (Exhibits D8a and D8b), and the Claimant's Statement of Account (Exhibit D9). The ******* witness was cross-examined by the Claimant's counsel and thereafter re-examined by defence counsel. The defence closed its case, and the matter was adjourned ** the 12th day ** May, 2026, for the adoption of ***** written addresses by ******* for *** parties, ***** **** duly adopted.

 

 

****** *** DETERMINATION

The ******** ** their final written ******* filed ** *** 6/5/2026 submitted four issues while the defendant in ***** final address submitted three issues for determination. A ********** of both sets of issues ******* **** the first issue of *** ********* and *** first issue ** the ******** are, ** substance, mirror images ** the same central question, namely ******* the *********** ** the 15th ******* 2019 was valid and effective so ** to preclude the subsequent dismissal of the 17th ******* 2019, *** whether the ********* was entitled to reject that resignation *** proceed to dismiss. The second issue ** both parties is identical ** substance, being the question of **** hearing under ******* 36 of the Constitution. The ***** issue of the defendant and *** ****** issue of the ******** **** address the defendant's entitlement to recover the loan of N13,000,*** by way of counter-claim. The claimant's ***** issue, which asks broadly ******* *** ******** is entitled ** *** reliefs sought, is not a discrete analytical question *** rather a consequential *** that ***** from *** resolution ** the first *** issues; ** is therefore subsumed ****** ***** issues and does *** require ******** formulation. ****** regard to the foregoing, the claimant's formulations more ********* capture the bilateral ****** of *** dispute, particularly in separately identifying the counter-***** as a ******** issue, and the defendant's formulations **** precisely frame *** ************** fair hearing question. The court adopts *** following ****** for determination:

 

1. Whether *** resignation of *** Claimant *** Exhibit C6 dated 15** January 2019 is valid and *********** a sufficient *** ********* ************* of *** employment, *** ******* *** Defendant was entitled to ****** same and proceed ** dismiss him by the letter ** 17th January 2019.

 

2. Whether the Claimant was ******** fair hearing in ********** with Section 36 of *** Constitution of the ******* ******** of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and the applicable provisions of the Defendant's ******** Handbook ****** his dismissal.

 

3.  ******* the claimant has been able to ***** *** entitlement to *** *** sum of N14,437,5** (Fourteen Million, Four Hundred and ****** ***** thousand and Five ******* Naira) as Special Damages for **** of earning **** February, 2019 until *** case is determined. 

 

4. Whether the claimant is entitled ** *** sum of   sum of N5,500,000) (**** Million and **** Hundred Thousand Naira)   ** general ******* for the ******** dismissal ** the Claimant ** *** Defendant’s employment. And the *** of N3,000,000 (Three Million Naira)  being the ************ fees already **** to the Legal ************ ******** this **** on ****** of *** Claimants.  

 

5. ******* the ********* is entitled ** ******* the outstanding sum of 
  N13,000,*** loan facility granted to the Claimant in *** course of his 
  employment.

 

********* ** COUNSEL

Learned Counsel ** the Claimant submitted as ******* ** *** issues formulated above.

 

Learned Counsel to the Claimant submitted that *** ************ between an employer and ** ******** *** ** brought ** an end by the resignation of *** employee, *** that there ** an ******** power to resign with ** discretion ** the ******** to refuse to accept a notice of resignation. Counsel ****** that *** ********* of a letter of resignation by an ******** automatically ends the employment on the effective date indicated in the resignation letter, and that ******* the employer ******* the resignation or not ******* irrelevant once *** letter is received, as the resignation becomes valid and effective upon receipt. ** support ** this proposition, Counsel relied ** the cases of WAEC v. Oshionebo (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 994) 248 at 272, Adefemi V. Abegunde [2004] 15 NWLR (Pt. 895) 1 ** 28, 

 

Learned ******* ** the ******** ********* that no ******** allegation of misconduct was made *** against *** Claimant in writing ** enable *** to prepare and present a proper defence. ******* argued that the Internal Audit ****** ** 11th and 15th October 2018 requesting explanation were *** queries raising allegations ** misconduct but were merely official communications to which *** ******** responded. ******* further ********* **** the ******** *** not ******* ** the ************ ********* as a ****** standing trial on any allegation but as a witness, *** that this was evidenced ** the fact that the Disciplinary Committee report, Exhibit D3, *** never signed by any prosecutor. Counsel argued that the ********* letter ** ********* ***** 17th ******* 2019, written by Taiwo Olupeka, Group Head, Human Capital Management, without the approval of the Group ******** Director and after *** Claimant had already ****** to be an ******** of *** Defendant ********* his resignation, *********** a violation ** the *********** policy as ********* in *** ******** Handbook, Exhibit C4. ******* ******* submitted **** the Claimant's ***** of appeal to *** Disciplinary Appeal Committee was ******** illusory because ** proper Appeal Committee was constituted for that purpose, and **** the ******* i.e ******** C10a and C10b showed **** the ********* Appeal ********* declined to consider *** appeal, with the decision being ************ by Taiwo Olupeka *** had also been a member of the original ************ Committee, thereby tainting the appellate process. Counsel argued that the dismissal ** *** ******* sector is akin to a death sentence ** the ******* industry, ** that only ** ******** *** *** not been dismissed ** a **** can take a new offer and ****** at ******* bank. ******* also submitted that the EFCC investigated the matter *** ***** ** ********** of ***** ** infraction ******* the Claimant, and that the ******* freezing order ** **** No. FHC/L/CS/1586/2018, ******* C11, *** set ***** and ****** *** by Justice I. N. Oweibo ** *** Federal **** Court, Lagos State on 16th January 2020, ********** that the allegations **** without foundation. Counsel further submitted **** *** alleged ******** investigation in the United States ** America was ********* on the application of *** Government's Prosecutor, and **** the documents from *** Department of Homeland Security and *** *********** of *** Michigan ******** Court, Exhibits C12 and C13, as well ** *** South ******* ****** ************* Report, Exhibit C14, showed that no criminal investigation was instituted against TOF ****** ******* or *** operator, **** Adelakun.

 

Learned Counsel ** the Claimant submitted that given *** invalidity ** the ********* and the violation of the Claimant's ***** to **** hearing, the ******** is entitled ** the ************ and ****** sought, including *** declaration that his ********** was ********** by *** *********** letter dated 15th January 2019, the ***** directing *** ********* to pay all ********** and emoluments due from the date of resignation, *** order directing *** Defendant to issue a certificate of service, the order directing the Defendant ** write ** the Central Bank ** ******* ** de-********* the Claimant's name, *** *** monetary reliefs claimed. Counsel ********* that the Claimant would have been earning the sum of N24,750,*** per annum as an Executive Director of Unity Bank, translating to a monthly salary of N2,062,500, and that the ******** ********* ******** him ** this income, forming *** basis of the special ******* claim of N14,437,500

 

******* ******* to the ******** submitted that the call for ********* of the **** of N13,000,*** is premature and that ***** ** ******* before the Court to show that the loan *** connected ** the Claimant's employment with the ********* in a manner **** would make ** immediately ********* upon the termination of employment. ******* further submitted that no documents ********** the loan were shown to the Court, and that *** counter-claim should therefore fail. Counsel however acknowledged, in the context of the counter-claim, **** the loan contract is embedded in the Defendant's Employee Handbook, which gives *** privilege ** ****** ***** of the ********* to ****** loans, and that *** Claimant ******* *** and was granted *** ******** ** *** basis of *** position as a senior staff member. Counsel ********* that this nexus between *** loan *** the contract ** employment ******* on **** Court *** requisite ************ ** **** and determine *** Defendant's counter-claim. In support ** the jurisdictional argument, ******* relied ** the case ** B.O. Lewis v. ****** Bank for Africa PLC (2016) LPELR-40661 (SC), ***** the ******* Court held that the ********* ** ********** and ******** loans between an ******** and his employer are *** distinct contracts ****** distinct ******* matters, **** their duration is not co-existent, and that the ***** to terminate the contract of employment by either party ****** ******* as a condition precedent ** *** repayment ** *** ******** loan or ******* thereof, and **** *** ********** ** repay **** *** ***** because ********** *** ended.

 

Learned Counsel to the Defendant submitted as ******* on the issues formulated above.:

Learned Counsel to the Defendant ********* **** a contract of employment, or even a contract with statutory flavour may be terminated in accordance with *** ***** of employment or in line with *** statute creating the employment, and **** an employer, under appropriate circumstances, *** terminate *** employment of an employee in circumstances contemplated by *** contract. ******* argued that the Defendant, in **** **** the principles of **** hearing, *** up a ************ Committee to investigate the Claimant's ******* infractions, and that the Claimant appeared before *** ********* and made ************* in defence ** the *********** ******* him. Counsel submitted that the ******** thereafter ******** his resignation *** a letter ***** 15** ******* 2019, with the clear intent to overreach *** eventual ******* of the ******** ** the Disciplinary Committee before whom he had already ******** and made representations. Counsel submitted that the purported *********** is invalid because ** did not ****** with the Defendant's Contract/Employee ******** 2019 *** *** ****** of Offer ** ********** ***** ********* 21, 2018, as the employee is required by the twin terms of *** ******** ******** *** the ****** ** Employment ** give a ******* ** one month's notice of ********* to resign in ******* to the employer, or to make ******* of a month's salary in lieu ** notice, as ****** ** Exhibit C1. In support of this submission, ******* relied on *** ***** ** Abdul v. ******** & Ors (2022) LPELR-56682 (CA) and Zubairu V. Mohammed (2009) LPELR (5124) 1 ** 6-7. Counsel further ****** that the Claimant cannot use *** unutilized leave days ** a substitute *** the ****** ****** because *** Defendant's leave policy, as ********* at page 26 of the ******** Handbook, Exhibit C4, stipulates that leave must be ******** within *** ******* ********* year, being 1st ******* ** 31st December, and that unutilized leave **** be forfeited *** is not transferable to *** **** year. Counsel submitted that as at the **** of the ********* resignation ** 15** January 2019, the Claimant was not due *** *** leave and *** *** **** any unutilized leave days from *** previous year. Counsel also argued that the *********** ** null and void because the Claimant *** ****** disciplinary proceedings at *** time. In support of this proposition, Counsel ****** on *** case ** University ** Calabar V. ****** Koko Bassey (2008) LPELR-8553 (CA), ***** *** Court of Appeal held that there is a common *** right to resign unless ***** is a ****** ** show **** *** ****** of the ****** ****** resign, *** **** suspension from service is **** a reason, and that where an ******** ******* a letter ** resignation on the ground **** it will pre-empt a panel's report, the employee ******* a staff ** the ******** until dismissed. Counsel ********* that **** *** ******** resigned ** ******* C6 and the ********* rejected the resignation in Exhibit C9, the ******** remained an ******** of the ********* until he was eventually dismissed.

 

Learned Counsel to the Defendant also submitted that the Defendant ****** ample ******** ****** *** Court ** **** **** the Claimant was given ******** opportunity ** put his ******* to *** allegations levelled ******* him. Counsel submitted **** the Defendant tendered *** emails of **** and 16th October 2018, admitted as Exhibit D8a, wherein the Claimant was ******** of the ****** ** *** allegations against him, and that the Claimant ********* to *** ***** by his email ** 16th October 2018, wherein ** ********* a reason *** his actions, ************* the Defendant to set up a Disciplinary Committee. ******* submitted that the ******** appeared before the ************ Committee, which thereafter ********* its report ** Exhibit D3, finding the ******** to have ******* in parallel banking activities, facilitation ** illegal/unauthorized FX trading, accepting ********* *** commission, and ***** infractions in violation ** statutory and ********** provisions. Counsel argued that *** Court need only be satisfied that the employee was given a **** ******* in *** determination of his case by being confronted with the allegations ******* him. In support of this submission, Counsel relied on *** case ** B.A. Imonikhe V. Unity **** Plc (2011) LPELR-1503 (SC), *** Olabode Rhodes-****** JSC, where the Supreme Court held that an accusation ** an employee ** ********** by *** of a query, and allowing the employee ** answer *** query ****** a decision is taken, satisfies the requirements of **** ******* or natural justice, *** **** the ********* ** that case *** given a fair ******* since he answered *** queries ****** he was dismissed. Counsel ******* relied on the case of Agomuo v. Fidelity **** Ltd. (2023) LPELR-60663 (CA), per Nimpar JCA, where the ***** of Appeal, citing the apex Court in University of Calabar v. Essien (1996) 10 NWLR (Pt. 477) 225, **** **** where an employer dismisses or terminates the appointment of an employee on grounds ** misconduct, *** **** the ******** ***** to establish ** ******* his action is to show **** the allegation was disclosed to *** employee, that he was given a fair hearing, **** *** ***** of ******* ******* **** not breached, and that the disciplinary panel followed the laid-down ********* and accepted that the employee committed the act after investigation. Counsel ********* that the Claimant was ***** the *********** to ****** himself ** respect of his gross ********** before ** *** eventually dismissed by *** ********* and ****** ********* be ***** to say that his right to fair ******* ********** under Section 36 of the Constitution was *** accorded ** him.

 

It is counsel further submission that *** Claimant ******* *** a ******** loan from the Defendant, ***** was ******* and ******** ** the ******** ***** in the employment ** the Defendant, and that *** Claimant *** failed and ******* to ***** the **** **** *** the accrued interest thereon. ******* argued that the Claimant's admission ** owing the Defendant ******** the Defendant to *** admitted outstanding ******* ** N13,000,000 (Thirteen Million Naira), *** ***** judgment should be entered in favour of the Defendant. In ******* of this submission, Counsel relied on the case of Western Publishing Company Ltd & Anor V. Dr. Kayode Fayemi (2017) 13 NWLR 218 at 298-299, where *** Court **** that a ********* can by ** in his pleading admit the entirety ** the plaintiff's **** or some part thereof, and that any aspect ** the plaintiff's case admitted by *** ********* in *** pleading requires no ******* proof, such that viva voce ******** is not necessary to ********* any aspect of the plaintiff's case that has been admitted ** a defendant in his pleading. ******* ********* that on *** ********* of B.O. Lewis V. ****** Bank *** ****** PLC (2016) LPELR-40661 (SC), the contracts of ********** *** ******** loans *** two ******** contracts, and the obligation ** repay the loan does *** ***** because the Claimant's ********** has ended, as **** hardship, inconvenience, ** ***** ********** turn of events which have created difficulties, ****** not contemplated, cannot constitute *********** to ******* *** Claimant from that obligation.

 

** ISSUE 1

The first ***** *** determination is whether the resignation of *** Claimant via ******* C6 dated 15th January 2019 is valid and constitutes a sufficient and ********* determination of his employment, and whether the Defendant was ******** to reject same and ******* to dismiss him ** the ****** of 17th January 2019.

 

The resolution of **** issue requires the court to navigate the ************ of *** competing legal principles: the common *** ***** of an employee to resign from employment, and the contractual obligation ** **** adequate notice as a ********* of a ***** resignation. The Defendant's ******** ** that the resignation was ******* on two independent grounds — first, that the ******** ****** to **** the contractually ******** one month's written notice ** to *** *** month's ****** in lieu thereof, *** second, **** *** Claimant was facing ongoing disciplinary proceedings at the time of the resignation and therefore could not ******* resign so as ** pre-empt the ******* of those proceedings. *** Claimant's position is that a resignation, **** tendered and received, is effective *** cannot ** ******** ** *** employer, and that the employer's purported rejection of the resignation was therefore without legal foundation.

 

On *** ******** of the ***** to resign, the law in Nigeria ** settled **** an employee *** an ******** ***** ** resign from employment. That right is not absolute in the sense **** ** may be exercised in ********* ** the contractual terms governing the employment relationship, but it ** a right **** the ******** cannot ****** refuse to recognise. The court accepts *** ******* proposition, supported by the decisions in WAEC V. Oshionebo (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 994) 248 and Adefemi V. Abegunde (2004) 15 NWLR (Pt. 895) 1, that a resignation, once ************ to the employer, ***** effect ********* ** its ***** *** that *** employer's acceptance is not a ********* precedent ** *** validity. [See also Shitta-Bey V. Federal Public Service Commission (1981) 1 SC 40, ***** the Supreme ***** affirmed **** the right ** determine one's own employment is a fundamental incident of *** employment ************ that the law protects.] The question, however, is *** ******* the Claimant could resign, but ******* the resignation he ******** on 15th January 2019 complied with *** contractual terms governing the manner of resignation.

 

******* C1, the Claimant's Offer of Employment, and Exhibit C4, the ******** Handbook, both require a minimum of one month's written notice ** ********* ** resign, ** the payment ** one month's salary ** lieu of notice. The Claimant, ** ******* C6, purported ** rely on *** accumulated ****** ***** **** as the ****** of notice. The Defendant's Employee Handbook, **** ** ******* C4, ******** a ***** policy which ********** **** annual leave must ** utilised within *** ******* financial year, being *** ******* to 31st December, and that unutilised ***** ** ********* ** the *** ** **** year and is not transferable to the ********* year. *** Claimant resigned ** 15th January 2019. ** **** date, the ********* year 2018 *** ended. *** leave days that the Claimant *** *** utilised ** 2018 were, by *** ******* ***** of the leave policy, forfeited. *** Claimant had no accumulated leave days from 2018 ** ***** forward **** January 2019, *** he had not yet accrued any leave entitlement for the new financial year 2019, ****** only been ** the year *** fifteen days. The attempt to use accumulated ***** days as a substitute for *** notice period therefore ***** on the facts as ********* by the documentary record. [The principle that the ***** of a contract ** employment, ********* those contained in a staff ******** ** ********** of service, bind the parties *** must be ***** their plain meaning is **** established: see Olarewaju v. ******** Nigeria *** (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt. 731) 691 at 704, ***** the Court of Appeal held **** *** terms of ** ********** ******** **** ** construed ********* to ***** ordinary and ******* meaning.] The ***** policy in Exhibit C4 does *** support the Claimant's position, and the ***** so finds.

 

However, the ****** ** the notice requirement to terminate *** employment  does not *********** render the resignation ****** a nullity. A resignation that fails to ****** with the notice requirement is *** void — ** is voidable, or more precisely, it ** a *********** that has been tendered ** breach ** the contractual notice obligation. The consequence of that ****** is not **** the ********** continues as ** no resignation had **** tendered, *** **** the employer may ** entitled to treat the resignation as a breach of ******** and to ***** damages *** *** ********* in notice, or to ****** on the notice period being served. [This ********* finds support in the general *** of contract: a breach of a term of a ******** does not automatically render the ******** void, but may give rise to a right to damages or, in appropriate cases, to ***** the contract as repudiated — see Adekunle V. Rockview Hotel Ltd (2004) 1 NWLR (Pt. 853) 161 at 176, ***** the Court ** ****** ******** **** a breach ** a notice provision ** an employment contract ****** in damages *** does not nullify the act of resignation itself.] What *** employer cannot do, in the ordinary course, is to ***** the *********** as a nullity and proceed to dismiss *** employee as if the resignation had never **** tendered.

 

*** Defendant's reliance on University of ******* V. Juliet Koko Bassey (2008) LPELR-8553 (CA) for the proposition **** a resignation tendered ***** disciplinary proceedings are pending is void requires careful examination. *** Court of Appeal ** that case held that ***** is a common *** right to resign unless there is a ****** to show that the holder of *** ****** cannot resign, and that suspension from ******* is such a reason. The ***** in that case was dealing with a ********* employment where *** employee had **** formally suspended. In *** present case, the Claimant was *** suspended. There ** no evidence that the Defendant formally suspended the Claimant pending *** outcome ** the disciplinary proceedings. *** ************ committee had ********* its *********** on 15th November 2018 and produced *** report, Exhibit D3, ** that date. The ******** was not informed ** that report. Between ******** 2018 and January 2019, a ****** ** over *** ****** elapsed during which *** ********* took no ***** to communicate the committee's ******** ** the Claimant. The Defendant, *** from ******** the Claimant ** a person ***** active disciplinary sanction, **** him additional responsibilities ****** **** period, a fact that DW1 did *** contradict in cross-examination. The Claimant ********* had no notice, actual or constructive, that any ******* ************ decision *** been taken against *** when he tendered his *********** ** 15** January 2019.

 

This is a matter of considerable significance. The recognised practice ** employment law is that ** employer must not keep an allegation of misconduct ******* **** the head of an employee indefinitely. [*** Supreme Court has affirmed **** disciplinary proceedings must be concluded timeously *** *** ******** ************ to the ******** without unreasonable delay: see ******** V. University ** Lagos (1985) 2 **** (Pt. 9) 599, where the court emphasised that ** employer who fails to act timeously ** a disciplinary matter ****** thereafter rely on the pendency of that ****** to the prejudice ** *** employee.] ************ proceedings **** be ********* timeously and the decision communicated to *** ******** without ************ delay. *** ********* ********* its *********** ** 15** November 2018. *** report was *** communicated to the Claimant until ***** ** had ******** on 15th ******* 2019, a period of over two months. ****** **** interval, the Defendant continued to treat the Claimant ** a functioning employee, ********* him responsibilities consistent **** *** position. The Defendant cannot, ** those circumstances, characterise the Claimant's *********** as a ********** ******* to pre-**** a disciplinary ******* ** ***** *** Claimant had no knowledge. *** Defendant's own conduct in withholding *** committee's findings for **** two months, and in continuing ** treat the Claimant as an active employee during that period, is inconsistent with the characterisation of *** resignation as a stratagem ** ***** discipline.

 

*** sequence of events is critical. *** *********** letter, Exhibit C6, was ******** on 15th January 2019. The dismissal letter, Exhibit C7, was dated 17th January 2019. *** ********* ** *** resignation, Exhibit C9, *** **** ****** on or about 17th January 2019. *** chronological ******** *********** that the resignation preceded the dismissal. *** dismissal *** issued *** days after the *********** had been communicated to the Defendant. *** Defendant's *** letter rejecting the resignation, Exhibit C9, ************ receipt of the resignation before the dismissal *** issued. *** dismissal *** therefore issued against a person who had already tendered a resignation that was in the Defendant's hands.

 

The ***** also finds that the dismissal letter, ******* C7, *** signed by Taiwo Olupeka, the Group Head, Human ******* Management, without the approval of the Group ******** Director. *** Employee Handbook, Exhibit C4, requires the approval of the ***** Managing ******** for a termination of this nature. That approval was *** obtained. [*** ********* **** a dismissal or *********** of employment that does not ****** with the prescribed ********* of *** employer's own regulations is unlawful *** void is well established in Nigerian employment law: *** ******** V. University ** Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290 at 330, where the Supreme Court held **** failure ** ****** with the prescribed procedure *** termination renders *** termination a nullity; see also Eperokun V. University of Lagos (1986) 4 **** (Pt. 34) 162.] This is a further procedural irregularity in *** dismissal process that *** Defendant has not satisfactorily explained.

 

The court ******* ***** that the dismissal letter of 17th ******* 2019 was, on the evidence, issued in response to the Claimant's *********** of 15th ******* 2019. ** *** the resignation **** ******** *** Defendant to act. The Defendant had sat ** the committee's ****** for **** two months without communicating it to the Claimant. It was **** when the Claimant resigned that the Defendant moved to formalise *** dismissal. This ******** of ****** strongly suggests that the dismissal was reactive. A response to the resignation rather than a considered disciplinary ******* that had been ** the pipeline. The ***** ***** the inference, which ** ***** supported ** *** *********** record, that the Defendant's purported dismissal ** *** Claimant was an attempt to override a resignation that had ******* been effectively communicated, and to ********** a ********* ** *** place so as to **** the Claimant the ******* of a clean **** **** the bank.

 

The law does not permit an employer to do this. **** a resignation *** been communicated to the employer, *** employer's options *** limited. *** ******** may ****** ** *** contractual notice period being served, or may accept ******* in lieu. The employer *** also, in appropriate cases, pursue a ***** *** damages for breach of *** notice obligation. What the employer cannot ** ** ** treat the *********** as a nullity, reject it, and then proceed to dismiss the employee ** grounds that were ***** ** the employer before *** resignation was tendered *** were *** communicated ** the employee. [In Iderima v. Rivers State ***** Service ********** (2005) 16 NWLR (Pt. 951) 378 ** 401, the Supreme ***** affirmed that an employer who seeks ** convert a *********** **** a dismissal, ** to ******** a valid resignation by a ********** disciplinary act, acts without legal authority where the *********** has ******* been ************ and received.] ** permit ** employer ** do so would be to allow *** employer to use the disciplinary process ** a weapon to be deployed selectively, held in reserve ***** the employee ******** ** leave, and then activated ** convert a ********* resignation into a dismissal. *** law does not *********** such a manipulation of the employment relationship.

 

On the first issue, the court ***** that the resignation of the Claimant *** Exhibit C6 ***** 15th January 2019, though **** in ********* ** the requirement of ****** since *** Claimant had ** accumulated leave days available ** ********** *** the *********** notice period was *********** a ***** and effective communication ** *** Claimant's intention ** determine *** employment. The ********* *** *** entitled to reject the resignation and ******* to ******* the ******** by *** letter of 17th January 2019. The dismissal letter, Exhibit C7, *** ****** after *** resignation had been communicated, without the required approval ** the ***** Managing Director, *** ** circumstances where *** Defendant had ******** *** committee's ******** **** the Claimant for over two ****** ***** ********** ** ***** him as ** active employee. *** dismissal of 17th January 2019 *** accordingly unlawful, null, and void. The letter of dismissal ***** the 17th ******* 2019 in Exhibit C7 is hereby set aside. This ***** ****** confirms *** resignation ** the claimant by the letter dated *** 15th  January 2019. The first issue is resolved in favour of the Claimant.

 

** ISSUE 2

The second issue *** determination ** whether *** Claimant was ******** fair hearing ** accordance with Section 36 of the Constitution ** the ******* Republic of ******* 1999 (as amended) *** the ********** provisions of *** Defendant's Employee Handbook ****** his dismissal.

 

The ************** ********* of fair ******* under Section 36 of the Constitution is *** confined ** judicial proceedings. It extends ** any tribunal, body, or authority that ********* quasi-judicial or disciplinary powers affecting the ****** of a person. [The ******* Court so **** in Garba V. ********** of Maiduguri (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 550, where it was ************* established that a domestic ******** or disciplinary committee whose decisions affect *** rights and ********** ** a ****** is bound by the ***** of natural justice and the ************** guarantee of fair hearing.] An employer's disciplinary committee, ***** findings can ****** in the ********* of an employee with all the professional and reputational consequences that dismissal entails, ************ in the banking ****** is such a body. *** minimum requirements of fair ******* ** this context *** **** established: the employee must ** informed of *** specific allegations against him with ********** particularity ** enable him to prepare a defence; ** must be given an ******** *********** to present his case; *** *** decision must be **** by ******* who *** ********* and *** have *** ********* the matter. [See Kotoye V. Central **** ** Nigeria (1989) 1 **** (Pt. 98) 419 at 448, where the Supreme ***** ******** that the twin pillars of natural justice  audi alteram partem *** **** ***** in ***** sua *** not mere procedural formalities but *********** rights whose breach vitiates any decision made in their absence.] These requirements flow from this twin ******* of ******* justice 

 

The Defendant's case on fair ******* rests primarily on three pillars i.e. (i) the ****** of 11th and 16th ******* 2018 (******** D8a and D8b), (ii) the Claimant's appearance before *** Disciplinary Committee, and (iii) *** two rounds ** appeal **** followed *** committee's decision. ** ********* **** issue the court has to take a ************ approach in examining the ***** of **** October 2018 (Exhibit D8a) ***** *** Defendant *** argued **** the email was a disciplinary query, the Claimant ** the other hand posits that it was an ************* communication, not a disciplinary query. It ** *** to point out that the content of the e-mail Exhibit D8a  ** ******* ** three requests:

(a) that the Claimant **** details of what transpired **** respect to the *** ****** account; 

(b) that he state his relationship **** *** account holder; and 

(c) that he confirm ******* ** was aware of fraud *********** made against *** account in June 2015.

 

None of ***** requests *********** an ********** of misconduct against the ******** personally. None ** them identifies a specific infraction. **** ** **** names a rule, policy, or regulatory provision alleged to have been violated. None ** **** ***** the Claimant that his answers *** be used ** disciplinary proceedings against him or **** ** ** required to **** cause why disciplinary action should *** be taken.

 

The *********** between an investigative ******* and a ************ query is fundamental *** **** ** maintained. *** Supreme Court's ********* ** B. A. ******** V. Unity **** Plc (2011) LPELR-1503 (SC) that an ********** of an employee of misconduct by way ** a query, followed ** an opportunity to answer, ********* *** ************ ** fair hearing, *********** that *** communication in question constitutes an ********** ** misconduct. Exhibit D8a **** not. ** ** ** information-gathering ******** by the Internal ***** Department. The Claimant's response ** it is ******* an ************* response, not a ******* to a disciplinary charge. [This distinction between ** investigative inquiry *** a formal ************ charge has been recognised and applied ** Nigerian employment jurisprudence: see Olatunbosun V. NISER Council (1988) 3 **** (Pt. 80) 25 ** 56, where *** Supreme Court held that the mere fact that ** ******** was ***** questions *** **** answers does not satisfy *** requirement of **** hearing if the ********* were not ****** as a ****** ** misconduct ** which the employee was required to ******* in his own defence.] *** Defendant ****** **** on Exhibit D8a ** ********** the requirement of ******** notifying the Claimant of the specific allegations against him for the ******** ** fair hearing.

 

The ******* ultimately found proved ** the Disciplinary Committee — parallel ******* activities, ************ of illegal *** unauthorised foreign exchange trading, ********** of brokerage and commission, and money ********** *** serious *** ******** infractions. None of these charges is identified or disclosed in in ******* D8a. The Claimant was never, ** the documentary record ****** this court, formally **** ** writing **** he was ******* of any of these specific infractions before the committee made its findings. **** ** a *********** ********** deficiency, *** a mere technicality. An employee ****** ******* of this gravity, charges that, if sustained, would result ** dismissal and blacklisting with the Central Bank ** Nigeria, effectively ending his career in the banking ******** is entitled ** be told in clear and ******** terms what he ** accused of, so **** ** can prepare a ****** defence. [The Supreme Court in Olaniyan v. University ** Lagos (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599 at 624 emphasised that ***** the consequences of a ************ finding *** severe and irreversible, the ********** to **** ******** and ******** notice of the charges ** correspondingly crucial, *** a failure to do so goes to *** root of the ******** of the proceedings.] The failure ** issue a formal disciplinary ***** before convening the committee ******** *** ******** of **** opportunity.

 

The Claimant's position ********** is that he attended the committee as a witness ** ** inquiry, *** as a respondent to specific charges. This is rendered more ******** ** the content of Exhibit D8a. If *** **** pre-committee communication was an investigative email ****** for information about what ********** and about his ************ with the ******* holder, *** ******** had reasonable ******* to believe that he was ***** ***** to assist in understanding the circumstances of *** recall of the ***** that was paid **** the account ** the defendant customer, not **** he was ******** trial before a ************ tribunal. The fact **** Exhibit D3, the committee's report, was not signed by any prosecutor ** also ********** **** *** Claimant's characterisation of the proceedings ** an ******* ****** than a formal disciplinary trial. The ***** finds that this absence of a prosecutor's ********* is not ****** a technical omission, it ** an ********** that the proceedings **** ********* ** a manner that was ********* ** to the Claimant's status, and that ambiguity operated adversely against the interest of  Claimant.

 

Furthermore, *** committee ********* its *********** on 15th ******** 2018 *** produced its report on that date. *** ****** was not communicated ** the ******** ***** ***** his *********** ** 15th ******* 2019. *** ******** had no notice that any adverse disciplinary decision had been taken against him during the period of over *** ****** between the committee's report *** *** resignation. **** ******* ** communicate the decision timeously is itself a ****** of *** requirements of a fair disciplinary process. The ******** ** not entitled ** **** the ******* of a disciplinary proceeding ****** from the employee while the employee ********* ** work, *** then ** deploy that outcome at a moment of the employer's choosing. [See Olaniyan V. University of Lagos (supra), where the ******* ***** condemned *** ******** of withholding ************ ********* from employees ** inconsistent with the requirements of natural justice and *** ************** guarantee ** **** hearing.]

 

On *** appeals process, the evidence establishes a further and independent breach of natural justice. The Claimant appealed the ********* ******** on multiple occasions, as evidenced by Exhibits C10a, C10b, and C10c. The evidence ********* that Taiwo Olupeka, who signed the dismissal letter as Group Head, Human ******* Management, *** who appears to have been ******** in *** ************ Committee proceedings, also participated ** the ************* of the Claimant's appeals. DW1 did not ******* a satisfactory *********** for **** in cross-examination, and the Defendant's written address does *** directly address the allegation. The ********* nemo judex in ***** sua to the effect **** no ****** ****** be a judge in their *** *****  ** a foundational rule of natural justice. [The Supreme ***** ******* this principle with full force in Garba v. University of Maiduguri (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 550 at 597, holding that ***** a person who participated in or initiated the original ************ ******* sits in judgment on ** appeal against that process, the appellate proceedings are vitiated *** the resulting decision is a nullity; see also Deduwa V. Okorodudu (1976) 9-10 SC 329 ** 347, where *** Supreme Court affirmed that the rule against bias ****** of no exception where the connection between the *********** and *** original ******** is direct and material.] A person *** participated ** the original disciplinary decision, ** who was ******** ** the ******* **** led to that decision, ****** sit in judgment on an appeal against that decision. *** participation of Taiwo Olupeka ** both the disciplinary process and the appeals ******* ****** the ********* *********** and ******* them procedurally defective. The Claimant's ***** ** appeal, ***** is a ***** guaranteed ** *** ******** ******** *** ***** ** a component of the fair hearing guarantee, was thereby rendered illusory.

 

*** court also notes *** post-********* developments that bear on the substantive ****** of *** allegations. The Federal High Court, by *** ruling ** Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1586/2018 (Exhibit C11), set aside *** ******* ******** ***** ** the TOF Energy account in January 2020. The ******* criminal proceedings in the United States were dismissed on the *********** of the Government's Prosecutor, as evidenced by Exhibit C12. The USA Department of Homeland Security document (Exhibit C13) *** the South African ****** Investigation Report (Exhibit C14) further ******* the position that no criminal liability was established ******* the parties ******** in the TOF Energy transactions. ***** these are post-dismissal events and do not ************* ****** *** ********** validity ** the disciplinary process as ** ***** in January 2019, they are relevant to the overall assessment of the Defendant's conduct. *** Defendant's own concession recorded ** the Claimant's reply to the statement of defence  **** there was ** evidence ** **** ** the bank's ****** or funds as a result of the TOF ****** account operations ** particularly significant. ** no loss was ******** by *** bank, the gravity ** the ********** alleged ** considerably diminished, and the sanction of dismissal, with *** ********* ************ of blacklisting and career destruction, ** disproportionate ** any **** actually established.

 

The court is mindful **** in the banking sector, dismissal is *** merely the loss of a job. ** carries with it *** *********** ** blacklisting with *** Central **** of Nigeria, which effectively **** the dismissed ******** **** employment in any regulated financial institution. It is, as *** Claimant's counsel ***** characterised it, **** ** a ************ death sentence. The gravity ** that consequence demands a *************** ******** adherence to *** requirements of **** hearing. In the banking sector, where ********* carries the additional *********** of regulatory blacklisting, *** standard of ********** fairness required before ********* is of the highest order. It **** be emphasized that ************ ************ consequences of ******* sector dismissal demand strict compliance with all ********** safeguards. The Defendant **** far ***** of that ******** in this case. ***** *** no ****** disciplinary query specifying the charges. The committee's ****** was withheld from the ******** for **** two months. The appeals process was compromised by *** ************* ** a ****** *** had been involved in *** ******** disciplinary process. The ********* letter *** ****** without *** required approval ** the Group Managing Director. ***** are not isolated or minor ********** lapses — they are cumulative failures that, taken together, constitute a fundamental breach of the Claimant's right to fair hearing under Section 36 ** the Constitution and under the ********** provisions of *** Employee Handbook. It is trite practice that where multiple ********** violations ****** a ************ process, **** reinforcing *** other, the cumulative ****** ** to ****** the ****** ******* a nullity, *** no court should give effect to a decision so tainted.

 

** the second issue, the court finds that the Claimant was not ******** fair ******* in accordance with Section 36 of the ************ ** *** Federal Republic of ******* 1999 (as amended) and the applicable provisions ** *** Defendant's Employee Handbook before his dismissal. The disciplinary ******* was procedurally ********* in multiple material respects, *** the ********* **** ******** from ** ****** stand. The second issue is resolved ** favour ** *** Claimant.

 

 

 

 

ON ***** 5

The ***** would consider ***** 5 before the remaining issues. This ***** also relates to the Counter ***** of the defendant in this action. *** defendant in has counter claimed this sum of N13,000,000 as *** **** granted to the claimant in the course of his ********** **** the defendant.  *** ***** is whether the Defendant is entitled to recover *** outstanding sum of N13,000,000.** being *** **** ******** granted to the Claimant in the ****** of his employment, together with accrued interest and post-******** interest as claimed ** *** Counter-Claim.

 

The ***** framework governing this ***** is clear and was settled ** the Supreme Court in B.O. Lewis V. United Bank for Africa PLC (2016) LPELR-40661 (SC). A contract of employment and a personal loan between an ******** and his employer are *** distinct contracts having distinct subject matters. Their ******** is not co-existent. The right ** terminate the contract of employment by either party cannot operate as a condition ********* to *** repayment of *** personal **** or balance thereof. The obligation ** repay the **** does not cease because the ********** has ended. The Claimant's argument **** the call *** ********* of the loan ** premature and contingent ** *** ********** relationship is ********* not supported by law, and the court ******* it.

 

** *** facts, *** Defendant tendered Exhibit D9, the Claimant's statement ** account, ** documentary evidence of the **** and *** outstanding balance. The Claimant, in his ***** ** the ******* Statement of ******* *** his Defence to *** Counter-Claim, did *** ************* deny the existence ** the loan ** that he received the sum ** N13,000,*** from *** Defendant. His ******** was that there are no documents evidencing the **** ****** the ***** and **** *** **** for repayment is premature. However, the absence of a clear and unequivocal denial of the receipt of the funds, ******** with the Defendant's ****** of Exhibit D9, creates a situation where the ********* of the loan and *** receipt ** the funds by the Claimant are not ********* in dispute. [The Supreme Court has affirmed **** where a party fails ** specifically deny a ******** fact in his pleadings, that **** is ****** admitted *** requires no further proof. See ******* V. Haddad (1973) 11 ** 357 ** 363, where *** court held **** ***** pleaded by one party and not ************ traversed by the other are ***** ** admitted; see also Obi V. INEC (2007) ** **** (Pt. 1046) 565 ** 647, where the ******* Court reaffirmed **** an averment not specifically denied in ********* ** ***** as admitted.] Exhibit D9 was *** specifically challenged as a forgery or as inaccurate ** *** figures during the cross-*********** of DW1. The quantum ** N13,000,000 as the outstanding principal is not ************ challenged on the figures. On the authority of ******* ********** Company Ltd & Anor V. Dr. Kayode Fayemi (2017) 13 NWLR 218, where a defendant **** not ************ deny a ******** fact pleaded by the plaintiff, that **** is taken ** admitted and requires no further proof. *** Claimant's ******* to specifically deny the receipt ** N13,000,000 and *** outstanding ******* as shown in Exhibit D9 operates as an admission of ***** facts.

*** Defendant is accordingly ******** to recover the *********** **** sum ** N13,000,000 **** *** Claimant. ** *** question ** interest, the ********* claims accrued interest *** post-judgment interest at the rate of 25% per annum. The award of post judgment interest on a bank loan while the loan itself may still be attracting interest would amount to double compensation. While *** court is ********* ** grant post ******** interest such ******** ****** ** awarded on a loan sum ***** may still ** subject to *** ******** the interest rate ** which the loan was granted. For this ****** *** ***** of 25% **** judgment interest on *** outstanding loan of N13,000,*** ** refused. This issue is ******** in favour of *** Defendant on the Counter-Claim.

 

** ISSUE 3 

On the claim for special damages of N14,437,500 for **** of earnings from February 2019 ***** determination of the suit, the ***** declines ** ***** **** relief. The evidence show that *** Claimant did not tender any ***** letter from Unity Bank, ******* ******* must ** specifically ******* and strictly proved ** credible documentary evidence: see Dumez Nigeria Ltd. V. Ogboli (1972) 1 All *** (Pt. 1) 241 at 248, where the Supreme ***** held **** ******* damages, unlike general damages, must be specifically claimed and proved by evidence ** a precise *** certain character; see also Odumosu V. *** Ltd (1976) 11 SC 55 at 71, where *** ******* Court affirmed that a claim for **** ** ******** ** special damages requires documentary proof of the ******** lost *** the ****** nexus ******* *** defendant's wrong *** the **** claimed.] Special damages must be strictly proved by credible *********** evidence, and the Claimant has *** discharged that burden. The ***** for special damages in the *** of N14,437,500 for loss ** ******** from February 2019 ***** ************* of the suit ** *********** refused.

 

ON ***** NO 5

On the claim for ******* damages for ******** dismissal, This court *** already ***** that the dismissal letter issued by the ********* ** ******* C7 *** ****** ******* a ****** *** had ******* tendered a resignation letter ** ******* C6 ***** **** court *** held effectively ended the employment relationship between *** claimant *** the defendant. The ****** of the claimant in terminating the ******** and thereafter ******* ** the Central **** of Nigeria, resulting in *** backlisting ** the claimant **** *** ********* effect ** ********** him **** furthering his carrier ** the ******* industry is indeed injurious *** has cause damages to the career and reputation of *** claimant. *** ******** has stated that *** blacklisting of *** claimant is a like a death sentence for a ****** in the ******* industry. I ** satisfied **** the ******** ** ******** to damages. The ******** ******* the sum of N5,000,*** (Five Million Naira) as general damages, having ****** ** the ************ of the dismissal, *** procedural violations **** ******** the ************ process, the consequences of blacklisting in the banking. This ** what the ***** will award. If **** had asked for **** this ***** would have awarded more. This court awards the *** of N5,000,*** ** ****** ** the claimant. 

 

The claimant also claims the sum of *** of N3,000,*** (Three Million Naira)  ***** *** ************ **** already paid ** the ***** Practitioner handling **** Suit on ****** of the Claimants. This kind of ***** *** never won the ****** of the court. While the court ** empowered to ***** **** ** litigation, the award of **** cost cannot ******** the ******* ** a party’s cost ** professional **** to *** opposing party. For this ****** **** ***** fails *** is accordingly dismissed. 

 

CONCLUSION. 

*** overall outcome of this suit is that *** Claimant succeeds on *** main claim *** *** ********* ******** ** the Counter-Claim. The Claimant's *********** of 15th January 2019, communicated by Exhibit C6, *** a valid and effective determination of his employment, notwithstanding *** ****** in the notice mechanism. The ********* of 17** January 2019, communicated ** Exhibit C7, *** issued after the resignation had been received ** the Defendant, ******* the ******** approval ** the Group Managing Director, and in ************* **** ****** it unlawful, null, *** void. The dismissal *** further vitiated by *** *********** ******* to ****** *** Claimant **** hearing, ** **** no formal disciplinary ***** specifying *** charges was ever issued to him, *** committee's findings were withheld from him *** over two months, *** ******* process was *********** by the participation of ***** Olupeka in **** *** ************ and appellate processes, and the dismissal letter was ****** ******* the required approval of *** Group ******** Director. The cumulative effect of ***** ********** violations is to render the dismissal a nullity

 

******** ** therefore entered in the ********* terms and the ****** made here-under:

 

  1.  A declaration is hereby made that the Claimant's employment *** ******* determined ** *** resignation letter ***** 15th January 2019, being ******* C6, and that the Defendant *** ** power to reject that resignation. 
  2.  A *********** ** ******* ******* that *** dismissal of the Claimant by *** Defendant's ****** ***** 17th ******* 2019, being Exhibit C7, was unwarranted, unlawful, null, and void, ****** been issued after *** Claimant had ******* determined *** employment ** resignation and in breach of *** Claimant's ***** to fair ******* under Section 36 ** the Constitution of the Federal ******** ** Nigeria 1999 (as amended). 
  3. The ********* is ordered to pay to the ******** *** ********** and emoluments *** *** payable from *** **** of *** resignation on 15th January 2019 to the date on which the ********* would **** been entitled to accept the resignation as effective, being *** month from the date ** resignation, **** is to say, 15th February 2019, representing the *********** notice period, together **** any *********** entitlements accrued ** at the date of resignation. 
  4. The Defendant is ordered to issue ** *** ******** a certificate of ******* reflecting *** *********** from *** Defendant's ********** and not *** dismissal with 30 days from the date of this judgment. 
  5.  The Defendant is further ordered to write to the Central Bank ** Nigeria to de-********* the Claimant's **** from the list of ********* bank employees, given that *** employment *** ********** by *********** and not by dismissal, and the dismissal that was purportedly ************ ** ****** declared null and void.
  6. The defendant ** ******** to recover the loan granted to the claimant The ******** shall pay the sum of N13,000,000.00 ***** the principal sum ** a loan advanced to *** Claimant ***** sum shall be *** off **** the ******** benefit of *** claimant pursuant to relief No 3 ******* above. 
  7. The ********* ***** pay the sum ** N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira ) as ******* damages ** *** claimant. 

 

*** order made ** this judgment  is to ** complied with within 30 **** from the date of this judgment.

 

Judgment is hereby entered

 

___________________________________ 

Hon. ******* (Dr.) I. J. Essien

(********* Judge)

 

REPRESENTATION.

O. J. ******** Esq. *** *** claimant

O. Oshinaiki Esq. **** M. Akinwale Esq.  for defendant   

 

 

Created with WordToHTML.net trial.