IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HON. JUSTICE JOYCE A. O. DAMACHI

 

DATE:  10^th AUGIST 2026    

SUIT NO: NICN/LA/239/2022

 

BETWEEN:

 

MRS. EDAEFTITE USIN…………CLAIMANT

 

AND

 

UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC. …………… DEFENDANT

 

JUDGEMENT   

1.The Claimant commenced this suit via a General Form of Complaint, Statement of Facts dated 15 June 2022 and claims against the Defendant seeking the following reliefs:

1.        A Declaration by this Honourable Court that by its sustained denial of promotion to the Claimant amongst other acts of discrimination and victimization over many years, the Defendant did constructively dismiss the Claimant from the Defendant’s employment as shown by the Claimant’s resignation from the Defendant’s employment via the email dated 

 

2.       The sum of N854, 632.00 (Eight Hundred &fifty four Thousand, Six Hundred and Thirty-Two Naira Thousand Naira) representing the Claimant’s 1 (One) month Salary in lieu of Notice payable to the Claimant by the Defendant for constructive/wrongful dismissal of the Claimant from the Defendant’s employment.

 

3.       The sum of N86, 000, 000.00 (Eighty-Six Million Naira) being the cumulative salary of the Claimant for a period of 4 (Four) years at the rate of N21, 500, 000.00 (Twenty-One Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) per annum had the Claimant been promoted (As she ought to have been) to the position of a Senior Manager since 2016.

 

4.       The sum of N50, 000, 000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) being the cumulative salary of the Claimant for a period of 2 (Two) years at the rate of N25, 000, 000.00 (Twenty-Five Million Naira) per annum had the Claimant been promoted (As she ought to have been) to the position of a Principal Manager since 2020.

 

5.       An Order awarding the sum of N120, 000, 000. 00 (One Hundred and Twenty Million Naira) as exemplary damages against the Defendant for the traumas caused the Claimant by the many years of denial of promotion, sustained victimization and discrimination by the Defendant as well as for cutting short the Claimant’s otherwise promising career in the banking industry via the Claimant’s constructive dismissal from employment with effect from 11^th March 2021.

 

6.      Cost of this suit in the sum of N5, 000, 000.00 (Five Million Naira) incurred by the Claimant as Solicitors fee in connection with this suit.

 

 2. CLAIMANTS CASE

3. This suit arises from an employment dispute between the Claimant, Mrs. Edafetite Usin, and her former employer, Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, wherein the Claimant seeks a declaration of constructive dismissal alongside substantial monetary claims. The Claimant entered the Defendant’s service on 14 August 2009 as a Deputy Manager, was confirmed on 18 November 2010, and received her sole promotion to the rank of Manager on 16 October 2012. She asserts that despite over a decade of exemplary performance and significant cost-saving contributions, she faced systematic career stagnation, culminating in the arbitrary reversal of her 2017 confirmation as Head of General Services, hostile interference with her external professional appointment by the Central Bank of Nigeria, and an allegedly biased disciplinary process and was suspended in September 2021 over an altercation with subordinates. The final fracture in the relationship occurred in October 2021 when she was redeployed to Abuja, a transfer she claims was punitive and executed without the necessary logistical and accommodation packages, 

4. Asserting that these events and the lack of a relocation package created an intolerable work environment, the Claimant resigned from her employment on 24 February 2022.

 

5. At the trial, the Claimant testified as the sole witness and tendered nineteen documents admitted as Exhibits C1 to C19.

1.       Offer of Employment dated 14^th August 2009

2.     Letter of confirmation of Claimant’s employment dated 18^th November 2010

3.     Email correspondence dated 16^th October 2012

4.     Email correspondences of 27^th June 2019 and 28^th June 2019

5.     Email correspondences of 19^th March 2015

6.     Email correspondence/Documents on cost saving initiatives

7.     Email correspondences of 25^th January 2017 and 2^nd February 2017

8.     Defendant’s promotion guidelines.

9.     Claimant’s performance review for H1 (Half year 1) 2017

10.  Claimant’s performance review for H2 (Half year 2) 2017 

11.    Claimant’s performance review for H1 (Half year 1) 2018

12.  Claimant’s performance review for H2 (Half year 2) 2018

13.  Claimant’s performance review for H1 (Half year 1) 2019

14.  Claimant’s performance review for H2 (Half year 2) 2019      

15.  Claimant’s performance review for Half Year 1 (H1) 2020

16.  Claimant’s performance review for Half Year 2 (H2) 2020.

17.  Claimant’s redeployment email correspondence.

18.  Claimant’s Resignation Letter/email correspondence of 11^th March 2022   

19.  The Claimant’s CBN appointment letter dated 6^th April 2021.

 

6.DEFENDANTS CASE

7. The Defendant, Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, is a commercial bank registered under the laws of Nigeria and the former employer of the Claimant. The Defendant filed its Statement of Defence and accompanying processes on 27 October 2022. The Defendant resists the action on the ground that the employment relationship was strictly contractual and governed by the written terms of service, which contain no guarantee of promotion. The Defendant maintains that promotion remains an absolute managerial discretion and that the Claimant’s transfer to Abuja was a lawful exercise of administrative authority accompanied by calculated relocation allowances. It is the Defendant's position that the Claimant was not dismissed, constructively or otherwise, but voluntarily resigned her appointment by giving one month’s notice in line with her contract of service, thereby disentitling her to any damages or terminal salary claims.

 

8.The Defendant called Mr. Francis Idiaghe as its sole witness, who tendered eight documents admitted as Exhibits D1 to D8.

Following the conclusion of cross-examination on 30 June 2025, the court directed the parties to file their final written addresses.

DW1 tendered Exhibits D1 to D8. DW1

Exhibit D1 (Offer of Employment)

Exhibit D2 (Confirmation Letter)

Exhibit D3 (Contract of Service dated 17th August 2009).

 

 

9. DEFENDANT'S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS & ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

 

10. Learned Counsel to the Defendant, Lawrence K. Nweke, submitted that the Claimant's case is completely unmeritorious, speculative, and an attempt to hold the Defendant liable for her voluntary decision to resign from her employment. Counsel argued that the entire relationship between the parties was strictly contractual, and that the Defendant acted at all times within its lawful managerial prerogatives.

Before addressing the substantive issues, Counsel raised a fundamental preliminary objection regarding the admissibility of the electronic evidence presented by the Claimant.

11. On Preliminary Issue: Objection to the Admissibility of Exhibit C19 Learned Counsel to the Defendant submitted that Exhibit C19, which is a flash drive containing an audio recording of a telephone conversation, is electronic evidence and must strictly comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011.

Counsel argued that although the Claimant tendered a Certificate of Compliance, Exhibit C19 was not covered by the certificate, which constitutes a fatal violation of Section 84(2) & (4) of the Evidence Act. Counsel contended that Exhibit C19 failed the tests of authentication he relied on Dabiru v. AGF (2018) LPELR-44115 (CA) and Adeleke v. Oyetola (2019) LPELR-46987 (SC) to support this proposition. Counsel argued that the flash drive is not the original recording medium because the conversation allegedly took place on a phone, and therefore the phone itself ought to have been tendered. Counsel submitted that converting the file to a flash drive altered its original form and made it susceptible to manipulation, he relied on Justice Araka v. Justice Egbue (2003 - 07) Legalpedia 69234 (SC) for the proposition that computer-generated documents must be in their original form.

 

12. Counsel also relied on Federal Polytechnic Ede v. Oyebanji (2012) LPELR-19696 (CA) for the seven-fold test of admissibility for recorded conversations, arguing that the Claimant failed to establish that the recording device was capable, the operator was competent, the recording was authentic and correct, was properly preserved, was unedited, the voices were authenticated, and the recording was made in good faith without inducement. Counsel therefore urged the court to reject and expunge Exhibit C19.

 

13. On Issue 1: Having regards to the pleading and the evidence adduced by both Parties herein, whether Exhibits D1, D3 and C2 are the binding and enforceable Contract evidencing the rights and obligations of the Parties in this Suit. LDC submitted that the relationship between the parties was strictly regulated by the Offer of Employment (Exhibit D1), the Confirmation Letter (Exhibit C2), and the Contract of Service (Exhibit D3) to the exclusion of any other extraneous documents. Counsel argued that these 3 documents constitute the entire agreement between the parties and contain all enforceable obligations recognizable at law. Counsel pointed out that during cross-examination, the Claimant admitted that these exhibits were the only documents evidencing her employment relationship. Counsel submitted that all five ingredients of a valid contract—namely offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, and capacity—were fully satisfied by these exhibits, and Counsel relied on Enemchukwu v. Okoye (2018) All FWLR (Pt. 929) 226 at 247, Paras. A-B and C.I. Co Ltd v. S.B. Cmid Ltd (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 819) 900 at 918, Paras. B-C, as well as Alfotrin Ltd v. Attorney-General, Federation (1996) 9 NWLR (Pt. 475) 634 at 656 Para. H for the definition of a binding contract. Counsel contended that the court is not permitted to read into a written contract any terms that the parties did not expressly agree upon, and Counsel relied on Uwah v. Akpabio (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 738) 886 at 898-899, Paras. H-A and Christaben Group Ltd v. Oni (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 504) 1439 at 1462-1463, Paras H-D to support this submission. Counsel therefore urged the court to hold that Exhibits D1, C2, and D3 are the only binding contract in this suit.

 

14. On Issue 2: Having regards to the pleadings and the evidence adduced by both Parties herein, whether the employment relationship between the Parties was properly severed in line with and in Compliance with Exhibit D3. LDC submitted that a contract of service that has been properly terminated in accordance with its terms leaves no room for any subsequent claim of wrongful or constructive dismissal. Counsel argued that Clause 7 of Exhibit D3 expressly allows either party to determine the agreement by giving one calendar month's written notice or one month's salary in lieu. Counsel pointed out that the Claimant admitted during cross-examination that she resigned her appointment in March 2022 by giving one month's written notice in line with her contract of service. Counsel argued that the Defendant accepted this resignation and that the motive or intention behind the termination is legally irrelevant once the contractual procedure has been followed. Counsel relied on Rivers Vegetable Oil Co. Ltd v. Egukole (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 544) 111 at 124-125, Paras. F-A for the proposition that the validity of a contractual termination cannot be vitiated by allegations of malice, improper motive, victimization, or discrimination.

 

15. On Issue 3: Having regards to the Pleadings and the evidence adduced by both parties herein, whether the contract of employment as evidenced by Exhibit D1, D2 and D3 vested on the Claimant the right to promotion. Learned Counsel to the Defendant submitted that parties are bound by the terms of their agreement, and a careful study of Exhibits D1, C2, and D3 reveals that there is no provision whatsoever conferring a right to promotion on the Claimant. Counsel argued that promotion is a managerial prerogative and a privilege rather than a contractual right, and since there was no consensus ad idem on any right to promotion, the Claimant cannot seek to enforce terms that are alien to the contract. Counsel relied on Uwah v. Akpabio (supra) for the principle that the court cannot read into an agreement terms that are absent. Counsel further relied on BFI Group Corp. v. Bureau of Public Ent. (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 676) 444 at 466, Paras. A-C for the proposition that execution of a written document is the sole source for resolving contractual disputes, and Rivers Vegetable Oil Co. Ltd v. Egukole (supra) at 130, Paras E-F to urge the court to avoid speculation. Counsel submitted that under Amodu v. Amode (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 150) at 356 and Patrick Zideeh v. R.S.C.S.C. (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) at 554, an employee complaining of a breach must plead and prove the contract of service and show the specific manner in which it was breached. Counsel argued that the Claimant failed to point to any written term in Exhibit D3 that was breached. Counsel contended that parol evidence cannot be used to alter written terms, relying on Intels (Nig) Ltd v. Bassey (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 675) at 376, 384, Paras. E-G, and that the court must confine itself to the plain words of the contract as supported by Michelin (Nig) Ltd v. Alaribe (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 543) pg. 1998, 2012, Para. E and Egbonyi v. Nal Merchant Bank Plc (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 528) at 886, 898, Para. F. Counsel submitted that sympathy and sentiments have no place in judicial deliberations, citing Ezeugo v. Ohanyere (1978) 6-7 SC 171, and that the rightfulness or wrongfulness of employment actions is determined strictly by the contract, citing Michelin (Nig) v. Alaribe (supra) p. 2018, Para. B. Counsel urged the court not to make a new contract for the parties, relying on Joseph v. Kwara State Poly (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 750) at 1215, 1236, Para. B and Joseph v. Kwara State Poly (supra) p. 1243, Para. B, and submitted that the Claimant failed to prove a valid contract for promotion, citing BPSC. & E. Co. Ltd v. F.C.D.A. (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 878) 1 at 458, Paras. G-H.

 

16. On Issue 4: Having regards to the pleadings and the evidence adduced by both Parties herein, whether the Claimant is entitled to her Claims as contained in the Statement of Facts. LDC submitted that the Claimant's claims are frivolous, speculative, and represent a "gold digging" exercise and a reckless gamble with the judicial process, and Counsel relied on Macfoy v. U.A.C. Ltd (1961) 3 WLR 1409 to support this characterization. Regarding the claim for N854,632.00 as one month's salary in lieu of notice, Counsel argued that the Claimant was the party who terminated the contract by giving notice, and the Defendant never terminated her employment but kept paying her salaries even when she refused to redeploy. Counsel pointed out that the Claimant admitted during cross-examination that she resigned by giving one month's notice in line with her contract, and Counsel relied on M.S.E. v. Ozah (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 761) 1571 at 1588, Paras. B-C (and also referred to as N.S.E. v. Ozah in some instances) to show that the party terminating must pay salary in lieu only if that option was chosen. Regarding the claims for N86 million and N50 million as cumulative salaries for Senior Manager and Principal Manager, Counsel argued that these claims are speculative since the Claimant never held those positions. Counsel submitted that under Clause 10 of Exhibit D3, salary is determined strictly by the position as designated by the Bank, and the Claimant admitted under cross-examination that these figures were never communicated to her and were mere estimations. Counsel relied on Intels (Nig) Ltd v. Bassey (supra) at 385, Paras. B-D and Michelin (Nig) Ltd v. Alaribe (supra) at 2018, Para. G for the proposition that a servant cannot claim wages they did not earn, and Joseph v. Kwara State Poly (supra) to urge the court to reject speculative claims. Counsel also relied on Clause 13 of Exhibit D3, which bars an employee who resigns from claiming monetary payments in lieu. Counsel submitted that these salary claims are special damages which must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, and that merely repeating the averments in a witness statement is insufficient, citing Rivers Vegetable Oil Co. Ltd v. Egukole (supra) at 130, Paras. C-D, Busari v. Adepoju (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 878) p. 464 at 497, Paras. G-C, Hope v. Elleh (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 537) p. 685 at 698-699, Paras. H-A, and Alao-Akala v. F.R.N. (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 738) p. 850 at 883, Paras. B-D.

 

17. Regarding the claim for exemplary damages, Counsel argued that there is no evidence of discrimination or victimization, that the Claimant was paid all salaries promptly prior to her resignation, and that she disobeyed her redeployment instruction. Counsel relied on Akinbajo v. Olowolayemo (2018) All FWLR (Pt. 968) 646 at 663, Paras. H-A and Aremu v. Anusionwa (2018) All FWLR (Pt. 962) 1668 at 1688, Paras. E-H, arguing that without a legal wrong, there can be no damages. Counsel also cited Aremu v. Anusionwa (supra) at 1689, Paras. B-D to submit that the law frowns at double compensation.

 

18. Finally, regarding the claim for N5,000,000.00 as cost of action, Counsel submitted that litigation costs are special damages that must be pleaded and proved, and because the Claimant failed to adduce any evidence or receipts, the claim must fail, and Counsel relied on Naude v. Simon (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 753) 1878 at 1905, Paras. A-B.

 

19.  CLAIMANT'S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS & ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

Learned Counsel to the Claimant, Adeshina Balogun, submitted that the Claimant has presented before this Honourable Court a compelling case of constructive dismissal and systemic unfair labour practices perpetrated by the Defendant over several years of the Claimant's service. Counsel contended that the Claimant's resignation from her position on 24th February 2022 was not voluntary but was actively induced by the hostile and stagnant work environment created by the Defendant, which ultimately rendered her continued employment intolerable. Counsel initiated the legal arguments by addressing the core elements of constructive dismissal as they relate to the facts in issue.

20. On Issue 1: Whether from the totality of the evidence adduced before this Honourable Court, the Claimant has established a case of constructive dismissal against the Defendant?

 

21.   LCC submitted that a claimant in an action for constructive dismissal, much like in actions for wrongful dismissal, must specifically plead the contract of employment as it constitutes the foundation of the claim, and relied on the case of Ovivie v. Delta Steel Co. Ltd. (2023) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1904) 203 for this proposition. He argued that the Claimant successfully pleaded and proved her contract of employment by placing reliance on Exhibit C1, being the Offer of Employment dated 14th August 2009, and Exhibit C2, being the Confirmation of Employment dated 18th November 2010.

 

22.  Counsel further submitted that constructive dismissal occurs when an employee resigns because the employer’s behaviour has become intolerable, heinous, or has made life so difficult that the employee has no choice but to resign. Counsel referred to the definition of constructive dismissal in Black's Law Dictionary (10th Edition) and the landmark English decision of Lord Denning MR in Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v. Sharp [1978] ICR 222 to establish that where an employer is guilty of conduct which is a significant breach going to the root of the contract, the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged. He relied on Miss Ebere Ukoji v. Standard Alliance Life Assurance Co. Ltd (2014) 47 NLLR Pt. 154 P. 134 for the proposition that a pattern of intolerable working conditions or unilateral changes to employment terms constitutes constructive discharge, entitling the employee to legal compensation.

23.  He argued that the Claimant's resignation was forced by a persistent and malicious pattern of victimization, which is evidenced by Exhibits C5 to C12, being the Claimant’s performance evaluations from 2017 to 2020. These documents show a consistent record of diligence, outstanding performance, and professional excellence, yet the Claimant was continually overlooked for promotion. Counsel contended that even when she was confirmed as the substantive Head of the Services Department via an email dated 25th January 2017, the Defendant arbitrarily and embarrassingly reversed the confirmation eight days later via another email dated 2nd February 2017 without any disciplinary process or identified performance issues.

24. Counsel argued that Exhibit C19, which is a flash drive containing an audio recording of a conversation between the Claimant and the Human Resources Manager, played in open court, confirmed that there was no objective basis for her career stagnation and that her treatment was rooted in malice and administrative bias.

25.  Counsel further argued that the Defendant actively interfered with her professional growth by opposing and demanding the reversal of her election as Chairperson of the Financial Inclusion Special Interventions Working Group (FISIWG) by the Central Bank of Nigeria, as shown in Exhibits C15 and C16.

26.Counsel also submitted that the Defendant violated the rules of natural justice by subjecting the Claimant to biased and partisan disciplinary proceedings over an incident with a junior colleague during an Alpher team meeting.

27. Counsel argued that the Claimant was not given a fair hearing because she was not allowed to confront her accuser directly, and Counsel relied on Adewunmi v. Nig. Eagle Flour (2014) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1428) pp. 457-458 paras H-A and Adigun v. A.-G., Oyo State (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 53) 678 for the proposition that the rules of natural justice must be observed in administrative enquiries and that the accuser must not be shielded from the accused.

28. Counsel contended that the proposed redeployment of the Claimant to Abuja was punitive because the Defendant unilaterally took the decision and failed to provide the necessary logistical and welfare packages. Counsel pointed out that under cross-examination, the Defendant’s sole witness, Mr. Francis Idiaghe, admitted that he was not directly involved in the redeployment, had no personal knowledge of her post-redeployment roles, and relied on a relocation policy that was never produced in evidence.

29. Counsel relied on Navy Captain Olufemi Pearse (Rtd) v. Jinadu & Anor (2017) LPELR-50512 (Pp 77 - 77 Paras A - B) for the proposition that a witness who gives inconsistent evidence on oath is not entitled to credibility. Counsel further argued that the testimony of the Defendant's sole witness must be discountenanced as inadmissible hearsay because he had no personal knowledge of the facts and was not the author of any of the relevant documents, he relied on Abdulmalik v. Tijani (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1315) 461, Section 37 and Section 39 of the Evidence Act 2011, Mohammed v. A.-G., Fed (2021) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1764) 397, and Edosa v. Ogiemwanre (2019) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1673) 1 to support this contention.

30. Finally, Counsel submitted that since the evidence of the Claimant was unchallenged and uncontroverted, the court must accept it as the correct version of the facts, and Counsel relied on Elegushi & Ors v. OSENI & Ors (2005) LPELR-1111 (PP 28 - 28 PARAS A - B), Sterling Ass. (NIG.) Ltd. v. Trustworld Ins. Ltd. (2023) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1904) pp. 289–290, Paras. E–B, Arabambi v. Advance Beverages Industries Ltd. (2005) 19 NWLR (Pt. 959) 1, Mohammed v. Abdulkadir (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1076) 111, and Oro v. Falade (1995) 5 NWLR (Pt. 396) 385 at 416, Paras. E–G.

31. On Issue 2: Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in her claim before this Honourable court? LCC submitted that where a party has successfully established a right, the court is duty-bound to award the reliefs sought, and Counsel relied on Ativie v. Kabelmetal (Nig.) Ltd (2008) LPELR-591 for this proposition. He argued that the Claimant's long and outstanding service, coupled with her promotion only once in 2012, represents a clear case of career stagnation and victimization. Relying on Miss Ebere Ukoji v. Standard Alliance Life Assurance Co. Ltd (supra), persistent denial of promotion in the face of consistent outstanding performance is an unfair labor practice. Counsel submitted that the Defendant’s failure to provide the necessary logistical and relocation packages for the Abuja transfer was a punitive act intended to force her resignation, and Counsel relied on Mr. Monday Itodo v. GTL Registrar Limited (Suit No. NICN/LA/602/2016).

32. Counsel argued that although promotion is generally a managerial prerogative, keeping an employee in one position for an unreasonable period while others are promoted is discriminatory and unfair. Counsel pointed out that the Defendant's HR Head, during the recorded conversation in Exhibit C19, did not deny the mass promotion of over 400 staff but gave the excuse of budget constraints, which Counsel submitted was falsified by the fact that the Claimant's promotion to Head of Services was approved but then withdrawn purely due to the MD's missing signature.

33. Counsel argued that the Defendant withheld key promotion guidelines and disciplinary records despite their witness admitting they existed, and Counsel urged the court to invoke the adverse presumption under Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act 2011. Counsel contended that the alleged disciplinary issues were fabricated, and that her rejection of the redeployment was justified because the Defendant called it off after she requested standard welfare packages. Counsel relied on MTN (Nig) Communications Ltd v. Corporate Comm. Inv. Ltd (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1678) p. 456 paras A-C for the principle that a claimant in a declaratory action must succeed on the strength of their own case. Counsel submitted that the NICN is empowered under Section 254C(1)(f), (h), and (i) of the CFRN 1999 (as amended) to adjudicate on claims involving labor rights and unfair labor practices, and therefore urged the court to grant all the reliefs claimed.

COURT’S DECISION

34. Preliminary Issue: Admissibility of Exhibit C19

35. The Defendant objected to the admissibility of Exhibit C19 (a flash drive containing an audio recording) for non-compliance with Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011. While the Claimant filed a Certificate of Compliance, the certificate failed to specifically cover the flash drive itself or the device used to capture the original recording.

36. Under Section 84(2) and (4) of the Evidence Act 2011, the integrity of both the input device and the output medium must be certified. Because this statutory condition was not met, the objection is sustained. Exhibit C19 is hereby rejected and expunged from the record.

 

37. Substantive Issue 1: Has the Claimant Established a Case of Constructive Dismissal?

38. The burden of proof in civil cases rests on the party who asserts, on a preponderance of evidence, pursuant to Sections 131 to 134 of the Evidence Act 2011.

39. Constructive dismissal occurs when an employee resigns because the employer’s conduct has made continued employment intolerable or represents a fundamental breach of the contract going to its root. In such instances, the law treats the resignation not as voluntary, but as a forced termination initiated by the employer. This Court has long recognized this principle as an actionable unfair labour practice (see Miss Ebere Ukoji v. Standard Alliance Life Assurance Co. Ltd (supra); Mutual Life & General Insurance Ltd v. Iheme (2010) LPELR-4568(CA)).

39. The claimant relied on her administrative history in the  last years of service to reveal a systematic pattern of hostility: she relied on, Career Stagnation & Reversal of Role:  The Claimant testified as CW1, adopting her Witness Statement on Oath and her Additional Witness Statement on Oath as her evidence-in-chief, and tendered Exhibits C1 through C19 in support of her case. She testified that she was employed on 14th August 2009 as a Deputy Manager and was confirmed on 18th November 2010, which is corroborated by Exhibit C1 (Offer of Employment) and Exhibit C2 (Letter of Confirmation). CW1 further testified that 'Due to my outstanding and excellent performances at my job, the Defendant, via an email dated 16th October 2012, promoted me to the position of a Manager', which is evidenced by Exhibit C3.

 

40. CW1 deposed that throughout her '12 (twelve) backbreaking years of labour in the employment of the Defendant', she was promoted only once, despite receiving consistently outstanding appraisals and implementing massive cost-saving initiatives. To substantiate her exceptional performance, she tendered Exhibits C5 to C12, which are her Half-Year Performance Reviews from 2017 to 2020. These documents consistently praise her work; for example, her H2 2018 appraisal (Exhibit C8) described her as the 'Projects Team’s "Quality Champion"' and commended her ability to work without supervision.

41. CW1 also testified that her cost-saving initiatives in General Services saved the Defendant over nine hundred million Naira.

42. She further placed reliance on Exhibit C15, which is her CBN appointment letter dated 6th April 2021 as the Chairperson of the Financial Inclusion Special Interventions Working Group (FISIWG), and Exhibit C16, which is the Defendant's protest letter to the CBN demanding her removal, as proof of the Defendant’s active hostility.

43. This court is now to determine  whether the Defendant’s conduct toward the Claimant was so intolerable as to leave her with no option but to resign her employment. The position of the law on constructive dismissal in Nigeria recognizes that an employee is entitled to protection when placed in a situation where they are compelled to resign or terminate their own employment.

44. This principle, known as constructive dismissal, arises when an employee is forced to terminate their contract, with or without notice, due to the conduct of the employer, which conduct must amount to a breach of the employment contract. The Courts have affirmed the applicability of this principle in Nigerian jurisprudence, as held in Mutual Life & General Insurance Ltd (2010) LPELR 4568 CA. Such a dismissal is treated as a wrongful dismissal by the employer. On the definition and scope of constructive dismissal, see  Miss Ebere Ukoji v. Standard Alliance Life Assurance Co. Ltd (2014) 47 NLLR (Pt. 154) 134  

45. The measure of damages for wrongful dismissal, including constructive dismissal, is consistently held by the Nigerian courts to be the amount of money that is payable during the period of notice stipulated in the contract of employment. This principle was affirmed by the Supreme Court in OBANYE v. UNION BANK (2018) LPELR-44702(SC), which held that the measure of damages in cases of wrongful dismissal is always the amount of money payable during the period of notice as stipulated in the contract of employment.

46. To succeed in this claim the law requires proof that the employer committed a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment, or demonstrated an intention no longer to be bound by the contract, thereby forcing the employee to resign.

47. The Claimant, testifying as CW1, asserted that her resignation on 24 February 2022 was not voluntary but was the direct consequence of a hostile, stagnant, and punitive work environment.

48. The Defendant, through the testimony of DW1, Mr. Francis Idiaghe, countered this by asserting that the Claimant resigned voluntarily in accordance with Clause 7 of Exhibit D3 (the Contract of Service), and that the bank acted at all times within its lawful privileges.

49. To determine which position is supported by the weight of evidence, the court must evaluate the administrative history of the Claimant's last years of service.

First, regarding career stagnation and the reversal of her role, CW1 testified that she was promoted only once to the rank of Manager on 16 October 2012 (Exhibit C3) during her twelve years of service, despite consistently outstanding appraisals. Her half-year performance evaluations from 2017 to 2020, marked as Exhibits C5 to C12.   In Exh C8 her supervisors commended her as the "Projects Team’s 'Quality Champion'" and praised her ability to work without supervision.

In opposition, the Defendant was fervent that claims for promotions are subject to management discretion and budgets.

50. To resolve this engagement,  this court shall be guided by a literal construction of Exhibit D3, which contains no clause guaranteeing automatic promotions. Thus, the Defendant's argument that promotion is a managerial prerogative is legally correct. See Abenga V Benue State Jud Service Comm (2000) 14 NWLR Pt (1000) 610.

51. Now on the issue of role reversal, the court noted that where a confirmed promotion is arbitrarily withdrawn within eight days without any disciplinary justification, then the employer cannot be completely absolved of  a charge of unfair labour practice, especially since it  is on record  that despite the stellar ratings, her confirmation as Head of General Services in 2017 was abruptly and unilaterally reversed only eight days after it was issued.

52. The Defendant's explanation, as stated by DW1, was that the confirmation lacked the Managing Director's signature.  The Defendant in his evidence offered no explanation as to why a confirmed administrative action was reversed without any performance or disciplinary issues, or why the signature was withheld for an employee with exemplary ratings. While I agree with the Defendant's argument that promotion is generally a discretionary managerial prerogative rather than an automatic contractual right see Abenga v. Benue State Judicial Service Commission (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 610),the arbitrary reversal of an already communicated confirmation, coupled with decade-long career stagnation despite outstanding appraisals, indicates a pattern of unfair administrative frustration. 

53. The 2^nd weight of evidence adduced by the claimant is  Interference with Professional Growth  the claimant pleaded and tendered evidence to reveal active hostility by the defendant towards her external professional development, C15 is a letter dated 6 April 2021 from the CBN, confirming her election as the CHAIRPERSON of the Finnacial Inclusion Special intervention working group (FISIWG). On receipt of this letter, Union Bank wrote a formal protest letter demanding an immediate reversal of her appointment.

54. It is trite that an employer owes an implied duty of mutual trust, confidence and support to its employees. Writing a protest letter to a regulatory body such as CBN to block a senior employees professional appointment without showing that the appointment conflicted with her bank duties or the approval to attend such external meeting as a representative of Union bank was obtained through fraud or a misconduct is a direct breach of its implied duty owed to the employee.  This action to the mind of this court is a hostile act designed to suppress an employee career prospect both within and outside the banking industry.

55. With regards to  the circumstances surrounding the Claimant's redeployment to Abuja in October 2021 and her subsequent five-month period of inactivity, the emails in Exhibits D4 and D5 show that allowances were calculated, however, under cross-examination, DW1 made fatal admissions that completely dismantled the credibility of the Defendant's defense. Under cross-examination, DW1 admitted: "I never worked in the same team as the Claimant" and conceded that the bank’s relocation policy "was not before the court." DW1 further admitted still under cross-examination: "I do not know if the Claimant had requested accommodation or if any accommodation was provided for her in Abuja." The claimant had raised concerns about her mortgage which was still active in lagos and needed the bank to consider it in terms of her  transfer to Abuja.  From the evidence before this court, the bank did not attempt to resolve her concerns on this key issue with regards to her mortgage which was on going with the bank in Lagos, rather DW1’s admissions severely damage the Defendant's position.

56. This conversely supports CW1's testimony that the transfer was an attempt to frustrate her out of her employment, particularly when the Defendant stopped assigning any roles or responsibilities to her in Lagos from October 2021 until her resignation in March 2022.

CW1 testified that the transfer was punitive and executed without any logistic  or accommodation packages, forcing her into a state of professional idleness in Lagos from October 2021 until her resignation in  2022.

57. the court shall however interrogate  DW1 testimony when he relied on Exhibits D4 and D5 to show that the Defendant  redeployed the Claimant to Abuja with allowance and that her refusal to relocate constituted gross insubordination.       

58. Crucially, under cross-examination DW1 admitted that he was not directly involved in the redeployment and had no personal knowledge of what her post-transfer roles would be. Confronted with the two competing versions of facts, the court finds several areas of direct conflict. DW1 admitted that he had no personal knowledge of her redeployment, never worked in her team, and that the bank's relocation policy was not before the court.  To this court, DW1's evidence on these points is hearsay and lacks probative value.

59. Furthermore, key to the Defendant’s justification  throughout trial is the  failure to produce the minutes of the disciplinary committee or its relocation guidelines. Under Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act 2011, the Court presumes that the production of these documents would have been unfavorable to the Defendant. Keeping a senior employee in a state of complete "enforced idleness" and professional isolation for five months (from October 2021 until her resignation in February 2022) is a psychological and professional injury.

60. The Defendant's defense that her exit was a voluntary resignation under Clause 7 of Exhibit D3 is unsustainable. Her resignation was a forced response to a hostile, stagnant, and punitive work environment.  This Court therefore holds that the Claimant was constructively dismissed.

61. The court noted that substantial gaps exists in the Defendant's case. DW1, by his own admission, did not author any of the emails, appraisals, or relocation documents, and never worked with the Claimant. His testimony regarding the operational environment and the specific negotiations over the redeployment package is largely hearsay, as he had no personal perception of these events. The Defendant offered no explanation under Section 39 of the Evidence Act 2011 as to why the actual supervisors, human resource managers, or makers of these documents were not called to testify. Furthermore, the Defendant's contention that the workplace was convivial is directly contradicted by Exhibit C16, which shows the bank actively writing to the CBN to block the Claimant’s professional appointment.

62. On the issue of her disciplinary record, CW1 claims she was unfairly suspended for two weeks in September 2021, whereas DW1 claims that the Claimant was not suspended but was issued a query, she appeared before a disciplinary committee, and was referred to the Employee Assistance Program (UBEAP) counselor for 'professional ethic and discipline' following an altercation during an Alpher Team meeting on 12th July 2021. In proof of this defence,  during trial the Defendant failed to produce the minutes of the disciplinary committee meeting or any official administrative record of the proceedings, despite DW1 admitting that such records exist. Applying Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act 2011, the court presumes that the production of these records would have been unfavorable to the Defendant, thereby lending credibility to CW1's assertion that the disciplinary process was hostile and punitive.

63. While dissecting  defenses raised, the Defendant argued that the Claimant's resignation was voluntary and executed under Clause 7 of Exhibit D3, which permits termination by either party giving one month's notice. Technically it is true that the Claimant initiated her resignation, the concept of constructive dismissal focuses on whether the employer's conduct made continued employment practically intolerable. The unilateral reversal of her 2017 promotion, the blocking of her external professional advancement with the CBN, the punitive redeployment to Abuja without resolved accommodation, and the subsequent five-month period of 'enforced inactivity' where she was given no roles or duties, collectively constitute a severe breach of the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence.

The Defendant’s defense that her inactivity was self-imposed by refusing to relocate is unsustainable because the Defendant had an obligation to resolve her relocation welfare package, which was active by the existence of a mortgage in lagos, and would have been abruptly cut off if not resolved by the bank at the point of transfer. . Thus, the Claimant's resignation cannot be viewed as voluntary; it was a forced response to a hostile and stagnant work environment.

64. The second issue for determination is whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in her claim before this Court. Having found that the Claimant was constructively dismissed, I must now evaluate each of the specific reliefs she seeks.

65. The Claimant seeks a declaration of constructive dismissal and N854,632.00 as one month's salary in lieu of notice. Having found under the first issue that the Defendant's hostile conduct forced the Claimant's resignation, the law treats this resignation as a constructive dismissal.

66. In a case of constructive dismissal, the contract is deemed terminated by the employer without notice. Under Clause 7 of the Contract of Service (Exhibit D3), the party terminating the contract is required to give one calendar month's written notice or pay one month's salary in lieu. Since the Defendant's breach constructively terminated the employment, the Defendant is liable to pay the Claimant one month's salary in lieu of notice.   The measure of damages for wrongful or constructive dismissal is the amount payable during the contractually stipulated notice period see Obanye v. Union Bank (2018) LPELR-44702(SC)). Under Clause 7 of Exhibit D3, this is one month's salary. The Claimant's undisputed monthly salary was N854,632.00. This claim therefore succeeds. Accordingly, the declaration is granted, and the claim for N854,632.00 as salary in lieu of notice  is hereby awarded.

67. The Claimant also claims Cumulative Salaries for Senior Manager and Principal Manager  in the sum of N136,000,000.00  which she would have earned had she been promoted to the ranks of Senior Manager (N86,000,000.00) and Principal Manager (N50,000,000.00). These claims represent special damages, which must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.  See UBN V IHUMA EZE (2014) 9 NWLR Pt 1411 166. On the question of special damages, the law requires credible, concrete evidence of entitlement, not speculative calculations. Under cross-examination, the Claimant made a critical admission that completely undermines these claims. Under cross-examination, CW1 admitted: "No, it has not been communicated" and further stated, "'Had I been' it’s an estimation."

68. It is a settled principle of employment law that an employee cannot claim salaries or wages for a position they never actually held or to which they were never formally promoted. Since promotion is not automatic and the Claimant was never promoted to the ranks of Senior Manager or Principal Manager, she cannot claim salaries tied to those positions based on mere estimations of what she might have earned. Consequently, the claim for N136,000,000.00 is highly speculative, lacks legal basis, and is hereby dismissed.

69. The Claimant further seeks exemplary damages of N120,000,000.00 for victimization, discrimination, and the hostile work environment. Exemplary damages are punitive in nature and are only awarded where the defendant's conduct is malicious, oppressive, or shows a wanton disregard for the plaintiff's rights – ELIOCHIN Nig Ltd V  LIMAN (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt 16) 244. While the Defendant’s administrative actions were unfair and amounted to constructive dismissal, they do not meet the stringent legal threshold for an award of exemplary damages, which are typically reserved for egregious constitutional violations or oppressive government action.

70. However, the Claimant is entitled to general damages for the wrongful termination of her employment via constructive dismissal and the unfair labor practices she was subjected to. In assessing general damages, the Court takes into account her twelve years of dedicated service, her outstanding performance reviews in Exhibits C5 to C12, the arbitrary reversal of her confirmation as Head of Services, the active blocking of her CBN appointment, and the five months of enforced professional idleness- UBN V AJABULE (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt 1278) 152. To compensate her for the psychological trauma and career disruption caused by this constructive dismissal, I award the sum of N5,127,79,200 which is equivalent to half of twelve months' gross salary, as general damages against the Defendant.

71. Finally, the Claimant claims N5,000,000.00 as the cost of this suit. The award of costs is within the sound discretion of the court, to be exercised judicially and judiciously – ADELAKUN V OYELADE(2004) 11 NWLR (Pt 883)14.  The Claimant has been in court since June 2022 to vindicate her rights, incurring substantial legal expenses. In the circumstances of this case, I assess and award the sum of N500,000.00 as the cost of this action in favor of the Claimant.

72. On a net evidential basis, the court makes the following findings of fact that the contractual relationship is governed by Exhibits C1, C2, and D3. The Claimant's claims for the salaries of a Senior Manager (eighty-six million Naira) and a Principal Manager (fifty million Naira) are completely speculative, as she admitted under cross-examination that she never attained those ranks and that the figures were mere uncommunicated estimations. The Claimant has also established a clear, credible, and uncontroverted pattern of career stagnation, unfair administrative treatment, and enforced professional inactivity between October 2021 and March 2022, which collectively constitutes constructive dismissal in law.

73. For the avoidance of doubt, this Court hereby enters judgment partly in favour of the Claimant and makes the following orders:

1.       IT IS DECLARED that the Claimant was constructively dismissed from her employment by the Defendant.

2.     IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall pay to the Claimant the sum of N854,632.00 (Eight Hundred and Fifty-Four Thousand, Six Hundred and Thirty-Two Naira Only) representing one (1) month’s salary in lieu of notice.

3.     IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall pay to the Claimant the sum of   (N5,127,920)   as general damages for constructive dismissal and unfair labour practices.

4.     IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall pay to the Claimant the cost of this action assessed at N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira Only).

5.     THE CLAIMS for cumulative salaries as Senior Manager and Principal Manager in the sum of N136,000,000.00 and exemplary damages in the sum of N120,000,000.00 are hereby dismissed.

6.     ALL MONETARY SUMS ordered to be paid under this judgment shall be paid within thirty (30) days from today, failing which the entire judgment sum shall attract post-judgment interest at the rate of 10% per annum until it is fully liquidated.

74. Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

___________________________________
HON. JUSTICE JOYCE A. O. DAMACHI
Judge, National Industrial Court of Nigeria

 

 

APPEARANCES:
Faith Doyinsola Feso-Ajanaku, Esq. ... for the Claimant.
Lawrence Nweke, Esq. ... for the Defendant.