IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HON. JUSTICE JOYCE A. O. DAMACHI 

 

Date: 29^th July 2026                         

SUIT NO:NICN/LA/191/2023      

 

BETWEEN

TAYO WALE OSHIN                                                            CLAIMANT

 

AND 

 

1.       POLARIS BANK LIMITED                                              1^st DEFENDANT

2.       CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA                                          2^nd DEFENDANT

 

JUDGEMENT 

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

 

The claimant’s case 

3. The Claimant, Tayo Wale Oshin, was an employee of Vic Lawrence and Associates Limited who was seconded to perform domestic operations in the Dispute and Chargeback Department of the 1st Defendant, Polaris Bank Limited. The 2nd Defendant, the Central Bank of Nigeria, is the statutory apex regulatory authority for all banks and financial institutions in Nigeria.
4. In November 2020, an alleged fraud involving ?827,000,000.00 occurred within the 1st Defendant’s system, leading the bank to conduct internal disciplinary hearings and report the matter to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). Following investigations by the 1st Defendant’s Staff Disciplinary Committee into alleged password compromise, the Claimant resigned from his employment with Vic Lawrence and Associates Limited 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 blacklist register of terminated, dismissed, or convicted bank staff on the grounds of fraud and dishonesty.

 

 

C1 –Claimant letter of employment 

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

C3-Offer Letter dated 02 November, 2022 from Network International Payments Services Nigeria Limited to the Claimant

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exhibit D4- Appendix to the Minutes of the March 20, 2021 Exco Meeting- Consideration of Report of Disciplinary Committee (Dc) Meeting of Feb 5, 2021 & Friday March 5, 2021. (tendered through the witness under cross examination)

 

8. The 2nd Defendant filed its Statement of Defence on 5^th  December 2023, asserting that the blacklisting of the Claimant was carried out in good faith pursuant to the official returns and compliance declarations forwarded by the 1st Defendant. 
9. DW2 tendered Exhibits 2D5- the Review of Operational Guidelines for Blacklisting dated 28^th day of June 2016” and 2D6- Return of Notification of dismissed/terminated and retrenched staff for month of March 2021 

 

The 1st Defendant submits that the Claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought based on the following legal and factual grounds: that the blacklist arose from the findings of the 1st Defendant’s Disciplinary Committee, contained in the Report (Exhibit D2), which indicted the Claimant for password compromise and fraud. That since the Claimant has not sought to set aside Exhibit D2, which remains valid. The Court cannot challenge the effect (the blacklist) while leaving the cause (Exhibit D2) intact. The Court cannot grant a relief not expressly sought by a party (Okonkwo v. Mobil Oil Nig. Plc (2019) 10 NWLR (Pt 1679) 1. Granting the reliefs without a prayer setting aside Exhibit D2 would violate this principle and deny the members of the Disciplinary Committee (who are not parties to this suit) their right to a fair hearing. The Disciplinary Committee acted as a quasi-judicial body and complied with the rules of natural justice (Ani v. Egbo 2024 LPELR 62050 CA).

He argued that Evidence elicited during cross-examination confirmed that the Claimant appeared before the Committee and was given the opportunity to respond to the allegations. Having failed to fully utilize the opportunity, the Claimant cannot complain of a denial of fair hearing (Eze v. FRN 2017 LPELR 42097). He argued that pursuant to Section 133 of the Evidence Act 2011, the burden of proof rests on the Claimant and does not shift until a prima facie case is established (Adeyemi v. APC (2023) LPELR 61492 SC).

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

He objected to the admissible of Exhibit D4, that it is unsigned, unstamped, and was tendered from the bar without being tied to any adopted witness statement. An unsigned document is worthless in law (Omega Bank v. O.B.C. Ltd 2005 8 NWLR Pt 928 547 587). He submitted that even if considered, Exhibit D4 is an incomplete, discarded draft appendix of a main document not before the Court. Furthermore, it recommends that the Claimant "return to employer and continue with EFCC Investigation," which confirms a prima facie indictment rather than exculpation. That the claimant is not entitled to Damages. The Claimant’s claim  is in the nature of exemplary damages, which requires proof of malice, fraud, or outrageous conduct (Ukpai v. Omoregie (2019) LPELR 47206 CA. Finally that the 1st Defendant acted purely in regulatory compliance following an investigation into an N827,000,000 fraud. No malice was established, and the Court cannot award damages based on sentiment (Global West Vessel Specialist v. NLNG Ltd(2017)LPELR 41987 SC .

 

 2ND DEFENDANT'S SUBMISSIONS

11. Learned Counsel to the 2nd Defendant, O.Y. Alika, submitted that the Claimant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought against the 2nd Defendant and that the suit is speculative, lacking in merit, and should be dismissed.
12. On Issue 1: Whether or not the 1st Defendant rightly submitted the Claimant’s name to the 2nd Defendant for blacklisting
13. Learned Counsel submitted that the burden of proof in civil matters lies squarely on the Claimant to establish that he was blacklisted unjustifiably and without a fair hearing, relying on Section 131 of the Evidence Act 2011, Okoro v. Obadiaru(2025) LPELR 81025 CA;, Okonkwo v. Izuchukwu(2019) LPELR 49102 CA;, Sokino v. Kpongbo(2008)7NWLR Pt 1089 342;, and Tumbido v. INEC(2023) LPELR 6004. Counsel argued that the Claimant failed to discharge this burden. He submitted that the evidence elicited during cross-examination of the Claimant completely dismantled his claim of a lack of fair hearing, as the Claimant admitted that he was invited to the Disciplinary Committee, asked questions, and given the opportunity to respond. Counsel argued that fair hearing simply requires that both sides be given an opportunity to present their case, relying on Ibrahim v. Girko(2021) LPELR 54953 CA;, David v. State of Ekiti,(2020)LPELR 51162 CA and Akinola v. Awhapuye(2016) LPELR 45499CA. He submitted that evidence elicited under cross-examination constitutes good evidence upon which the court can legitimately act, relying on African Songs Ltd v. Adegeye (2019)2 NWLR Pt 1656) and MTN (Nig.) Ltd v. Corporate Comm. Inv. Ltd(2019) 9 NWLR Pt 1678)427 SC. Counsel contended that the 2nd Defendant acted in good faith based on the mandatory monthly returns and supporting disciplinary report submitted by the 1st Defendant in accordance with the Operational Guidelines for Blacklisting, and that the 2nd Defendant was satisfied that due process was followed.
14. On Issue 2: If the submission of the Claimant’s name to the 2nd Defendant is wrongful, is the Claimant entitled to an apology and damages
15. Learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant is not entitled to an order of delisting or any ancillary reliefs against the 2nd Defendant. He referred to Clause 10.0 of the Operational Guidelines for Blacklisting, which provides that a blacklisted person can only be delisted upon the CBN's issuance of a Delisting Order consequent upon a Court's Order, or a request from the financial institution following the CBN's concurrence to a motion for reconsideration. Counsel argued that because the Claimant failed to prove that his referral was wrongful or that his right to a fair hearing was breached, there is no legal basis for the court to order his delisting. He submitted that where the main claim fails, all other connected and ancillary reliefs must fail. 
16. Counsel further argued that the 2nd Defendant's evidence regarding regulatory compliance and the receipt of regular returns was unchallenged and must be accepted as proof by the court, relying on Bronwen Energy Trading Co. Ltd v. Oan Overseas Agency(2022) LPELR 57307 SC;, Ogunyade v. Oshunkeye,(2007) LPELR 2355SC.

 CLAIMANT'S FINAL WRITTEN ADRESS

33. 2 issues were raised for determination 

 1. Whether or not the 1st Defendant rightly submitted the Claimant’s name to the 2nd Defendant for blacklisting.

LCC submitted that the core issue is whether the Claimant was properly and lawfully blacklisted by the 1st Defendant in line with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Operational Guidelines for Blacklisting (Exhibit C8/2D5) and the rules of natural justice.

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

i)The Statutory Framework and Conditions for Blacklisting,Under Section 48(4) of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act (BOFIA) Cap B3, LFN 2004 and Paragraph 4.0 of the CBN Guidelines (Exhibit C8), blacklisting is a severe statutory penalty reserved strictly for employees who have been terminated or dismissed on the grounds of: Fraud; Acts of dishonesty; or Conviction. Which is not an omnibus punishment for minor administrative infractions.

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

iii) He argued that the 1st Defendant reported the alleged fraud to the EFCC but proceeded to blacklist the Claimant without awaiting the outcome of the investigation. Relying on NBC v. Ekpo (2020) LPELR-51997(CA), once an employer elects to report an employee to a law enforcement agency for criminal investigation, it is duty-bound to await the outcome of the investigation or prosecution before taking adverse disciplinary action. The EFCC did not indict or charge the Claimant.

4. That there was a Denial of Fair Hearing, CBN Guidelines mandates a strict fair hearing procedure. The financial institution must notify the employee in writing of the blacklisting complaint filed against them; The specific grounds and consequences of blacklisting; and The opportunity to present documentary or verbal testimony in defence. The Claimant was never given written notice of any blacklisting complaint. He was merely verbally conscripted from his desk to face an internal audit panel and a disciplinary committee. He submitted that Under Nigerian law, the mere appearance of an employee before a panel does not satisfy the requirement of fair hearing if the employee was not pre-notified in writing of the specific allegations and consequences-UBA Plc v. Oranuba (2013) LPELR-20692(CA).

5. LCC submitted that under Paragraph 4.0 of the CBN Guidelines, blacklisting strictly applies only to persons who have been "terminated or dismissed". In the instant case, the Claimant voluntarily resigned his employment, and the resignation was accepted by his employer (Vic Lawrence Nigeria Limited). Since the Claimant was neither dismissed nor terminated, the condition precedent for blacklisting was never fulfilled (Ibama v. Shell Petroleum Company of Nigeria Ltd (2012) NILR 75).

35. On issue 2, The Claimant seeks general damages of N100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) for the stagnation of his career and the loss of his livelihood.

36. LCC submitted that there was Proof of Harm, following his resignation from the service of the 1st Defendant's agent, the Claimant secured new employment with Network International Payment Services Limited at a monthly salary of N450,000.00 plus benefits (Exhibit C3). This employment was terminated solely due to the 1st Defendant's wrongful blacklisting. Therefore he is entitled to general damages at the court's discretion to assuage losses that flow naturally from the defendant’s wrongful act. They need not be specifically pleaded or mathematically calculated see Akaolisa v. Akaolisa [2022] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1848) 487; Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1238) 512).

37. LCC submitted that the 1st Defendant’s contention that the Claimant's claim must fail as it constitutes "exemplary damages" requiring proof of malice is legally misconceived. The claim is for general compensatory damages to remedy a demonstrable civil wrong (Alliance Intl Ltd v. S.K Intl Ent Ltd (2022) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1851) 471).

38. LCC argued that the 1^st Defendant submission that the  Claimant cannot challenge the blacklist without first seeking to set aside the disciplinary report (Exhibit D2). He submitted that   Exhibit D2 was an internal document never communicated to the Claimant prior to this suit. An employee is not legally required to challenge an undisclosed internal report before suing for the wrongful actions arising from it. 39. On 1st Defendant’s Position that the Claimant failed to prove his name was unjustifiably forwarded. The Claimant argued that he successfully proved the facts within his knowledge: his employment, his resignation, and the fact of his blacklisting (which both Defendants admit). Since the 1st Defendant asserts that the blacklisting was justified by fraud, the burden of proving that fraud strictly rests on the 1st Defendant he cited Unity Bank v. Oguntimehin).

40. LCC also argued that it is legally incorrect for 1st Defendant to submit that the Claimant must first 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 of this Court directing the CBN to delist him, which is fully within the court's judicial powers under Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution. Furthermore, under Order 13 Rule 4 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) Rules 2017, it is procedurally proper to join both the initiating bank (1st Defendant) and the listing regulator (2nd Defendant) in a single action.

41. The LCC rebutted he 2nd defendant’s (CBN) assertions that the Claimant failed to prove he was unjustifiably blacklisted, he argued that  the Claimant cannot be required to prove a negative (i.e., that he did not commit fraud). The onus lies on the party asserting the commission of the crime -Section 138 of the Evidence Act).

The LCC further argued that the 2nd Defendant failed to Comply with Fair Hearing, the fact that he answered questions before a panel contradicts the CBN’s own guidelines. As the creator of Exhibit C8, the CBN cannot argue that informal, verbal questioning of an unprepared employee satisfies the strict written pre-notification requirements of Paragraph 6.0 of its Guidelines. The Claimant urged the court to declare the blacklisting null and void.  

 

                                      COURT DECISION 

42. The first issue adopted for determination is whether or not the 1st Defendant rightly submitted the Claimant’s name to the 2nd Defendant for blacklisting under the relevant regulatory guidelines. 

43. In resolving this issue, this Court must first address the preliminary evidentiary objections raised by the parties during the trial, as the admissibility and proper consideration of the exhibits are central to the determination of the substantive dispute. The 1st Defendant objected to the admissibility of Exhibit D4, which is the Exco Minutes Appendix, on several grounds, including that it is unsigned, it is computer-generated without a certificate of compliance under Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011, and it was tendered through a previous witness statement on oath, Exhibit D3, which was not formally adopted by the witness. 

44. In evaluating this objection, this Court looked at the reality of the court file and the records and noted that indeed, Exhibit D4 was originally listed and frontloaded by the 1st Defendant in its own pleadings, meaning there is no dispute as to its origin, and it is relevant to show the inconsistency between the Disciplinary Committee's initial report and the Executive Committee's actual ratification.

45. On the admissibility of Exhibit D4, it is trite that a Court is entitled to look at a document in its file while writing its judgment or ruling despite the fact that the document was not tendered and admitted as an exhibit at the trial." See Oyewole V Akande (2009) LPELR-2879(SC), this position has been consistently upheld and elaborated upon by the Court of Appeal see Shaba V Gara (2025) LPELR-82538(CA ). The underlying purpose for this principle, as highlighted is that "the Court is designed to do substantial justice between the parties." See Nigeria Engineering Works Ltd  V NCS Boar (2023) LPELR-60620(CA); Akinola V VC UNILORIN (2004) LPELR-10898(CA); Inuwa V Mandan (2021) LPELR-56146(CA). 

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

48.  Furthermore, the objection that Exhibit D4 lacks certification under Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011 is untenable because the document was produced from the custody of the bank itself, and the bank cannot be heard to challenge the integrity of its own internal electronic records, as established in Dickson v. Sylva (2017) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1567) 167. In all, this court shall also hinge on S. 12(2) of NIC Act which gives procedural flexibility to the NICN   to ensure that technical rules of evidence do not defeat substantial justice in labour and employment disputes see Victor Adegboye V UBA(2022) LPELR 58778 CA. Consequently, the 1st Defendant's objection to Exhibit D4 is overruled, and the document is properly admitted and will be considered in this judgment.

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

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

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

However, where a civil claim is founded on an allegation of crime, such as the commission of fraud or dishonesty, S.135 of the Evidence Act, 2011 mandates that such criminal allegation must be proved strictly beyond reasonable doubt. 

52. In the instant case, while the Claimant bears the initial burden of proving that he was unjustifiably blacklisted and that his constitutional and procedural rights to a fair hearing were breached, the 1st Defendant, having asserted in its pleadings that the Claimant perpetrated, connived in, or facilitated a fraud of eight hundred and twenty-seven million Naira through password compromise, bears the burden of establishing those specific acts of fraud and dishonesty beyond reasonable doubt. This court must therefore examine whether the parties have led credible, cogent, and admissible evidence to discharge their respective burdens.

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

54. Regarding the disciplinary panels, CW1 testified that "I attended the Panels set up by the 1st Defendant to investigate the alleged fraud, I was not formally invited, I was never given notice that a complaint of blacklisting has been made against me. I was summarily summoned into the sessions of the panels on two occasions, so I was never given any opportunity to prepare for a defense since no formal accusation was communicated to me." 

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

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

57. It further outlines the fair hearing process, requiring that the financial institution notify the staff in writing that a complaint for blacklisting has been filed, stating the grounds and consequences, and allow the staff to present testimony, with the final decision communicated to the staff in writing. 

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

59. To counter the Claimant's case, the 1st Defendant called its sole witness, Paul Animashaun, who testified as DW1. DW1 adopted his witness statement on oath wherein he asserted that the Claimant acted in concert with other officers in a willful password compromise that facilitated the fraud. DW1 testified that "the Claimant was well aware that the compromise of his password resulted in the fraud perpetrated against the 1st Defendant and that the inclusion of his name in the Blacklist is a foreseeable consequence of his action in line with the procedure laid down by the Operational Guidelines for Blacklisting issued by the 2nd Defendant." 

60. DW1 tendered Exhibit D1, which is the 1st Defendant's copy of the Operational Guidelines, and Exhibit D2, which is the Disciplinary Committee Report. 

Exhibit D2 states in its findings regarding the Claimant: "Wale denied Emmanuella’s assertion at EFCC interrogation that she gave him her password. He stated that he never shared or collected passwords from anyone but acknowledged that Emmanuella sometimes uses her log in details on his system to enable him decline transactions. His narration conflicts with Emmanuella’s." 

 

61. Under cross-examination, DW1 admitted that the system ID used to access the bank's system and perpetrate the fraud did not belong to the Claimant, but to another officer in the Card Operations Unit. Specifically, DW1 admitted under cross-examination that "the ID which was used for access was an officer in the Card operation unit who was supposedly on leave at that time" and confirmed that "That officer is Stephanie Igbanoi." 

62. The court noted that DW1 further admitted under cross-examination that the sole basis of the 1st Defendant's allegation against the Claimant was a retracted statement by another staff, Emmanuella Agbu. DW1 admitted that "At the EFCC, she said she shared her password with her team including the Claimant. However, at the disciplinary Committee she retracted that she did not share the password." 

63. DW1 also admitted under cross-examination that the 1st Defendant's Executive Committee considered the Disciplinary Committee report, and this consideration was captured in Exhibit D4, which was tendered through DW1.  

64. Exhibit D4, the EXCO Minutes Appendix, contains the same remarks regarding the Claimant but lists his recommendation as "Return to employer and continue with EFCC Investigation," notably containing no finding or indictment of "fraud/attempted fraud" against his name, unlike Exhibit D2.

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

66. Under cross-examination, DW2 admitted that "the 2nd Defendant blacklists upon receiving the monthly return forwarded to it by the 1st Defendant together with a declaration from the Bank that it followed due process before arriving at the decision as prescribed by the guidelines." DW2 tendered Exhibit 2D5, which is the Review of Operational Guidelines for Blacklisting.

67. A direct confrontation of the competing evidence reveals deep and irreconcilable conflicts, which must be resolved by this Court. On the material issue of whether the Claimant committed or facilitated fraud, DW1's testimony that the Claimant's password was compromised and that he connived to facilitate the fraud is directly contradicted by DW1's own admissions under cross-examination. 

DW1 unequivocally admitted that the fraud was actually committed using the personal ID of Stephanie Igbanoi, who was on leave, and not the Claimant's ID. 

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

 

68. In the process of evaluating these exhibits, this court are appalled the 1st Defendant did not call Stephanie Igbanoi, the officer whose ID was actually used to access the system, nor did they call Emmanuella Agbu to testify before this Court. While the law does not impose an obligation to call every possible witness, where a party's case relies entirely on an allegation of crime that has been retracted by the key accuser during the internal disciplinary process, the failure to call that vital witness to give direct, tested oral testimony before this Court creates a fatal gap. 

69. It must be noted that an uncontroverted denial by the Claimant under oath remains far superior to a retracted, uncross-examined statement. This Court finds CW1's denial of fraud and password compromise highly credible and consistent with the documentary evidence, while DW1's testimony is contradictory, speculative, and completely failed to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt required for allegations of fraud under Section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011. , "If the commission of a crime by a party to any proceeding is directly in issue in any civil or criminal proceeding, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt." The 1st Defendant bears the heavy burden of establishing this allegation of fraud to that high standard, and it cannot rely on mere suspicion, speculation, or shifting narratives-see S. 135(1) Evidence Act; Abubakar V Joseph (2008) 13 NWLR Pt 1104 307. In addition, the blacklisting was done while the EFCC investigation was still on going, as collaborated in the recommendation of the EXCO that claimant should be returned to his employer while EFCC continues with its investigation. In otherwords the blacklisting was done precipitously while forensic and EFCC investigations were still active and Inconclusive.   

70. On the material issue of fair hearing, the fair hearing procedure outline in Exh C8 is precise. It requires that the financial institution notify the staff member in writing tha a complaint for blacklisting has been filed against him, detailing the specific grounds and consequences, and afford him a full opportunity  to present his defense, with the final decision communicated to him in writing see S. 36(1) CFRN 1999; Graba V UNI MAIDUGURI (1986)1 NWLR (Pt 18) 550. The 1st Defendant's assertion that the Claimant was afforded a fair hearing because he attended the panel is confronted by CW1's evidence that he was never formally invited, was never notified of any blacklisting complaint, and was merely conscripted from his desk to answer questions. This court shall resolve this conflict by reference to the strict provisions of Exhibit C8 and Exhibit 2D5. 

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

72. The evidence shows that the 1^st Defendant completely bye passed these safeguards. CW1 testified that ‘ I attended the panels set up by the 1^st Defendant to investigate the alleged fraud, I was not formally invited, I was never given notice that a complaint of blacklisting has been made against me. I was summarily summoned into the sessions of the panels on two occasions, so I was never given an opportunity to prepare for a defense since no formal accusation was communicated to me”. Under cross examination, CW1 admitted that he appeared before the panel but clarified that “ I was asked only one question and that could not have given methe opportunity to express myself”. 

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

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

This court is convinced to reject the 1^st &2^nd Defendant contention that the mere physical presence of the claimant at the panel satisfied the requirement of a fair hearing. To satisfy the constitutional and regulatory standard of a fair hearing, a party must be given adequate notice of the specific allegations against him and a reasonable opportunity to prepare and present his defense. 

From CW1 account before this court which was never rebutted, he was invited from his desk to appear before an ongoing panel session, to answer a single question, at that panel, it was never disclosed to him that his name was being considered for a career-ending blacklist register, this to the mind of this court is a sarcasm of natural justice and falls short of procedural fairness.     

75. There is also a profound inconsistency and gap within the 1st Defendant's own evidence. In its amended statement of defence and DW1's deposition, the 1st Defendant pleaded that the Claimant's password was compromised. Yet, the Disciplinary Committee Report, Exhibit D2, contains no such finding, but rather focuses on an allegation that Emmanuella Agbu shared her password with him. To worsen the contradiction, Exhibit D4, which represents the Executive Committee's (EXCO) consideration and ratification of the Disciplinary Committee's report, shows that the EXCO did not find the Claimant guilty of any fraud, but simply recommended that he be returned to his employer and that the EFCC investigation should continue. 

76. This is a massive gap in the 1st Defendant's case. If the EXCO of the bank did not find the Claimant guilty of fraud, but merely returned him to his employer pending EFCC investigations, there was absolutely no legal or factual basis for the 1st Defendant to forward his name to the 2nd Defendant for blacklisting as a "terminated, dismissed, or convicted" staff on the grounds of fraud. This inconsistency directly supports the Claimant's contention that his blacklisting was whimsical, hasty, and unjustified.

77. Furthermore, the court noted that the Guidelines in Exhibit C8 and Exhibit 2D5 strictly limit the blacklisting of individuals to those who have been terminated or dismissed strictly as a result of fraud, dishonesty, or conviction. The Claimant was never a permanent employee of the 1st Defendant; he was an employee of Vic Lawrence and Associates Limited who was merely seconded to the 1st Defendant, as evidenced by Exhibit C1. Following the disciplinary investigations, the Claimant voluntarily resigned from his employment with Vic Lawrence and Associates Limited on March 9, 2021, as conclusively proved by Exhibit C2, which is his Letter of Resignation. He was neither terminated nor dismissed by his direct employer, nor was he terminated or dismissed by the 1st Defendant. By forwarding the name of an employee who voluntarily resigned, the 1st Defendant acted in flagrant disregard of the clear boundaries of Exhibit C8. An employer cannot blacklist an employee who has resigned without any subsisting indictment of fraud ratified by its management. The failure of this primary condition precedent renders the entire blacklisting process procedurally invalid from its inception, as a court of law will not allow an administrative action to stand when a statutory condition precedent has been bypassed, in line with the classic authority of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NLR 587. The 1st Defendant's defense of regulatory compliance is untenable. 

78. Now the question before the court is whether the 2nd Defendant's defense that it acted in good faith is a bar to the Claimant's relief. Good faith on the part of the regulator cannot cure a fundamentally void, wrongful and unconstitutional act of the initiating bank. Once the foundation of the blacklisting is shown to be non-existent—specifically that the Claimant resigned and was never dismissed or terminated for fraud—the entire administrative edifice of the blacklist collapses. The law does not permit an illegal act to stand merely because the regulator acted in good faith on false returns. Indeed, Clause 10.0 of the Operational Guidelines in Exhibit 2D5 expressly recognizes that a blacklisted person can be delisted upon a Court's Order. This Court having found the blacklisting to be wrongful and illegal, the 2nd Defendant has a statutory and regulatory duty to immediately expunge the Claimant's name from its blacklist register. I so find and hold.

79. This Court must also address the 1st Defendant's highly technical argument that because the Claimant did not specifically seek a relief to set aside the internal Disciplinary Committee Report, Exhibit D2, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant reliefs against the blacklist. 

80. A party is not required to challenge an internal, uncommunicated, and preliminary disciplinary report before seeking a remedy for a subsequent, distinct, and highly public wrongful act—such as blacklisting. The cause of action arose when the Claimant’s employment offer with Network International Payments Services Nigeria Limited was terminated on February 21, 2023, as proven by Exhibit C4, due to the failed background check, not when the internal panel finished its secret sessions. This argument is therefore a complete legal non sequitur.

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

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

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

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

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

86. The bank suffered a fraud of ?827,000,000.00, which is indeed a serious matter, but does not give it a license to incriminate an officer whose password was never used and against whom its own Executive Committee found no guilt. The injury suffered by the Claimant—the loss of his job, the destruction of his career prospects, and the severe psychological trauma of being branded a fraudster—flows directly and naturally from the 1st Defendant’s wrongful and unlawful submission of his name to the 2nd Defendant.

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

88. Having regard to the loss of his employment where he earned ?450,000.00 monthly, the career stagnation of over two years, and the profound damage to his professional reputation, this Court assesses and awards general damages in the sum of ?20,000,000.00 against the 1st Defendant. 

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

90. In conclusion, the court makes the following net evidential findings on the issues. First, the 1st Defendant failed to prove any act of fraud, dishonesty, or password compromise against the Claimant, and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt was not met, Exh C4  the 1st Defendant's internal EXCO report (Exhibit D4) did not indict the Claimant.

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

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

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

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

  

  HON. JUSTICE JOYCE . A.  O.  DAMACHI

                     JUDGE 

 

 

Appearances    

O. C. Olagunju  Esq --- For Claimant 

C. Maduneme Esq --For 1^st Defendant  

A. G. Abubakar…..for 2^nd Defendant