IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE BAUCHI JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT BAUCHI

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE MUSTAPHA TIJJANI

APRIL 20 2026 

SUIT NO.: NICN/GMB/06/2024

BETWEEN:                                                                                    

SULEIMAN LADO        -        -        -        -        -        -        CLAIMANT

AND

UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC  -        -        -        -        DEFENDANT

 

REPRESENTATION:

1. Ayuba Rabiu Esq. with I.T Rabo Esq. for the Claimant.
2. F.O Enoghene Esq. for the Defendant.

 

JUDGMENT

The Claimant commenced this action via a General Form of Complaint on February 26, 2024. The Claimant seeks the following reliefs against the Defendant.

1. A DECLARATION that the car loan facility of N1,565,000.00k and Personal Loan of N3,100,000.00k disbursed to the Plaintiff on 15th May 2019 and 16th October 2019 respectively by the Defendant was insured and covered by the Defendants insurance policy for loss of employment insurance scheme.
2. A DECLARATION that the restructuring of the Plaintiffs loan facility to N5,057,565.95k is void and unlawful.
3.  A DECLARATION that the unilateral restructuring of the Plaintiffs loan facility by the defendant to N11,431,999.93k with an interest sum N8,194,600.10k culminating into the total sum N19,625,601.03k is void and unlawful.
4. A DECLARATION that the Global Instruction System (GIS) executed on the plaintiff’s Bank Verification Number (22239714925) that allows the recovery of the car loan and Personal Loan already insured and covered by the Defendants insurance policy for loss of employment insurance scheme after the involuntary resignation of the Plaintiff is unlawful.
5. AN ORDER COMPELLING the Defendant to stop the Global Instruction System executed on the plaintiff’s Bank Verification Number (22239714925) that allows the recovery of the car loan and Personal Loan insured and covered by the Defendants insurance policy for loss of employment insurance scheme
6. AN ORDER COMPELLING the Defendant to remove the Plaintiff’s Bank Verification Number (22239714925) on the Central Bank of Nigeria’s (CBN) Credit Risk Management System (CRMS) for having a bad loan
7. AN ORDER Barring the Defendant from issuing posted cheques to recover the car loan and Personal Loan already insured and covered by the Defendants insurance policy for loss of employment insurance scheme
8. AN ORDER COMPELLING the Defendant to stop the Global Instruction System executed on the plaintiff’s Bank Verification Number that allows the recovery of the car loan and Personal Loan insured and covered by the Defendants insurance policy for loss of employment insurance scheme
9. A DECLARATION that the plaintiff was not liable to pay the outstanding balance of N4,389,433.27k and the interest having accrued thereon when he involuntarily resigned from the employment of the 1st Defendant the same having been insured by the Defendants insurance policy
10. AN ORDER COMPELLING the Defendants to refund to the Plaintiff the total sum of N1,658,327.29 being deductions made from the Plaintiffs account from 30th July 2023 to 1 January 2024 for repayment of the loan already covered by an insurance policy.
11.  AN ORDER COMPELLING the Defendants to refund to the Plaintiff the sum of N2,046,821.67 being deduction made from the Plaintiffs account on 14th Jan 2020 for repayment of the loan already covered by an insurance policy.
12. AN ORDER COMPELLING the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff his benefit sum of N2,729,000 (Two Million, Seven Hundred and Twenty-Nine Thousand Naira) unlawfully debited from his account on 16th January 2020 for the repayment of the loan already covered by an insurance policy.
13. AN ORDER COMPELLING the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff the sum of N50,000,000 (Fifty million Naira Only) being general damages.
14. The sum of N600,000.00 (Six Hundred Thousand Naira Only) against the Defendant, as the cost of filing and prosecuting this suit. 
15. AN ORDER directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff 100% interest daily on the sum unlawfully withdrawn from the date of the withdrawal till the said sum is liquidated
16. AN ORDER directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff 10% interest annually on the judgment sum from the date of judgment.

The Defendant in response to the Claimant’s complaint filed a Memorandum of Appearance on April 2^nd 2024 and an Amended Statement of Defence on January 22^nd 2025.

According to the Statement of facts, the Claimant was employed by the Defendant from 2007 until 2020, a period spanning 13 years, before initiating this lawsuit. During his tenure, the Claimant claimed to have obtained two distinct loans from the Defendant, which were deposited into his account on May 15, 2019, and October 16, 2019. These loans were reportedly covered by a "loss of employment insurance scheme" with Anchor Insurance. The Claimant also mentioned that he was forced to resign by the Defendant through an email. Upon his departure, the Defendant allegedly deducted amounts from his terminal benefits that should have been protected by the loan insurance policy. Additionally, the Claimant noted that he received a job offer from Sterling Bank Plc but was unable to accept it because the Defendant had flagged him on the Credit Risk Management portal with an outstanding loan exceeding three million naira. Furthermore, the Defendant allegedly increased the Claimant's outstanding loan to over eleven million Naira in July 2023 and flagged his BVN on the Central Bank of Nigeria’s Credit Risk Management System (CRMS) for a bad loan. To clear his name for the new job, the Defendant reportedly forced the Claimant to restructure his loan on May 22, 2023. This restructured loan was set to last six years, requiring the Claimant to repay over nineteen million Naira in principal and interest. The Claimant asserts that this situation has caused him undue financial hardship and damaged his reputation, prompting him to file this lawsuit against the Defendant.

The Defendant responded by asserting that the Claimant had secured a car and consumer loan from them, which was insured until the Claimant resigned on January 3, 2024. Additionally, the Defendant clarified that the loan agreement did not specify that the insurance policy would fully cover the Claimant's loan obligations upon resignation. The Defendant also refuted the Claimant's assertions, stating that the Claimant was not coerced into resigning. Furthermore, the Defendant claimed that the Claimant's name was listed on the CRMS solely to adhere to CBN policy, not due to the capital and interest owed by the Claimant. It was emphasized that the Claimant was neither overcharged nor labeled as financially irresponsible, but was simply noted to have an outstanding debt to the Defendant. The Defendant rejected the Claimant's allegations, arguing that the lawsuit is merely an attempt to avoid fulfilling loan responsibilities to the bank.

The Claimant testified himself and led evidence in chief. He tendered sixteen (16) documents which were admitted and marked as Exhibits A-O respectively. 

Exhibit A: Claimant’s UBA offer of employment dated June 4 2007

Exhibit B: Claimant’s letter of Admission to UBA Banking School

Exhibit C: Letter of Long Service Award dated June 11 2017

Exhibit D: Offer of loan facility dated October 16 2019

Exhibit E: Loss of employment insurance claim form

Exhibit F: Email from the Defendant requesting Claimant’s resignation 

Exhibit G: Letter of Exit from the UBA

Exhibit H: Claimant’s UBA Statement of Account

Exhibit I: Claimant’s Sterling Bank Offer of employment dated November 28 2022

Exhibit J: Print out of CBN Credit Risk Management System (CRMS)

Exhibit K: CBN Clearance letter to Sterling Bank

Exhibit L: UBA offer of loan Facility Restructure

Exhibit M: Printout of email with breakdown of the Claimant’s amortisation schedule

Exhibit N: Payment receipt of the Claimant’s Solicitor’s

The Defendant on her part led a sole witness but did not tender any document in evidence.

By a Final Written Address filed April 20 2026, learned counsel formulated a sole issue for determination as follows:

“Whether the Claimant has discharged the burden of proof on preponderance of evidence for him to be entitled to damages in loan agreement against the Defendant?”

On the sole issue, learned counsel argued that the burden of proof in civil cases rests on the person who would fail if no evidence is given from either side, in which case, lies solely on the Claimant. That there is nothing for the Defendant to prove save for the counter-claim. On this, learned counsel relied on Section 131 of the Evidence Act 2011 and the case of Henshaw V. Effanga & Anor. (2008) LPELR-4075(CA). Learned counsel contended that, for a valid insurance contract to subsist, the Claimant is duty bound to prove that he had satisfied the pre-condition of paying for the insurance premium as consideration. Learned counsel relied on Section 50(1) of the Insurance Act 2004 and the case of NICON Insurance Plc v Onigbanjo (2017) LPELR 50660.

Learned counsel argued that the Claimant is further duty bound to prove he had insurable interest which would give him the cause of action against the Defendant. Learned counsel added that the absence of the said insurance interest would then constitute an inducement or frustration of the insurance contract. On this, learned counsel relied on Law Union & Rock Insurance Co. (Nig) Ltd v Onuoha (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt. 555) 576 @585. Learned counsel further argued that the Claimant is duty bound to prove that he is not liable for the insured product, which in this case is the claimant’s loan. Learned counsel relied on Addison United (Nig) Ltd v Lion of Africa Insurance Ltd (2010) LPELR 35996.

Learned counsel further argued that in response to the Claimant averment that he was made to resign involuntarily, that the term voluntary connotes something done by one’s own wish or design while involuntary which connotes that exact opposite and means anything done not resulting from a free and unrestrained choice. Learned counsel relied on the The New International Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language at page 1409 and the case of Co-Operative Development Bank v. Joe Golday co. Ltd & Ors (2000) LPELR 6813 (CA).

Learned counsel argued that the Claimant’s contention that it was the Defendant via email that requested for the Claimant’s resignation as in Exhibit F cannot hold water. Learned counsel argued that the Claimant had already indicated interest to resign which led the Defendant to request the Claimant’s resignation. Learned counsel added that the Claimant failed to disclose that there was an earlier correspondence prior to the email in Exhibit F. Larned counsel argued that the law insists that a party should be consistent in his pleadings once issued have been joined. Learned counsel relied on Idris vs Agumagu (2015) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1477) 441@473-474 Para G-B.

Learned counsel further argued that the Claimant has also failed to prove the Defendant’s purported breach of contract in his case. Learned counsel argued that an action for enforcement of breach of contract would only succeed where the Claimant discharges his obligation under the contract breached. Learned counsel relied on Achonu vs Okunobi (2017) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1584) 142@178 Para G-A.Learned counsel further added that the law is that, it is not the host of witnesses or evidence that guarantees the success of a case but the quality of evidence. Learned counsel went further and argued that pleadings do not speak through themselves but through witnesses. That the absence of witness renders the pleadings moribund and at all times to the procedural disadvantage of the owner. Learned counsel relied on Peter Ojo Vs Onwuala Kamalu & Ors (2005) 18 NWLR PT 958, 523 @ 565 R. 19. Learned counsel further argued that the Claimant is further said to have withheld evidence pursuant to section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act. Learned counsel relied on Oduche vs. Oduche (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt.972) 102 @ 120 para E.

In response to the Claimant’s averment that the Defendant uploaded the Claimant’s outstanding loan details on CBN’s CRM which purportedly affected the Claimant’s employment with sterling bank, that the said upload was lawfully done pursuant to Exhibit D. 

Learned counsel further argued that in response to the Claimant’s allegation that he was coerced to agree to the restructuring of the loan agreement, learned counsel argued that the burden of proof of same rests on the Claimant who ought to have pleaded and proved same. Learned counsel relied on Sadiq v Balarabe (2020) LCN 15415 CA.

Learned counsel added that parties are bound by their agreement and the court cannot rewrite the terms of such agreement. Learned counsel relied on Oforishe v Nig Gas Co. Ltd (2018) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1692) 35 and Agbareh v Mimira (2008) LRCN 325. Learned counsel submitted that the Claimant having failed to prove the purported breach and also failed to prove that he had complied with the insurance requirement, cannot be allowed to benefit from his own wrong. Learned counsel relied on Enekwe vs IMB (Nig) Ltd. (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 349) 1053@1081 Paras. C-D. Learned counsel thereafter urged the Court to dismiss the Claimant’s claims.

The Claimant by a Final Written Address filed June 18 2025, learned counsel formulated two issues for determination as follows:

“Whether the Defendant was right to make deductions from the Claimant’s benefits and account after his involuntary resignation, despite the existence of an insurance policy covering the loans.

Whether the Defendant’s reporting of the Claimant’s loan status to the CRMS system and unilateral loan restructuring was illegal.”

On the Defendant’s issues One and Two, learned counsel argued that the Claimant’s case is premised on the two loan facilities which he obtained from the Defendant. That the loan facilities have been insured to the extent that the Claimant’s liabilities will be covered in the event of involuntary loss of job as captured at page 2 paragraph 4 of Exhibit D. Learned counsel contended that the purpose of the insurance is to absorb the Claimant’s loan obligations his employment having been terminated involuntarily by the Defendant. Learned counsel submitted that parties are bound by their agreement and the courts must respect the sanctity of such agreements. learned counsel relied on Babatunde v Bank of the North Ltd & Ors (2012)206 LRCN 61 at 83 and M.B.N. Plc v. Nwobodo (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1426) 455.

Learned counsel argued that the Claimant received an email as in exhibit F wherein the Defendant requested the Claimant’s resignation. Learned counsel argued that this is a superior directive which Claimant complied and the Claimant was thereafter issued a letter of exit from the Defendant. Learned counsel contended that the onus is on the Defendant who argued in their defence that there is an earlier trail of email preceding Exhibit F which would have proved that Exhibit F was not abruptly requested. Learned counsel further argued that the law gives preference to quality and not quantity of evidence. Learned counsel relied on Nigerian Army v. Major Jacob Iyela [2008] LPELR-2014 (SC); [2008] 7-12 SC 35; [2008] 18 NWLR (Pt. 1118) 115.

 Learned counsel further argued that the onus is on the Defendant who asserted that the Claimant had earlier indicated interest to resign upon which the Defendant requested the Claimant to resign via Exhibit F. Learned counsel added that the contention of the Defendant that the Claimant has withheld evidence pursuant to Section 167 of the Evidence Act cannot hold water.

Learned counsel further argued that where a claimant alleges forced resignation, the burden of proof shifts on the Defendant to rebut the prima facie allegation. Learned counsel relied on University of Jos v. Yemtet (2016) LPELR-40434(CA). 

Learned counsel contended that upon the Claimant’s exit, the Defendant failed to activate the Claimant’s insurance policy and opted to penalize the Claimant by making deductions to his terminal benefits despite inducing the resignation. Learned counsel argued that a party is entitled to the declaratory reliefs sought having established an employment relationship and that injuries have been suffered. Learned counsel relied on Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria v. Schlumberger Anadrill Nigeria Ltd (2008) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1097) 467, Spring Bank Plc v. Babatunde (2012) LPELR-8008(CA).

Learned counsel argued that the Defendant wrongfully uploaded the Claimant’s personal credit data on the CBN Credit Risk Management System (CRMS). Learned counsel added that the platform is meant to regulate financial stability and by uploading the Claimant’s details sabotaged the Claimant prospective employment with Sterling Bank. That this has caused reputational damage on the Claimant. 

Learned counsel further argued that the loan restructuring agreement was signed under duress. Learned counsel thus argued that an agreement entered into under coercion lacks validity. Learned counsel relied on Savannah Bank v. Fakokun (2002) 1 NWLR (Pt. 749) 544. Learned counsel submitted that the Defendant’s unilateral inflation of the Claimant’s loan from N3,100,000 to over N19,600,000 amounts to unfair labour practice. Learned counsel thereafter urged the Court to grant the Claimant’s reliefs. 

5.0 COURT’S DECISION

Upon thoroughly reviewing the filed processes, the presented evidence, and the counsel's final written submissions along with the cited authorities, this Court identifies the following issues as derived from the pleadings and counsel's addresses:

1. Whether the Claimant's resignation was involuntary or voluntary, and whether he is entitled to the benefit of the insurance cover for involuntary loss of employment.

2.  Whether the Defendant's restructuring of the Claimant's loan facility and reporting of his details to the CRMS portal were lawful.

3. Whether the Claimant has discharged the burden of proof to entitle him to the reliefs sought.

The central point of contention in Issue One revolves around how Exhibit D (the Loan Offer Letter) is understood, with a specific focus on paragraph 4, which states:

"The facility shall be covered by insurance policy up to the facility amount, and for 36 months, with the bank noted as the First Loss Payee. Insurance covers death, permanent disability and involuntary loss of job."

The Claimant asserts that his resignation was not voluntary, as he was directed by the Defendant through an email labelled Exhibit F, which read: "Please send your resignation letter now." Conversely, the Defendant maintains that the resignation was voluntary, citing the condition outlined in paragraph 5 of Exhibit D.

 "At the point of voluntary retirement (where staff wilfully resigns), the terminal benefit where available will be used to REDUCE the staff exposure under this facility."

It is a firmly established principle that parties must adhere to the conditions outlined in their contracts. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Babatunde v. Bank of the North Ltd & Ors (2012) 206 LRCN 61 at 83:

"It is however trite that a court of law must always respect the sanctity of the agreements reached by the parties. It must not make a contract for them or re-write the one they have already made themselves."

In the case of M.B.N. Plc v. Nwobodo (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1426) 455, the Court held that a contract party is obligated to adhere to the terms they have willingly agreed upon..

The key issue is whether the Claimant's resignation meets the criteria of "involuntary loss of job" as contemplated in the insurance policy. The word "voluntary" means "done by design or intention" or "unconstrained by interference; not impelled by outside influence" — Black's Law Dictionary (9th Edition). The word "involuntary" means "not resulting from a free and unrestrained choice" See Black's Law Dictionary (9th Edition).

The Court of Appeal in Co-Operative Development Bank v. Joe Golday Co. Ltd & Ors (2000) LPELR 6813 (CA) held that the word "voluntarily" means "freely" or "of one's own accord" — "willingly" or "without compulsion."

The material evidence presented to this Court, especially Exhibit F, includes an instruction from the Defendant to the Claimant, which reads: "Please send your resignation letter now." This message was dispatched on Friday, January 3, 2020, at 9:57:21 PM. Additionally, the resignation letter (Exhibit G) bears the same date, January 3, 2020. This sequence of events indicates that the Claimant was directed to resign and did so without delay.

The Defendant's claim that Exhibit F simply represents a previous communication where the Claimant intended to resign lacks any supporting evidence. The Defendant did not provide any earlier correspondence demonstrating that the Claimant had shown an intention to resign. According to a basic rule of evidence, the responsibility to prove lies with the one who makes the assertion. Refer to Okubule v. Oyagbola (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 147) 723; Omisore v. Aregbesola (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1282) 1. Since the Defendant claimed that the Claimant had previously indicated a desire to resign, it was obligated to substantiate that claim, which it failed to do.

The Defendant's argument that the Claimant's omission to submit his resignation letter constitutes evidence suppression under Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act is not valid. The Defendant references the principle from Oduche v. Oduche (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt. 972) 102, which is applicable when a party conceals evidence that would be detrimental to them. In this situation, the Defendant is the one withholding evidence, as they received the resignation letter but did not present it. The Defendant cannot accuse the Claimant of not providing a document that the Defendant already possesses.

The Court concludes that the Claimant has convincingly demonstrated, through a preponderance of evidence, that his resignation was not voluntary but rather prompted by the Defendant. The directive outlined in Exhibit F, which lacks any indication of a prior intent to resign, leads to this determination. Consequently, the Claimant is eligible for the insurance benefits related to involuntary job loss as detailed in paragraph 4 of Exhibit D. I so hold.

Concerning Issue Two, the Claimant argues that his loan facility was restructured under coercion, and that the unilateral increase of the outstanding amount from N4,389,433.27 to N11,431,999.93, and eventually to N19,625,601.03, was both unlawful and oppressive. It is a well-established legal principle that contracts formed under duress or coercion are voidable. In the case of Savannah Bank v. Fakokun (2002) 1 NWLR (Pt. 749) 544, the Court determined that agreements made under duress or coercion are not legally valid. Nonetheless, the responsibility to prove duress or coercion rests with the party making the allegation. Refer to Sadiq v. Balarabe (2020) LCN 15415 CA.

The Claimant contended that he was coerced into signing the restructuring agreement, yet he did not present enough evidence to substantiate the claim of coercion. The Court requires credible evidence to accept a claim of duress. Since the Claimant did not demonstrate the specifics of duress, the Court cannot invalidate the restructuring agreement solely on that basis. Nonetheless, the Court observes that the Defendant's unilateral adjustment of the loan, which raised the outstanding amount from about N4.3 million to more than N19.6 million, seems excessive and oppressive. The Defendant did not offer a detailed explanation of the interest calculation or justify such a significant increase. Although the Court will not alter the contract between the parties, the Defendant is obliged to act in good faith and avoid imposing unreasonable terms on a former employee. I so hold.

Regarding the CRMS reporting, the Defendant referenced paragraph 3 of Exhibit D, which grants permission to upload customer information to the CBN portal. This permission was signed willingly by the Claimant. Nonetheless, the Defendant is required to report the Claimant's loan status to the CRMS in a reasonable manner and in line with the agreement's terms. It was determined that the Claimant's resignation was not voluntary and that the loans were insured against involuntary job loss. Therefore, the Defendant should have initiated the insurance claim and settled the loan obligation. Reporting the Claimant as a loan defaulter after the insurance should have been activated is improper and constitutes misuse of the CRMS reporting system. I so hold.

This Court agrees with the position in Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria v. Schlumberger Anadrill Nigeria Ltd (2008) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1097) 467, stating that when an employment relationship is confirmed and unjust deductions or damages happen, the Court has the authority to offer appropriate remedies. I so hold.

Concerning the third issue, the Defendant contended that the Claimant did not meet the burden of proof mandated by Sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Additionally, the Defendant argued that the Claimant did not demonstrate the payment of the insurance premium, which is a prerequisite for a valid insurance contract according to Section 50(1) of the Insurance Act, 2004.

Section 50(1) of the Insurance Act, 2004 provides:

 "The receipt of an insurance premium shall be a condition precedent to a valid contract of insurance and there shall be no cover in respect of an insurance risk unless the premium is paid in advance."

In the case of NICON Insurance Plc v. Onigbanjo (2017) LPELR 50660, the Court of Appeal reiterated that a valid insurance contract requires the payment of a premium as a prerequisite. Similarly, in Law Union & Rock Insurance Co. (Nig) Ltd v. Onuoha (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt. 555) 576, the Court determined that the insured party is obligated to demonstrate the existence of an insurable interest.

Nonetheless, the Defendant's reasoning on this issue is flawed. The Defendant obtained the insurance policy as the First Loss Payee to benefit its employees. The premium was intended to be covered by the Defendant as part of the employee loan program. It is not the Claimant who is attempting to enforce the insurance contract against the insurer; instead, the Claimant is trying to oblige the Defendant to initiate the insurance coverage that the Defendant arranged. The responsibility to demonstrate the payment of the premium falls on the party attempting to enforce the insurance contract. Here, it is the Defendant who would have settled the premium and would file a claim under the policy. I so hold.

In the case of Addison United (Nig) Ltd v. Lion of Africa Insurance Ltd (2010) LPELR 35996, the Court determined that it is the responsibility of the insurer to justify why it should not be held accountable for the insured goods. Similarly, the Defendant, as the First Loss Payee, must prove why the insurance coverage should not be activated. The Court concludes that the Claimant has met the burden of proof based on the preponderance of evidence. The Claimant presented the following:

 1. Exhibit D — The Loan Offer Letter, which indicates that the loans were insured against involuntary job loss.

 2. Exhibit F — An email from the Defendant directing the Claimant to resign.

                   3. Exhibit G — The Letter of Exit.

                   4. Statement of Account — Illustrating deductions made after resignation.

 5. Exhibits M and N — Proof of CRMS reporting.

 6. Exhibit O — Evidence of forced loan restructuring.

The Defendant presented a single witness and did not submit any documents, choosing to rely on those provided by the Claimant. The Defendant's testimony was insufficient to counter the Claimant's initial case. It is a well-established legal principle that a party must prevail based on the merits of its own case rather than the deficiencies in the opponent's defense. Refer to Daisi v. Oloto (2012) 48 WRN 134; Henshaw v. Effanga & Anor (2008) LPELR-4075(CA).

 

The Claimant has demonstrated that:

1. He secured loans from the Defendant, which were insured against involuntary job loss.

2. His resignation was not voluntary, as it was directed by the Defendant.

3. The Defendant neglected to initiate the insurance coverage and instead continued to withdraw from his account and final benefits.

4. The Defendant unjustly reported him to the CRMS portal, hindering his future employment opportunities.

To conclude, based on all the reasons provided, I determine that the Claimant's case is successful. Therefore, I issue the following declarations and orders:

1. It is hereby DECLARED that the Defendant's insurance policy for the loss of employment insurance scheme covered both the car loan of N1,565,000.00 and the Personal Loan of N3,100,000.00, which were provided to the Claimant on 15th May 2019 and 16th October 2019, respectively.

 

2. It is hereby DECLARED that the restructuring of the Claimant's loan facility to N5,057,565.95 is invalid and unlawful, as the Defendant failed to activate the insurance cover and continued to withdraw funds from the Claimant's account.

 

3. The Defendant's unilateral adjustment of the Claimant's loan facility to N11,431,999.93, with an interest amount of N8,194,600.10, resulting in a total of N19,625,601.03, is declared void and unlawful.

 

4. It is hereby DECLARED that the application of the Global Instruction System (GIS) to the Claimant's Bank Verification Number (22239714925), which facilitates the recovery of the car loan and personal loan insured under the Defendant's policy for loss of employment insurance following the Claimant's involuntary resignation, is unlawful.

 

5. An Order is hereby issued requiring the Defendant to cease the Global Instruction System linked to the Claimant's Bank Verification Number (22239714925). This system facilitates the recovery of the car loan and Personal Loan, which are insured under the Defendant's policy for loss of employment.

6. An Order is issued to REQUIRE the Defendant to promptly remove the Claimant's Bank Verification Number (22239714925) from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Credit Risk Management System (CRMS) due to a bad loan.

 

7. An Order is issued to PROHIBIT the Defendant from using posted cheques to recover the car loan and Personal Loan, which are already insured under the Defendant's loss of employment insurance scheme.

 

8. An Order is issued to REQUIRE the Defendant to cease the Global Instruction System linked to the Claimant's Bank Verification Number, which facilitates the recovery of the car loan and Personal Loan insured under the Defendant's loss of employment insurance scheme. (This relief is redundant with Relief E and is therefore included within it.)

 

9. It is DECLARED that the Claimant is not responsible for paying the outstanding balance of N4,389,433.27 and the accrued interest, as the Claimant involuntarily resigned from the Defendant's employment, and the amount is covered by the Defendant's insurance policy.

 

10. An Order is issued to REQUIRE the Defendant to reimburse the Claimant the total amount of N1,658,327.29, which was deducted from the Claimant's account between 30th July 2023 and 1st January 2024 for a loan already covered by an insurance policy.

 

11. An Order is issued to REQUIRE the Defendant to reimburse the Claimant the sum of N2,046,821.67, which was deducted from the Claimant's account on 14th January 2020 for a loan already covered by an insurance policy.

12. The court orders the Defendant to reimburse the Claimant with the benefit amount of N2,729,000.00, which was unlawfully deducted from his account on January 16, 2020, for a loan that was already insured.

 

13. The Claimant is awarded N3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira Only) in general damages against the Defendant for:

- Unauthorized deductions from the Claimant's account and terminal benefits.

- Wrongful reporting of the Claimant to the CRMS portal, which affected his job opportunities.

- Damage to the Claimant's reputation due to being labeled as a loan defaulter.

 

14. The Claimant is granted N600,000.00 (Six Hundred Thousand Naira Only) to cover the costs of filing and prosecuting this suit.

 

15. The Claimant's request for 100% daily interest on the unlawfully withdrawn sum from the date of withdrawal is denied, as it is considered unreasonable and lacks contractual or statutory support.

 

16. POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST (Relief P): The court orders the Defendant to pay the Claimant 10% interest per annum on the judgment sum from the date of this judgment until the full amount is paid.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

                          ………………………………….

                              HON. JUSTICE MUSTAPHA TIJJANI