IN
THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN
THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN
AT ABUJA
BEFORE
HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE E. D. SUBILIM
DATE: 6TH
MARCH, 2026 SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/193/2024
BETWEEN:
MRS. OLAJUMOKE
OLUYEMISI OBOT - CLAIMANT
AND
1.
|
|
2.
MR KINGSLEY OBIUKWU DEFENDANTS
3.
MR POLYCARP OBIUKWU
REPRESENTATION:
E. C. Okpaga Esq.,
with Juliet Oguigbangbe Esq., for the Claimant.
Princess
Mediatrix N. Chigbo Esq., with Farouk U. Suleiman Esq., for the Defendants.
JUDGMENT
1.
By a General Form of
Complaint dated and filed on 5th July, 2024, the Claimant seeks the
following reliefs against the Defendants:
a.
A DECLARATION that the
Defendants’ action in unilaterally terminating the Claimant’s employment upon
an allegation of gross misconduct (theft) without conducting any investigation
into the matter and without affording her any opportunity to defend herself against
the allegation amounts to wrongful termination of her employment.
b.
AN ORDER directing the
Defendants jointly and severally to retract the Employee Termination letter
dated June 9, 2023 issued by the Defendant to the Claimant.
c.
AN ORDER directing the
Defendants jointly and severally to pay to the Claimant all the salaries and
benefits accruing to her from the date of wrongful termination of her
employment by the Defendants (i.e. 9th June, 2023) till the date of
judgment.
d.
A DECLARATION that the
Defendants’ action of terminating the Claimant’s employment upon the allegation
of gross misconduct (theft) without affording her an opportunity to be heard
amounts to gross violation of her fundamental right to fair hearing.
e.
A DECLARATION that the
Defendants’ action of terminating the Claimant’s employment upon the allegation
of gross misconduct (theft) without an investigation into the allegation amount
to defamation.
f.
AN ORDER directing the
Defendants jointly and severally to pay to the Claimant the sum of N250,
000,000.00 (two hundred and fifty million naira only) as damages for the
wrongful termination of her employment.
g.
AN ORDER mandating the
Defendants jointly and severally to reinstate the Claimant’s employment with
the 1st Defendant.
h.
AN ORDER directing the
Defendants jointly and severally to pay to the Claimant the sum of N250,
000,000.00 (Two hundred and fifty million naira only) as damages for
defamation.
i.
AN ORDER directing the
Defendants jointly and severally to pay to the Claimant the sum of N250,
000,000.00 (two hundred and fifty million naira only) as damages for gross
violation of her fundamental right to fair hearing.
j.
AN ORDER directing the
Defendants jointly and severally to the Claimant the of sum of N5,500,000.00
(Five million, five hundred thousand naira only\) as the cost of filing and
prosecuting this action.
k.
Court interest of 10%
of the judgment sum per annum from the date of judgment till the judgment sum
is fully liquidated.
l.
SUCH FURTHER ORDER(S)
as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.
CLAIMANT’S
CASE
2.
It is the Claimant's
case that she was employed by the Defendants on 24th June, 2022, as a Food and
Beverage (F&B) Supervisor, a position she held with distinction,
consistently demonstrating exemplary performance and strict adherence to
company standards, including recording the highest volume of customer tips
within the 1st Defendant's establishment. It is equally the averment of the
Claimant that on 6th June, 2023, during her scheduled shift, an
in-house guest presented the her with a tip of N1,500.00 and that in strict
adherence to the Defendants' established policy and customary procedure for
handling guest gratuities, which mandates that tips received by supervisors are
to be submitted to a designated waiter for onward submission to the F&B
Manager's office for formal registration (including name, date, and amount),
she immediately handed the N1,500.00 to Mr. Daniel Sorkwagh, a waiter on duty.
However, towards the close of her shift, Mr. Sorkwagh returned the N1,500.00 explaining
that he had been unable to process its registration at the F&B Manager's
office due to the office being closed for the day. Consequently, and to ensure
the safekeeping of the funds until proper submission could be effected she
temporarily secured the tip by wrapping it in a serviette and placing it within
the waistband of her uniform skirt. Shortly thereafter, she encountered the
F&B Manager, Mr. Frank, in the restaurant area and promptly presented the
N1,500.00 tip to Mr. Frank, explaining the circumstances of its return by Mr.
Sorkwagh and her temporary possession. Mr. Frank explicitly instructed the her to
retain the tip in her possession overnight, stating that he would not be
returning to his office that day and directed her to submit it to him the
following day. Claimant further aver that in direct compliance with this managerial
instruction she placed the tip back into her uniform waistband for secure
overnight keeping. That at approximately 9:21 PM, during the routine closing
search conducted by the female security operative, she was questioned regarding
the serviette containing the tip. She immediately and transparently explained
the entire sequence of events, including the guest's gratuity, Mr. Sorkwagh's
inability to register it, and crucially, Mr. Frank's explicit instruction to
retain the tip overnight for submission the next day. She further requested
that the security operative verify her account directly with Mr. Frank. Upon
her resumption for duty the following day, 7th June, 2023, she was provided
with an Incident Report Form by the security operative, which she completed
accurately and truthfully, detailing the events of the previous day.
Concurrently, she formally reported the incident to her direct manager, Mr.
Frank, who acknowledged her report and assured her that he would personally
explain the situation to the Chief Security Officer and the Human Resources
Department. Despite her full disclosure, proactive reporting, and the clear
managerial instruction she had followed, she was subjected to summary
termination in flagrant disregard of established disciplinary procedures and
principles of natural justice, the Defendants failed to conduct any
investigation whatsoever into the incident. It is her further averment that she
was neither issued a formal query nor afforded any opportunity to respond to
the allegations, present her defense, or be heard before a decision was made.
Instead, at the close of business on 9th June, 2023, she was
abruptly presented with a letter of termination, citing 'gross misconduct
(theft)' as the grounds. That she was compelled to sign the termination letter
under duress, explicitly stating her vehement denial of the alleged offense and
protesting the lack of due process. She averred that this wrongful termination,
predicated on an unsubstantiated and false allegation of theft has caused
severe and irreparable damage to her professional reputation and character and
that this baseless accusation has significantly prejudiced her prospects of
securing future employment within the hospitality industry and beyond, causing
substantial emotional distress and financial hardship.
DEFENDANTS’
CASE
3.
The Defendants filed a
Joint Statement of Defence on the 8th day of October 2024
unequivocally contending that the Claimant was found liable for gross
misconduct, specifically for violating her express conditions of employment,
the established Employee Handbook, and the stipulated conditions of service.
The Defendants aver that in accordance with the 1st Defendant’s
clearly communicated and acknowledged security protocols, and as a routine
measure applicable to all staff, the Claimant was subjected to a physical exit
search and that during this search, it was discovered that the Claimant had
deliberately concealed the sum of N1500 on her person in direct contravention
of company policy. The Defendants further aver that the 1st Defendant
maintains a stringent and well-publicized policy, explicitly prohibiting any
staff member from carrying money to or from the Hotel premises, unless such
funds are declared and processed through official channels. This critical
policy of which the Claimant was fully aware through her signed employment
contract, mandatory induction training, and the readily accessible Employee
Handbook is fundamental to preventing pilfering, ensuring financial
transparency, and safeguarding against unconscionable gains by staff members,
thereby upholding the integrity of the Hotel's operations.
4.
It is the Defendants’
averment that the Claimant's assertion regarding the undisclosed funds is
demonstrably false and contrary to established procedure. The mandatory
protocol for handling tips, known to all employees including the Claimant,
requires that all tips received must be immediately disclosed to the Head of
Department or Manager. These tips are then registered in a collective pool for
transparent and equitable onward disbursement to staff and also that funds from
this collective pool can only be legitimately withdrawn with a duly endorsed
"tip pass" issued by the Head of Department/Manager, or by the Duty
Manager in their absence. The undisclosed sum of N1500 was never declared or
processed by the Claimant in accordance with this policy. Its discovery was
solely a result of the aforementioned search, not a voluntary disclosure. The
Defendants further confirm that secure facilities, including a designated
locker room for personal belongings, were readily available to the Claimant for
the storage of personal items, and that staff from the subsequent shift were
available to manage any legitimate tips, rendering the Claimant's actions
entirely without justification or necessity.
5.
The Defendants aver
that the Claimant was issued an official Incident Report Form for her formal
response to the allegations, not an "anti-incident" form as
erroneously alleged by the Claimant. The full particulars of the gross
misconduct were formally presented to the Claimant on the day following the
incident, providing her with a clear and timely opportunity to understand and
respond to the specific allegations to which she subsequently made an oral
submission in her defence. The Defendants posited that the Claimant was
afforded a comprehensive and fair hearing throughout the disciplinary process,
in strict adherence to the Hotel's disciplinary procedures. She was given ample
opportunity to refute the allegations against her, making both an oral
submission and a written statement, which was duly recorded on the Incident
Report Form. That during the formal disciplinary proceedings, the Claimant
admitted the infraction, specifically acknowledging that she had concealed the
N1500 in her uniform. This admission was made during her oral defence before a
duly constituted panel comprising the Human Resources Manager, General Manager,
and Chief Security Officer. Her sole defence offered was that she
"forgot" she had concealed the tip in her uniform a defence deemed
wholly unsatisfactory, implausible, and unacceptable given the clear policy,
her responsibilities, and the circumstances of the discovery. The security
personnel who conducted the search also submitted a detailed Incident Report
Form documenting their findings and observations. Consequently, all
submissions, including the Claimant's admission, her stated defence, and the
security report, were thoroughly and impartially deliberated upon by the
management panel. Following this comprehensive review and consideration of all
available evidence and submissions, it was unanimously resolved to terminate
the Claimant’s employment due to her proven gross misconduct and the
fundamental breach of trust and company policy. The Defendants aver that due
process was meticulously followed at every stage of the disciplinary
proceedings, ensuring a fair, transparent, and legally sound termination of the
Claimant's employment, fully justified by the severity of the misconduct.
COMMENCEMENT
OF HEARING
6.
On the 10th
December, 2024, Claimant opened her case and testified for herself as CW1 by
adopting her written statement on oath as her oral evidence. Exhibits Obot 1, 2
and 3 was tendered through her and she was subsequently cross examined by the Counsel
to the Defendants thereafter her case closed. On the 13th February,
2025, the Defendants opened their case by calling one Omobolaji Yusuf, the
Human Resources Manager who testified as DW1. He adopted his written statement
on oath as his oral evidence in this case and was subsequently cross examined
by Claimant’s Counsel. Also, one Nkechi Sunday, a security personnel, testified
as DW2. She adopted her written statement on oath as her evidence and Exhibit
Nkechi A was tendered through her. She was equally cross examined by the Claimant’s
counsel. Again, One Ameh Sunday, the security supervisor with the 1st
Defendant equally testified as DW3 by adopting his written statement on oath as
his oral evidence in this case. Exhibit Ameh A was tendered through him and was
cross examined by Claimant’s Counsel. One Sam Ubong Okokon, the Chief Security
Officer of the 1st Defendant equally testified as DW4 by adopting
his written statement on oath of as his evidence, Exhibits Ubong A, B, B1 and
B2 and C were tendered through him. Thereafter, he was cross examined by
counsel on behalf of the Claimant thereafter the Defendants closed their case.
Matter was adjourned for adoption of final written addresses.
DEFENDANTS’
WRITTEN SUBMISSION
7.
The Defendants filed
their written address on the 25th June 2025 wherein Counsel on their
behalf formulated three issues for the Court’s determination thus;
1
Whether the dismissal
of the Claimant from the Defendant’s employment on the grounds of gross
misconduct bothering on dishonesty/fraudulent behavior/impropriety, breach of
trust, and undermining the authority of her Employers, is lawful, justified and
in accordance with the extant Laws governing the employment relationship.
2
Whether the Defendants
afforded the Claimant fair hearing and due process before terminating her
employment.
3
Whether the Claimant’s
Termination Was Wrongful or Coerced.
8.
On issue Counsel
posited that the question here is whether the Claimant a supervisor in the
Department of Food and Beverage of the Defendant committed gross misconducts
justifying the termination of her employment by summary dismissal. That the law
is well-settled that an employer has the right to summarily dismiss an employee
for gross misconduct, including acts of fraud, cheating, fraudulent practices,
violating internal control policies and procedures, undermining the authority
of the employer/management, dishonesty or breach of trust, especially where
such acts fundamentally breach the confidence reposed in the employee. He
equally stated that the Common Law Principle which also applies in Nigeria,
recognizes the Employer’s right to summarily dismiss an employee for gross
misconduct without notice or payment in lieu of notice, where the conduct goes
to the root of the contract of employment. He placed reliance on the case of Keystone
Bank Ltd v. Kassim Yiggon [2013] JELR 35400 (CA).
9.
It is the position of
learned Counsel that the instant case is predicated on admission of gross
misconduct regarding the inappropriate and stealthy concealment of an amount of money alleged to be
a tip ( that could have inured to the benefit of all the staff of the Food and Beverage
Department , when pooled together with others as is the usual practice) hidden
by the Claimant in her waist band of her
uniform and attempting to get away with it from the premises of the 1st
Defendant without disclosure and
presenting the requisite Tip Pass that authorizes any staff or employee of the
1st Defendant’s premises, as is required by the Ist Defendant’s
rules and regulations especially the Internal Memo on Tip Pass Policy, Exhibit
Ubong C. The Rule is that every staff/employee must disclose or declare any
item or money being brought into the 1st Defendant’s premises on
resumption of work for the day and register it. At the of the day’s work or
when the staff/employee wants to go, the item or money so declared or disclosed
and registered is given back to the owner. In the case of money and an
authorization and if it is Tips, a tip pass must be obtained. This control
policy and procedures allowed searching /checks of staff /employees at the
staff entrance and exit gate in line with the provisions of articles 13.10
,13.1.20 and 13.1.3 of the Employee handbook outlining the rules, terms, and
condition of service of Johnwood Hotel, the 1ist defendant. This was instituted
to curb incessant pilfering of money from Hotel sales and stealing of other
people’s personal items and artifacts.
On the 6th of June, 2023, the Claimant violated and
contravened all these polices afore mentioned and her only defense when caught
in the act and given an incident form to fill and state her side of the case
scenario the administrative investigative and disciplinary procedures that
followed, all that she stated was that she forgot. Consequent upon her actions
and infractions amounting to gross misconduct, she was found liable to summary
dismissal and was duly and lawfully given summary dismissal. He placed reliance
on the case of Co-operative Dev. Bank v. Essien [2001] 4 NWLR (Pt. 704) 479 and
the case of Savannah Bank v. Fakokun [2002] 1 NWLR (Pt. 749) 544 @ P.540, Para. G)
and urge this Court to so hold.
10.
It is equally the
submission of Counsel that the Claimant in this suit acted dishonestly and
fraudulently and that her actions lacking in good will and uberrima fidei;
utmost good faith. Furthermore, Defendants submitted that the Claimant, a
Supervisor in the employ of the 1st Defendant, spurious act of
concealing N1,500 in a tissue paper tucked into the waistband of her uniform on
the 6th day of June 2023 constitutes gross misconduct. That these
acts of impropriety and fraudulent practice committed by the Supervisor not
only violated the Internal Memorandum on Tip Policy of the 1st
Defendant dated 6th March 2023 marked Exhibit Ubong C but also
contravenes the terms of and conditions of her employment. See the second page
of her letter of employment marked Exhibit Obot 2. Similarly, her actions also
offended the provisions of article 11.8.4.1 of Employee’s handbook outlining
the Rules, Terms and Conditions of Service marked Exhibit Ubong A and the
consequences and liabilities of violating or contravening them. Which is
summary dismissal. Also, the Claimant in open Court during cross-examination
admitted to an orientation and induction in which the terms and regulations of
employee’s handbook was explained inclusive of the internal memo and yet
Claimant went on to deny knowing of the Internal Memo but was aware of the
sharing model of tips in the Hotel, one would ask how does she know when she
lied in open Court of not knowing about the Internal Memo which outlined the way Tips should be handled
and how to register the tip even when or
where the Head of Department is not available.
Admitted she knows the sharing model which is of course carried out at
the end of the month when all collected /deposited tips from all the staff of
the Department is shared amongst them and every staff benefits from it. Counsel therefore submitted that Claimant lied
on oath before this Court when she denied ever seeing or having knowledge of
the internal memo and the policy regarding handling of tips and she equally
prevaricated in paragraph 7 of her statement of fact that she gave the alleged
concealed Tip to a waiter one Daniel Sokwargh “as was her practice to give tips
given to her to waiters to submit to the (F&B) Manager’s Office to register
name, date and amount” It is even
infinitely wrong to send a waiter attending to a guests away from his post just
to go and submit her alleged “TIPS”. Thus,
she invariable admitted to changing and undermining the authority of the
Management and her Employers. Counsel
submitted that this a pure fallacy and an afterthought however, assuming
without conceding that it was so, it still offends and undermines the authority
of the Management in that, that handling of tips was supposed to be done by the
person recipient of the tip. The Claimant by herself more so, occupying a
position of Trust, to show goodwill and utmost uberrima fidei in conducting herself at work and showing good
example and not breaching the Trust and confidence reposed in her.
11.
That she equally lied
when she stated that she attempted to meet the Head of Department to deposit
the alleged tip given to her but was told to and come back or keep the money
with her till next day. The alleged Tip as stated in paragraph 7 of her
Statement of Fact by the Claimant was given to her “during the lunch break”,
which according to her under cross examination was around 12.30 pm. She had all
the time to go and register the tip and if need be, obtain a tip pass to exit
the premises of the 1st Defendant at the close of work that fateful
day 6th of March 2023 when she was caught at staff entrance /exit
gate with the stolen money concealed in a serviette paper tucked away in the
waist band of her skirt. If she meant well and willed to act in good faith and
not intent on cheating her co-workers, she would have adverted her mind to
deposit the money with Duty manager at time of the day/evening as is the norm
and practice, stipulated in the Internal Memo in Tip Policy which she, a
supervisor was well aware of or lock up the money in her box at the locker room
where personal artifacts and items are kept securely, which has CCTV circuit. But
she rather intentionally hid the stolen money in her waist band and during a
physical check/ search which every staff undergoes before leaving the premises
of the 1st Defendant, while attempting to exit the premises with the
surreptitiously concealed money in waist band, it fell out from her body (during
the search). He made reference to Exhibit Nkechi A. She did not voluntarily
declare the alleged stolen money by herself which is further admission of her
culpability and admission of guilt knowledge of pilfering, whether the money
was given as tip or was taken by stealth. because of her intent to cheat and
defraud the other members of staff as was probably her practice. But this time
she was apprehended. She was there and then given an incident form to fill in
which admitted concealing the money in her waist band, that she forgot. He
relied on Exhibit Ameh B. That Claimant approbated and reprobated during cross
examination, which is a pure contradiction, makes the witness unreliable and
not a witness of truth.
12.
Counsel stated that in Co-operative
Dev. Bank v. Essien [2001] 4 NWLR (Pt. 704) 479, the Court held that
various acts may give rise to a dismissal, including misconduct of the master’s
business, negligence, incompetence, and other conducts incompatible with the
faithful discharge of the servant’s duty to his master. Where the employee’s
conduct is such as to undermine the relationship of confidence, it amounts to
gross misconduct, justifying dismissal without notice and without wages. He
also referred to the case of Savannah Bank v. Fakokun [2002] 1 NWLR (Pt. 749)
544 @ P.540, Para. G). Counsel further contended that the incident
report and the Claimant’s admission during the investigation that she concealed
the money (paragraph 9 of the Statement of Defense) which also in open Court
she said she forgot about the tip when she got caught at the gate and went
further to contradict herself in saying the F&B Manager asked to go and
come back with the tip the next day, which tells us that she knowingly intended
to leave with the tip which is a gross violation of the 1st
Defendant’s rules. Head of Department duty manager or pooled for distribution
and to exit the premises of the 1st Defendant must present a Tip
pass authorizing her, to exit with the stolen money, of which the Claimant had
none to present at the staff entrance /exit gate claiming that she forgot. He
referred the Court to paragraph 4 the Defendant’s statement of defense and
Exhibit Ubong B. He argued that the Claimant’s defense that she forgot the
money is unconvincing, as she failed to refute the allegation convincingly
during the investigation. This intentional impropriety and act of concealment
undermines the trust and confidence required in the employer-employee
relationship, which is a hallmark of gross misconduct which has also defined in
her Employment Letter (Exhibit Obot 2) predicates a dismissal with neither
notice or nor any benefits. He placed reliance on the case of Attorney-General
of Kwara State & Ors v. Alhaji Kike Ojulari [2007] 1 NWLR (Pt. 1016) 551,
and FCSC v. Laoye [1989] (Pt. 106) 652 @ 679; Arinze v. FBN [2004] 12 NWLR (Pt.
888) P. 663 @ 676 Osagie v. N.N.P.C. [2005] 3 NWLR (Pt. 913) 519.
13.
It is the position of
Counsel that an employer is entitled to discipline or dismiss an employee
administratively for misconduct bordering on criminality if the employee’s
conditions of service so provide. He relied on the case of Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc [2011]
12 NWLR (Pt. 1262) P. 624 @ 641; Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Chinyere [2012] 2
NILR 41 @ 64-65 Paragraphs H-E; Yusuf v. Union Bank of Nigeria [1996] 6 NWLR
(Pt. 457) 632 and Baba v. N.C.A.T.C. [1991] 5 NWLR (Pt. 192)
388. That the Claimant’s act of concealing money in her waist band, she
admitted as much in Court in such a private concealing part of her body, aligns
with proven cases of intentional
fraudulent behavior, impropriety, theft, dishonesty, and irregular practices as
outlined in the 1st Defendant’s conditions of service. He relied on Article 11.8.4.1 and 13.10 of
the Employee’s hand book, Rules, terms and Conditions of Service; Exhibit Ubong
A. He therefore, submitted that the Claimant’s actions constituted gross
misconduct, justifying her summary dismissal under the common law right of the
employer, as reinforced by the cited authorities and as stated in Paragraph 3
of the Statement of Defense. He urge this Court to so hold.
14.
Respecting issue two,
Counsel stated that it is trite that even in cases of summary dismissal, the
employee must be given an opportunity to be heard. He went on to state that in
the present case, right from the evening of the 6th of June ,2023
when Claimant committed the infraction and was apprehended at staff exit gate
with the concealed money without any authorization note or Tip Pass, she was
given an incident form to fill and state side of the scenario that unfolded
thereon. She was equally invited to an administrative and disciplinary
panel. Counsel submitted that the
Claimant was given ample opportunity to defend herself both orally and in
writing. It is also the submission of
Counsel that the Claimant lied when she alleged lack of fair hearing because the
process was fair and in line with the terms of employment and natural justice.
He placed reliance on the case of Uzoho v. Task Force on Hospital Management
[2004] 5 NWLR (Pt. 867) 672 and Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc (supra), Imonikhe v.
Unity Bank Plc [2011] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1262) P. 624 @ 641. Learned Counsel
submitted that he law is also settled that an employer is not required to await
the outcome of a criminal trial before taking disciplinary action against an
employee. He cited in support of his assertion the case of Arinze v. FBN Ltd [2004] 12 NWLR
(Pt. 888) 663 and Zenabor v. Bayero University, Kano [2007] 3
NWLR (Pt. 1020) 424.
15.
Regarding issue three,
Counsel vehemently deny that the termination was wrongful or coerced. He
continued and stated that the Claimant was not forced to sign the termination
letter and was terminated based on her own admission of gross misconduct. A
conduct which violated the terms of her employment. He relied on the Second Page
2 of the Offer Employment, Exhibit Obot 2.
That Claimant’s fraudulent practices, insubordination, flouting the rules
and regulations and policies of the 1st Defendant as she admittedly
stated before the Court under cross examination and in her statement in
paragraph 7 of her Statement of Fact; that quote “she gave the amount to a waiter named Daniel
Sokwagh as was her practice to give tips given to her to waiters in the hotel to submit to the
F&B Manager office to register the name, date and amount”. Thus violating internal control. And
thereby undermining the authority of the Management of the 1st
Defendant as she admitted. These findings through her utterances and statements
during the administrative investigation/disciplinary procedure amounting to
gross misconduct irreparably destroyed and eroded the Confidence and Trust
reposed in the Claimant by her Employers, warranting summary dismissal. The
factum of concealing the alleged tip if it was not out theft, intentionally in
a most inauspicious part of her body; her
waist a place most unlikely to be
checked during the search smacks of dishonesty, Fraud, intent to steal and
cheat her co- workers who had had been pooling their Tips together for
collective sharing by all the members of the F&B Department. But luck ran out on her when she was
searched and the money fell out her body. This is a most serious intentional
fraudulent behavior and impropriety (concealing the stolen money in her waist
band), amounting to gross misconduct for which was found liable and liability
thereof resulted in summary dismissal. He relied on the Employee Handbook;
article 11.8.4.1; Exhibit Obong A and Osisanya v. Afribank Nigeria Plc [2007] 2
All N.L.R. 491. It is further submission of Counsel that there is no
justification for the Claimant’s demands, including reinstatement, damages, or
costs thus, Claimant’s suit lacks merit, and the reliefs sought are not
supported by the evidence. Continuing, Counsel submitted and asserted that they
are not liable for any damages or costs reiterating that Claimant’s termination
was lawful, and the Claimant’s actions precipitated the end and separation from
her employment. Counsel urge the Court to award substantial costs against the
Claimant for bringing this frivolous suit. He urge the Court to so hold.
16.
It is the contention
of Counsel with respect to the Labour Act and Implied Duties of Fidelity that Section
11(1) of the Labour Act (Cap. L1, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004)
permits either party to terminate an employment relationship upon reasonable
notice. However, where the dismissal is for misconduct, no notice is required.
He equally submitted that the stipulations of article 11.8.4.1 of the Employee’s
Handbook Exhibit Ubong B is in tandem with the provisions of the Section 11(1)
of the Labour Act (Cap. L1, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004). Moreover,
under the common law, there is an implied duty of fidelity and good faith in
every contract of employment. He placed reliance on the case of Maja
v. Stocco [1968]1 All NLR 141. Counsel posited that once gross misconduct
is established, the Claimant is not entitled to any terminal benefits, damages,
or reinstatement. He referred the Court to the case of Chukwumah v. Shell Petroleum
Development Co. [1993] 4 NWLR (Pt. 289) 512. In conclusion it is the
submission of Counsel that the dismissal of the Claimant was lawful, justified,
and in accordance with both statute and case Laws. The acts of intentional
behavioral impropriety, disruption of internal control policies and procedures,
undermining of authority of Management, fraudulent practices, dishonesty,
intent to cheat co-workers and breach of trust committed by the Claimant are
serious gross misconducts that destroyed the foundation of the employment
relationship. That the Defendants complied with due process, and the dismissal
should therefore not be interfered with by this Court. Based on the foregoing arguments
and the evidence presented, Counsel urge this Court to find in favour the
Defendants and grant the reliefs sought to wit; dismiss the Claimant’s suit in
its entirety for lacking merit, hold that the Claimant committed gross
misconduct justifying the termination her employment and to dismiss the
Claimant’s suit substantial costs against the Claimant
CLAIMANT’S
WRITTEN SUBMISSION
17.
Claimant filed his
final written address on 24th October, 2025, wherein Counsel on his behalf formulated
a sole issue for the Court’s determination thus;
Whether
the Claimant has established a case to be granted the reliefs sought in this
case?
18.
On issue one learned
Counsel submitted that the Claimant has irrefutably established that she was
wrongfully dismissed and thus entitled to the reliefs sought on the face of her
Complaint. He equally posited that it is settled law that when an employee
alleges wrongful termination of his employment as in the instant case, the onus
is on the employer to justify the reasons given for the termination. He placed
reliance on the case of Institute Of Health Abu Hospital Management
Board v Jummai Anyip [2011] LPELR – 1517 SC and contended that the
dismissal of the Claimant was premised on an allegation of gross misconduct
(theft). This dismissal for theft was also stated in the dismissal letter
(Exhibit Obot 3) to have occurred. From the above, the nature of gross
misconduct alleged against the Claimant was clearly defined in the termination
letter (Exhibit Obot 3) as “Theft”. According to Counsel two key issues are
immediately in issue by virtue of that claim in Exhibit Obot 3 first, whether
there was any theft? Secondly, whether there was any full investigation and
disciplinary query at which the Claimant was given an opportunity to Defend
herself in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fair hearing.
It is the contention of Counsel on the first question that all through the
Defence, the position of the Claimant that the money found on her was a tip
given was neither disputed by the Defendant. At no time whatsoever did the
Defendants allege that any money belonging to the Defendant was missing at any
time or any money belonging to the Defendant had been taken by the Claimant.The
Supreme Court, in the case of Psychiatric Hospitals Management Board v.
Edosa [2001] 5 NWLR (Pt. 707) 621 was emphatic that an allegation of
theft is a serious allegation. Such an allegation must be strictly proved and
all the ingredients established. The act of the theft and the intention of the
theft must both be proved. Strangely, all through the case, there is absolutely
nowhere where any of the Defendants’ witnesses raises any allegation of theft
nor any attempt made to prove any of the ingredients of the allegation of theft
upon which the termination of the Claimant’s employment was premised. The
Claimant clearly and unequivocally explained the source of the money in issue
and same was not at any time disputed or challenged. Consequently, the
allegation of theft against the Claimant must consequently fail.
19.
Again, Counsel alleges
that the Defendants gave the Claimant fair hearing. Defendants’ DW1, in his
evidence in chief, claims that a disciplinary committee was set up and a query
was issued to the Claimant. He even proceeded to list the names of those on the
disciplinary committee. However, under cross-examination, his testimony
crumbled. First of all, he admitted that he was not even part of the
disciplinary committee and that he was giving hearsay evidence. Secondly, he
was unable to state the number of members of the same disciplinary committee
whom he had listed quite definitively in his witness statement. All the above
indicate he is not a witness of truth. That DW2, Nkechi Sunday who was the
security officer that discovered the tip in possession of the Claimant was
named by DW1 as a member of the disciplinary committee that investigated and
heard the Claimant. In Paragraph 21 of her Witness Statement on Oath, she
claimed that she was present when the Claimant was brought before “management”
and saw the Claimant make representations on the allegations leading to her
dismissal. However, she admitted under cross-examination that the averment in
paragraph 21 of her statement on Oath was a complete falsehood, and that she
did not at all witness the Claimant making any representations before the supposed
disciplinary committee/ panel which the Defendants tried very hard to make the
Court believe existed. Furthermore, she admitted that even though she is a
security officer, she did not investigate the alibi of the Claimant that the
Claimant had permission to retain the tip found on her and register it the next
day. DW3, Ameh Sunday also had sworn in Paragraph 19 of his Witness Statement
on Oath which he adopted in Court, that he was present at the inquiry/panel
where the Claimant was afforded an opportunity to make representations. Under
cross-examination, he also recanted and admitted that he had falsely made those
sworn statements. Finally, DW4, Sam Ubong Okokon who had been named as a member
of the panel/committee that determined that the Claimant was guilty of theft,
and who had also testified on Oath that he knew for a fact that the Claimant
was given fair hearing at a panel or committee set up for that purpose by the
Defendants also crumbled under cross-examination, as he stated expressly that he
could not even remember if he was part of any such panel or committee. He also
could not remember the date the committee sat nor remember if any query letter
was sent to the Defendant. Learned Counsel argued that all the above
contradictions manifested in the Defendant’s Defence that the Claimant was
given a fair hearing before her employment was terminated go to the very root
of the matter in this case and no Court can rely on the evidence of persons who
have given such clearly false testimonies on Oath. The law is settled that a
party who tells lies on oath his testimony cannot be trusted. He placed
reliance on the case of Daggash v. Bulama [2004] 14 NWLR (Pt. 892)
144 at 250 and urge this Court to reject every word of the evidence of
the Defendants’ entire witnesses as they are manifestly unreliable and
undoubtedly false and contrived to mislead the Court.
20.
Counsel posited that
the retractions elicited during cross-examination constitute clear admissions
that the Claimant was correct that she was not given fair hearing, and unjustly
dismissed. The law is that an admission by a party against his interest is
admissible against that person and his privies. A statement, oral or written
made by a party in a civil proceeding, and which statement is adverse to his
case, is admissible against him in the proceedings as evidence against him of
the truth of the facts ascertained in the statement. He relied on the case of Odi
v. Iyala & Ors [2004] 8 NWLR (Pt. 875) 283; Seismograph Services Nigeria
Ltd v. Ogbenegweke [1927] 9-10 S.C. 146; Akintola v. Balogun [2000] NWLR (Pt.
642) 553 and Section 27, Evidence Act, 2011. He stated that the case of
the Claimant is quite simple and straight forward. It is that the Defendants
dismissed the Claimant unjustly on the grounds of gross misconduct by way of theft
and that no opportunity to defend herself in the face of such allegations were
provided. Defendants failed to justify the allegations during trial as their
witness materially contradicted themselves and clearly told lies on oath. That
in their final address, Defendants’ counsel attempted to raise issues alien to
the case and argue matters that were neither put in issue nor proven by
evidence. In fact, learned Counsel for the Defendants attempted to change the
entire case by arguing endlessly on gross misconduct whereas gross misconduct
simpliciter was not the basis upon which the Claimant’s employment was
terminated. The character of gross misconduct alleged was that of “theft”.
Having alleged gross misconduct by way of theft as the ground for dismissal,
the Defendants have a beholden obligation to justify that and they failed in
that regard Counsel contended. He reiterated that all the lengthy arguments of
Counsel in the address must thus be completely rejected. That there was neither
evidence nor material before the Court to show theft and clearly nothing
establishing that any investigative panel was set up before whom the Claimant
was allowed to present her case. The law has long since been settled that
however brilliant the argument of counsel, it cannot take the place of
evidence. He cited in support of his assertion the case of Ssgmbh v. Td Industries Ltd
[2010] 11 NWLR (Pt. 1206)589 @ 612 (SC). On the whole it is thus
Counsel’s contention that the Claimant has established by clear and unequivocal
evidence that she committed no theft and she was thus unjustly dismissed from
her work place, as she was given no opportunity to be heard on the allegations
which carries a stigma and makes the Claimant less attractive to potential
employers. The stigma is even more aggravated given the unsubstantiated
allegation of a serious crime such as theft which stains the record of the
Claimant permanently and for which reason the Claimant proceeded to this Court
to seek redemption from the oppressive conduct of the Defendants. He placed
reliance on Skye
Bank Plc v. Adegun [2024] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1960) 1 @ 29-30 and urge the
Court to grant the reliefs sought, particularly voiding the so-called
termination letter, restoring lost wages and the reliefs for damages sought as the
reliefs sought are all reliefs which the Court is very well-empowered to grant
under Section 19 of the National Industrial Court Act (2006). The equitable
principle of Ubi jus ibi remedium applies here.
Where there is an injury, the law will give a remedy. He made reference
to the case of Ashby v. White [1703] 92 ER 126, Bivensv Six Unknown Named Agents, 403
U.S. 388 [1971], Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1CRANCH.) 137 (1803) and Etakalu
v. NBC Plc [2004] 15 NWLR (Pt. 896) 370. He posited that there has
certainly been an array of injury to the rights and interests of the Claimant
and the injury lingers unless this Court acts per the reliefs sought. He urge
the Court to remedy this by granting the reliefs sought and sending a clear
signal out to the Defendants or any employer of labour which wants to be clever
by half and take undue advantage of its employees in similar circumstances.
COURT’S
DECISION
21.
Upon examination of
the originating processes, the accompanying affidavits and exhibits, the Statement
of Defence, its accompanying processes, and the comprehensive written addresses
submitted by all parties in this case, this Court is of the considered view that
the pivotal issue requiring judicial determination is:
Whether
the Claimant has discharged the requisite burden of proof to substantiate her
claims and thereby entitle her to the reliefs sought in this action?
22.
It is unequivocally
established that the present action is declaratory in nature. It is a
fundamental principle of law that the burden of proof placed upon a claimant is
significantly higher in actions seeking declaratory reliefs. The claimant bears
the onus to succeed strictly on the strength of her own case, and not merely on
any perceived weakness in the defendant's case. This principle has been
consistently upheld by superior courts. See, for instance, Uzodinma v. Ihedioha [2020] 5
NWLR (Pt. 1718) 529 at 578, paras D-G; and Dikibo v. John [2019] 12 NWLR (Pt.
1686) 183.
23.
Furthermore, the Claimant's
obligation to prove her case is so stringent that she cannot succeed even upon
an admission by the defendants, as declaratory actions constitute a
well-recognized exception to the general rule of admission provided in the
Evidence Act. This legal position is fortified by a plethora of judicial
pronouncements, including Alhassan & Anor v. Ishaku [2016]
LPELR-40083 SC 1 @ 20, E-F; Omisore v. Aregbesola [2015] LPELR-25820 (SC) 1 @
102-103; and Okonkwo v. Okonkwo [2010] LPELR-9357(SC) 1 @ 34. The
judicial consensus is clear: declaratory reliefs cannot be properly granted,
even in the face of admissions by a defendant in its pleadings, without the
claimant adducing sufficient, credible evidence to prove her entitlement to the
reliefs claimed. The Claimant, through reliefs "A" and "D",
seeks a declaration that the Defendants' action in terminating her employment
on an allegation of gross misconduct (theft) without conducting a proper
investigation constitutes wrongful termination and a gross violation of her
fundamental right to fair hearing.
24.
The Claimant averred
in her pleadings that she was employed by the Defendants from 2022 until June
6, 2023. Her employment was terminated on June 9, 2023, following the discovery
of a N1,500.00 tip by a security operative during a search after her shift. She
was subsequently given an incident form to fill the next day, and her
employment was terminated on grounds of gross misconduct (theft) without any
prior investigation or issuance of a query, contrary to the provisions of the
1st Defendant’s terms and conditions of service. In support of her assertions,
the Claimant tendered Exhibits Obot 1, 2, and 3. In response, the Defendants averred
in their statement of defence that the 1st Defendant's policy strictly
prohibited staff from carrying money to and from the Hotel to prevent
unconscionable gains, a policy of which the Claimant was allegedly aware. They
contended that the Claimant failed to disclose the said tip to her Head of
Department or the Manager. The Defendants further stated that the particulars
of the Claimant’s alleged gross misconduct were presented to her on June 7,
2023, where she made an oral submission in defence, which they deemed
unconvincing, and that she was accorded fair hearing. It is undisputed that the
employment relationship between the parties is one of master-servant, governed
by the terms of the contract, specifically Exhibit Obot 2. It is a trite
principle of law that parties are bound by the terms of the contract they
voluntarily enter into, and this Court, in interpreting such terms, must give
the words their plain, ordinary, and natural meaning where they are clear and
unambiguous. See Adejumo v. Agumagu [2015] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1472) 1; Omega Bank (Nig) Plc v.
O.B.C. Ltd [2005] 8 NWLR (Pt. 928) 547.
25.
While an employer
possesses the inherent right to terminate an employee's contract, the exercise
of this right, particularly in cases involving allegations of misconduct, must
be tempered by the observance of the rules of natural justice. As held in Imonikhe
v. Unity Bank Plc [2011] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1262) 624 @ 643, any employee
accused of misconduct must first be afforded a fair opportunity to respond to
the allegation before any disciplinary action is taken. The employer's right to
dismiss an employee, even if not explicitly detailed in the contract of
service, is always subject to the fundamental requirement of fair hearing. See Simon
Ansambe v. Bank of the North Ltd [2005] 8 NWLR (Pt. 928) 650. Fair
hearing, in essence, embodies the opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, while
the common law traditionally allowed an employer to terminate employment for a
good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all, where a specific reason is
provided for termination, particularly one involving misconduct, the employer
bears the burden to justify that reason once it is challenged by the employee.
See Ajuzi
v. FBN Plc [2016] LPELR-40459 (CA); Oniga v. Government of Cross River State
& Anor. [2016] LPELR-40112 (CA). The pertinent question before this
Court is whether the Defendants complied with the rules of fair hearing, as
purportedly stipulated by the terms and conditions of service and general
principles of natural justice. The Claimant asserted that she was dismissed
without any fair hearing or query, merely being given an incident form to fill,
and tendered Exhibit Obot 3 (termination letter) in support. Conversely, the
Defendants contended that the Claimant was issued a query and afforded an
opportunity to defend herself before a disciplinary committee, but her
explanation (that she forgot to disclose the tip) was deemed unconvincing. The
Supreme Court in Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc, supra, held that issuing an
employee a query and allowing a response satisfies the requirement of fair
hearing.
26.
The Defendants tendered
Exhibits Ubong A and Nkechi B, both identified as the Employee’s Handbook.
Paragraph 11.8 of these exhibits, pertaining to Disciplinary Penalties, clearly
states: "query and counselling shall be issued in writing, detailing the
nature of the misconduct; an employee will be requested to sign the
verbal/written warning form; any written warning issued as a disciplinary
penalty shall be placed on the employee’s personal file and shall remain valid
for a period of 3 months for verbal warning, while 6 months for written
warning." However, the testimonies of the defence witnesses significantly
undermined the Defendants' assertions of compliance with due process. DW1
stated under cross-examination that his written statement on oath was based
solely on reports he received from the Group HR Manager, admitting he was not
physically present during any meeting with the Claimant and had never
supervised her. DW2 similarly stated under cross-examination that she did not
know whether a query was issued to the Claimant and was not present when the
Claimant allegedly made submissions before management. Learned counsel to the
Claimant rightly submitted in his final written address that an allegation of
theft is a grave accusation requiring strict proof of all its ingredients,
including the act of theft and the intention to steal. Crucially, the
Defendants, who alleged that a query was issued to the Claimant and a
Disciplinary Committee was convened to investigate the alleged infraction,
failed to tender the purported query letter or the report of the Disciplinary
Committee. This failure to produce essential documentary evidence, which would
have corroborated their claims of due process, is fatal to their defence.
27.
From, the totality of
the evidence adduced, this Court finds no credible proof that the Claimant was
issued a formal query or afforded a genuine opportunity to make physical or
oral representations to a properly constituted Disciplinary Committee, as
contemplated by the Defendants' own Employee's Handbook (Exhibits Ubong A and
Nkechi B). The Defendants also tendered Exhibit Ubong C, an Internal Memo
regarding tip policy, which they claimed formed the basis of the Claimant's
termination. However, the critical question remains: what actual opportunity
was the Claimant given to make representations to a committee, other than
merely filling an incident form? What concrete evidence did the Defendants rely
upon to conclusively find the Claimant liable for "theft" or
"gross misconduct" in a procedurally sound manner? An employer cannot
unilaterally determine the culpability of an employee without affording a
specific and fair opportunity for representation, whether through a formal
query, a hearing, or other established disciplinary procedures. Furthermore,
the testimonies of DW1 and DW2, being based on reports and not personal
knowledge or direct observation of the disciplinary process, constitute
inadmissible hearsay evidence, upon which this Court cannot rely. See Dantiye
& Anor. v. Adamu & Ors [2020] LPELR-51962. In light of the
foregoing, this Court finds that the Defendants failed to adhere to the
principles of natural justice and their own established disciplinary procedures
in terminating the Claimant's employment. The termination was effected without
affording the Claimant a fair hearing, thereby rendering it wrongful and a
violation of her fundamental right to fair hearing. Consequently, Claimant’s
Reliefs "A" and "D" succeed.
28.
The Claimant, through
reliefs "B" and "G", seeks an order of this Court to
retract her termination letter and reinstate her in the employment of the
Defendants. It is a well-settled principle of Nigerian labour law that an
employment relationship founded purely on a master-servant contract, without
any statutory flavour, does not typically enjoy the relief of reinstatement.
See Odibo
v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc [2018] LPELR-46628 (CA). Courts are
generally very reluctant, and indeed lack the inherent competence, to compel an
unwilling employer to retain an employee in a contract of employment that is
not statutorily protected. See UBN Ltd v. Ogboh [1995] 2 NWLR (Pt. 380) 647.
The remedy for wrongful termination in such cases is usually damages, not
reinstatement. In view of the established legal position, this Court finds that
the Claimant's reliefs "B" and "G" for retraction of the
termination letter and reinstatement are unsustainable and therefore fail.
29.
The Claimant, by
relief "C", seeks an order directing the Defendants to pay all her
salaries and benefits accruing from the date of wrongful termination. The
Claimant's claim for salaries and benefits falls within the realm of special
damages. It is a fundamental requirement of law that special damages must be
specifically pleaded and strictly proved. The apex Court, in NNPC
v. Clifco Nig Ltd [2011] 4 SCM, P.194 @ 217-218, held that special
damages will not succeed simply because they were admitted by the other party;
unlike general damages, they must be strictly proved by credible evidence. In a
master-servant employment relationship where the employment is terminated
without due notice, the employee is typically entitled to one month's salary in
lieu of notice, unless the contract specifies otherwise.
30.
The Claimant's
employment letter, Exhibit Obot 2, clearly indicates her monthly salary was
N85,000.00. While the Claimant sought payment of "all her salaries and
benefits," she failed to specifically plead and strictly prove any other
particular salaries or benefits beyond the one month's salary in lieu of
notice. Her claim for other accruing salaries and benefits was not supported by
the requisite strict proof. Therefore, in line with the established legal
principles for special damages, this Court resolves that the Claimant is
entitled only to one month's salary in lieu of notice, in the sum of
N85,000.00. Relief "C" succeeds to this extent.
31.
The Claimant, by
relief "E", seeks a declaration that the termination of her
employment upon the allegation of gross misconduct (theft) and the issuance of
a termination letter alleging gross misconduct (theft) without an investigation
amounts to defamation. The law of defamation encompasses two forms: libel
(written) and slander (oral). For a claim in defamation to succeed,
particularly where an allegation of theft is made, the claimant bears the
burden of proving that the defamatory statement is false. See Abalake v. Akinsete [2023]
LPELR-60349 (SC).
32.
In the present case,
the Claimant admitted during the proceedings that the N1,500.00 tip was indeed
found on her person by security personnel at the gate during a search. It is a
fundamental rule of evidence that facts admitted need no further proof. Furthermore,
Exhibit Ubong C, an Internal Memo tendered by the Defendants, explicitly states
that "tip must be declared to the duty manager and failure to follow the
instruction above will be considered gross misconduct." While the Claimant
denied knowledge of this exhibit, this Court finds it difficult to accept that
a dedicated employee working in an establishment would be unaware of such an
internal policy, especially one pertaining to financial conduct. The core of
the Claimant's defamation claims rests on the falsity of the accusation of
"theft" or "gross misconduct." Given her admission that the
tip was found on her and her failure to declare it, the underlying factual
premise for the employer's classification of her conduct as "gross
misconduct" (as per their policy) is not demonstrably false. While the
process of termination was flawed due to lack of fair hearing, the fact of the
undeclared tip, which the employer considered misconduct, undermines the
essential element of falsity required for a successful defamation claim. Consequently,
the Claimant has failed to prove that she was defamed. Relief "E"
therefore fails.
33.
The Claimant, by
relief "F", seeks an order directing the Defendants to pay her the
sum of N250,000,000.00 as damages for wrongful and unlawful termination of her
employment. Historically damages were strictly limited to salary in lieu of
notice. However, this court has now expanded its powers to award substantial
general, compensatory and sometimes exemplary damages by applying international
best practices. Section 254C (1) (f) and (h) CFRN 1999 as amended provides and
empower this court to apply international best practices and international
labour standards. (which have been used to justify higher damage awards beyond
mere salary in lieu of notice.) Section 14 NIC Act 2006 also mandates this
court to grant all such remedies as any of the parties may be entitled to so
that all matters in controversy are completely determined. And section 19 (d)
NIC Act 2006 further provides that this court can make an award as to compensation
or damages in any circumstances contemplated by the Act. A community reading of
all of these only leads to one conclusion: that this court has the power to
award various forms of damages beyond mere salary in lieu of notice. In the
words of the SC in Skye Bank Plc v. Mr. Adedokun Olusegun Adegun [2024] LPELR-62219(SC).
“The new labour jurisprudence with the 3rd Alteration to the 1999 Constitution
and the provisions of the law in that regard, particularly Section 7(6) of the
National Industrial Court Act mandates that every Court in the land shall have
recourse to good or international best practices in labour or industrial
relations. I do not think the Courts should continue to use the former settled
position of the law which is that no matter how hurtful, unreasonable or
wrongful the termination of appointment is, the employee is only entitled to
one month's salary in lieu of notice to determine the quantum of damages. Every
case must be determined on its facts.
34.
In the words of the Court
of Appeal in British Airways v. Makanjuola [1993] 8 NWLR Pt. 311 Pg. 276 the
award of general damages to compensate a claimant as in this case whose
character has been tainted and whose ability to work upon wrongful termination
has been greatly diminished cannot be by rule of thumb, but must be based on
sound legal principles. The Claimant is expected to prove that she suffered
damages much more than the ordinary. In this case, the claimant has adequately
pleaded and proved that she suffered much more than the ordinary as a result of
the wrongful termination by the defendant who had destroyed her reputation in
the unreasonable, unwarranted termination and the letter of termination itself.
In view of the foregoing, I find that the claimant is entitle to damages for
the wrongful termination of her appointment by the defendant. Accordingly, the
claimant is hereby awarded the sum of ?2, 720, 000.00 as damages.
35.
The Claimant, by
relief "H", seeks damages in the sum of ?250,000,000.00 for
defamation. Having already held that the Claimant failed to prove her claim for
defamation under Relief "E", it logically follows that her claim for
damages arising from defamation cannot succeed. This relief therefore fails.
36.
The Claimant, by
relief "I", seeks the award of the sum of ?250,000,000.00 as damages
for gross violation of her fundamental right to fair hearing. This head of
claim if granted it will amount to double compensation. It is accordingly
hereby refused.
37.
The Claimant, by
relief "J", seeks the sum of ?5,500, 000.00 as cost of action. The
law is well-established that cost follows the event, and the award of costs is
usually at the discretion of the Court, which must be exercised judicially and
judiciously. It is trite that a successful party is entitled to costs, except
where such party has misconducted himself. See Mekwunye v. Emirates Airlines
[2019] LPELR-46553 (SC). This Court is empowered by Order 55 Rule 5 of
the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, to
award costs to a successful party. The Claimant has succeeded in a significant
part of her claims. Therefore, in the judicious exercise of my discretion, this
Court awards the sum of N200,000.00 as costs to the Claimant. I so award.
38.
The Claimant, by
relief "K", seeks 10% interest per annum on the judgment sum. Order
47 Rule 7 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules,
2017, provides that at the time of making any judgment or order, the Court may
order interest at a rate not less than 10% per annum to be paid upon the judgment
sum. This provision vests a discretionary power in the Court to order, as it
deems fit, that interest at a rate of not less than 10% be paid upon any
judgment sum entered in favour of a party. Like all other judicial discretions,
it must be exercised judicially and judiciously, taking into consideration the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case leading to the judgment. See Dokubo
Asari v. F.R.N. [2007] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 320; Sanni v. Agara [2010] 2 NWLR
(Pt. 1178) 371. In the present case, there is a compelling need to
award post-judgment interest to ensure the Defendants comply promptly with the
judgment. This Court therefore finds and holds that the Claimant is entitled to
post-judgment interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the total judgment sum
from the date of this judgment to satisfaction. I so find and hold.
39.
For the avoidance of
doubt and for the reasons comprehensively articulated above, this Court hereby
declares and orders as follows:
1.
A DECLARATION is hereby
granted that the defendants’ action in terminating the claimant’s employment
without affording her any opportunity to defend herself against the allegation
levelled against her amounts to wrongful termination of her employment and a
gross violation of her fundamental right to fair hearing.
2.
AN ORDER is hereby
granted directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay to the claimant
the sum of ?85,000.00 (Eighty-Five Thousand Naira) as one month's salary in
lieu of notice.
3.
AN ORDER is hereby
granted directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay to the claimant
the sum of ?2, 720, 000.00 as damages for the wrongful termination of her
employment and for the gross violation of her right to fair hearing.
4.
That the Claimant is
hereby awarded the sum of ?200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) as cost of
action.
5.
A post-judgment
interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the judgment sum is hereby awarded
from the date of judgment till satisfaction.
40.
Judgment is hereby entered
accordingly.
…………………………………
Hon. Justice E. D. Subilim
JUDGE