JOY EJEKE -VS- UNITED BANK OF AFRICA - National Industrial Court of Nigeria

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

SUIT NO NICN/LA/442/2022

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

DATE: 21^st July 2026.

BETWEEN

JOY EJEKE Claimant

AND

UNITED BANK OF AFRICA Defendant

JUDGMENT.

The claimants commenced this action by an amended General Form of Complaint dated the and filed on the 8/2/2023. In the complaint the claimant sought the following relieves from the court:

1. A declaration that the action and/or decision of the defendant transferring liability of the defendant’s company on the claimant for money approved and paid out in the ordinary course of defendant’s business is illegal, wrongful, unlawful unfair labour practice and null and void.

2. An order directing the defendant to reverse all unlawful debit entries in the claimant’s salary account number 1006932946 (old account number 09990080020115) with regards to the illegal terminal debt liability imposed on the claimant,

3. An order that the running interest unilaterally imposed on the Claimant’s account is wrongful, illegal null and void.

4. An order compelling the defendant to refund a total sum of N4, 290, 027 (Four Million, Two Hundred and Ninety Thousand, Twenty – Seven Naira on|) being money unlawfully/wrongfully deducted from the claimant’s account.

5. An order compelling the defendant to pay the claimant the sum of N3, 109 045.86. (Three Million, One Hundred and Nine Thousand, forty Five Naira, Eighty Six kobo) as her gratuity.

6. An order compelling the defendant to pay the claimant the sum of

N 2, 150, 000.00 (Two Million, One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira only) being the Claimant’s terminal benefit as determined by the defendant

7. A declaration that the defendant breached the banker customer relationship between her and the claimant by disallowing the claimant access and use to her money through wrongful deductions or withholding of the claimant’s money.

8. An order compelling the Defendant to pay the claimant the sum of N10,000,000 for breach of the banker/customer Agreement to the claimant.

9. An order compelling the defendant to pay the claimant the sum of N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) as punitive and exemplary Damages for the unjust withholding of the unpaid terminal benefits, gratuities, entitlement and for illegal and unlawful deductions from the claimant’s salary account.

10.The sum of N10, 000,000 (Ten Million Naiara) only being damages
      for the psychological trauma and untold hardship suffered by the
      claimant as a result of the defendant’s unfair labour practice and
      unnecessary with holding of the claimant’s entitlement.

11. Interest on the above sum of the rate of 20% per annum from 2022
until judgment and thereafter at the rate of 40% per annum until the
judgment debt is fully and finally liquidated.

12. Special damages of N5,000, 000 (Five Million Naira) only as cost of
this action.

The complaint is supported by statement of facts and a witness deposition of the claimant. Also in support is a list of frontloaded documents.

Upon the service of the complaint on the defendant, the defendant filed a Statement of Defence and a counter claim on the 31/3/2023 along with the witness statement on oath of the defendant witness. Also in support are frontloaded documents. The defendant filed an additional list of witnesses along with a witness deposition of the witness on the 9/5/2025. Also the defendant filed a witness deposition in support of the counter claim on the 9/5/2025.

Hearing in this matter commenced on the 15/3/2025. The claimant testified as CW1. She adopted her witness deposition filed on the 8/2/2023 and went on to tender the following documents in evidence;

1. Letter of appointment Exhibit C1

2. Confirmation of appointment Exhibit C2

3. Notice of resignation Exhibit C3

4. Computation of Terminal benefit Exhibit C4

5. Letter of caution Exhibit C5

6. Letter of Consent to book N2,400,000 on the claimant account is Exhibit C6

7. Request to send revised letter of consent is Exhibit C7

8. Claimant statement of account Exhibit C8

9. Letter of Appeal Exhibit C9

10 Reply to the letter of appeal is Exhibit C10

11 Solicitor letter of demand is Exhibit C11

12 Response to solicitor letter of demand is Exhibit C12

13 Certificate of compliance is Exhibit C13.

CW1 was cross examined by the defence counsel and thereafter the claimant closed their case.

The defendant opened their case on the 12/3/2026. Eniola Ogunmolawa who described herself as a staff of the defendant and the Team Lead Work Place Ethics of the Human Resources Department of the defendant testified as DW1. He adopted his witness deposition filed on the 9/5/2025, and went on to tender the following documents in evidence:

1. Notice of Resignation as Exhibit D1

2. Response to resignation as Exhibit D2

3. Letter of Consent to book the claimant with indebtedness as Exhibit D3

4. Letter of caution is Exhibit D4

5. Email letter of 23/10/2015 Exhibit D5

6. Claimant statement of account as Exhibit D6a and b

The witness was cross examined by the claimant counsel and thereafter the matter was adjourned for adoption of final written addresses.

The Defendant filed their final written address on the 26/3/2026. The address was served on the claimant on the 30/3/2026. The claimant failed to file a final written address The defendant final written address was adopted on the 9/6/2026 and thereafter the matter was adjourned for judgment.

BRIEF FACTS IN ISSUE.

The case of the claimant as deduced from the statement of facts is that the claimant was employed on the 19/3/2007 as an Assistant Banking Officer and the appointment was confirmed in the latter of 7/12/2007. The claimant rose through the rank to become the Operation Manager of the defendant until her forced resignation form the services of the defendant. In the course of her work and on the 26/2/2016, one of the bank customer Mrs Onari Duke the wife of the former Governor of Cross River State Mr Donald Duke, visited the bank to conduct a transaction. Although the customer came in late, she was still allowed to conduct her transaction. She was directed to see the claimant and on seeing the claimant, Mrs Duke repeated her demand to see the Business Manager (BM). The claimant informed her that that she may not be able to meet with the BM since it was already past 4pm.However, if the purpose of seeking to meet with the BM is in respect of her transaction, Mrs. Duke could be rest assured of having her transaction treated without any delay. The claimant allege that Mrs. Duke suddenly became so furious and told the claimant to start looking for a new job. The claimant became confused but didn’t consider it as much a threat until the claimant was summoned alongside the FTO and a Security Guard on duty to the Head office at UBA House, 57 Marina, Lagos based on the complaint filed by Mrs Duke. The claimant, the Funds Transfer Officer (FTO) and a security guard were summoned the head office of the defendant. At the head office the claimant was verbally abused and was asked to resign immediately or be dismissed. The Claimant position is that the defendant policy is not to attend to any customer after closing hours despite that this Mrs Duke was given the privilege to go into the banking hall to conduct her transaction. The Claimant states that the defendant company neither investigated the complaint nor give the claimant the opportunity to be heard on the complaint before advising the claimant to put in her resignation letter for failing to attend to the request of a ‘high profile personality’. The claimant position also is that at the time of the incident that led to her forceful resignation she was not aware that Mrs Onari Duke apart from being the wife of former Governor of Cross River State. She was also a Non Executive Director of the UBA plc, which fact explains the constructive dismissal of the claimant without being heard by the bank. The claimant story is that at the beginning, the claimant had chosen to endure the harsh work environment and bear the mental and emotional anguish she was subjected to just to be able to put food on her family’s table as the breadwinner of her family. During the cause of this travails, the defendant, through her Human Resource officer – Obi lbekwe advised the claimant on the 1^st March, 2016 to resign with immediate effect failing which the defendant’s management would summarily dismissed the claimant and register her name in the CBN Black Book. The claimant avers that apprehensive of imminent dismissal, coupled with the unending victimization, harassment, hostility, and harsh working environment; and primarily based on the advice of the defendant through Obi lbekwe, the claimant was forced to hurriedly put in a handwritten resignation letter dated 1^st March, 2016 against the claimant’s free will. The FTO and the Security guard on duty on the said day was also dismissed form the defendant employment. The claimant states that having been forced to resign, the defendant advised through a letter reference number UBA/HCM/TAP/SA/T1]0004 dated March 18, 2016 advised that the claimant’s terminal account position (current account 1006932946) with effect from the date of exit is N1, 500, 644.6. That sometimes in 2015 the defendant staff in the ordinary course of business approved and authorised an NIP transfer and cash withdrawal which turned out to be a fraudulent withdrawal by a fraudster who had posed as the original holder of the account. The defendant penalised the claimant and directed the sum of N2,400,000 be paid by the claimant and in order to enforce the repayment sanction, the defendant forced the claimant to issue an authority letter to debit the sum to the claimant personal account No. 09990080020115. As a loan and which account was latter restructured to the current account No 1006932946. The claimant states that he never had any overdraft rom the defendant and the terminal debt obligation are the forceful debits into her account in brazen breach of fair labour practice. That upon the debit into the claimant account the defendant has been deducting the sum of N50,000 as purported terminal debt from the claimant account. The claimant also allege that on the 8/6/2016, the defendant also wrongfully debited the sum of N2, 150, 000 from the claimant’s account as a purported Terminal Debt obligation which the defendant deliberately imposed on the claimant by coercion. That again on the 8^th of March, 2019, one Ugorji Oyinyeamara Esther transferred the sum of N100, 000,00 into the claimant’s account for a transaction. All efforts made by the claimant to withdraw the money proved abortive as the defendant withheld the money. The claimant allege that the defendant also wrongfully deducted several sum of money at various dates to the tune of N1,790,027.03k as highlighted on her statement of account, The claimant state that the wrongful deduction were done in breach of bank customer relationship and the deduction continued until the filing of this action as the defendant has so far deducted the sum of N4,290,027,027. The claimant posits that between January 25, 2016 and 3^rd October, 2022, the defendant had also imposed several inconsistent interest rate on the claimant’s account under the guise of “running interest on Terminal Debt Obligation.” The defendant has deliberately plunged the said account into a debit of N5, 595, 267.44 with interest still running till date. Meanwhile, there was no agreement on interest between the claimant and the defendant. The claimant position is also that in the letter of caution issued to the claimant, the management of the defendant required the claimant to reimburse the defendant the sum of N2, 400, 000. 00 However, the entire money deducted from the claimant’s account is N4, 290, 027k thereby over debiting the claimant account with an excess sum of N1, 890,027. The claimant also stated that he wrote two letters of appeal on the 1/3/2016 and on the 21/7/2016. Against her forced, unfair and constructive dismissal and pleaded with the management of the defendant to reconsider their position. But in the defendant refused to consider the claimant plea and appeal. That after the claimant left the defendant employment, the defendant kept harassing the claimant through phone calls to pay the sum of N3,417,693.71 representing an amount into which the defendant had plunged the claimant’s account as at 30^th September, 2020 excluding the purported interest thereon. The claimant thereafter caused his solicitors to formally demand the regularisation or refund of various sum of money illegally and/or wrongful deducted from the claimant’s account under the guise of purported terminal debt obligation imposed on the claimant. The claimant position is that the defendant breached her duty to provide a safe and secure work environment to the claimant by exposing the claimant to undignified and discriminatory treatment. The defendant refused to pay all the entitlements, benefits and gratuity that could have cushion Claimant’s hardship despite the claimant’s 9 year-unbroken-service record. The claimant position is that the practice of holding the defendant staff responsible for the loss incurred in the defendant’s bank ordinary course of business, without more, amount to unfair labour practice. The claimant posits that the refusal to pay the claimant her gratuity has caused untold hardship on the claimant who has not been able to secure another job.

The defendant on the other hand denies all the allegations of facts put forward by the claimant in this action. The defendant states that the defendant was not forced to resign and the claimant resigned to seek alternative employment in other financial institution, The defendant denies any incident following the visit of Mrs Owanari Duke to the Defendant’s Redemption Camp branch during the normal banking hours relating to any verbal assault or resignation of the Claimant or any of the Defendant’s staff. The defendant denies constructively dismissing the claimant upon complaint from Mrs. Owanari Duke or any customer or person as there was no formal or informal complaint made against the Claimant,, hence there was no basis/need to investigate any complaint or set up any disciplinary panel or arrive at any decision to dismiss the Claimant in any manner: whatever. The defendant also denied that they subjected the Claimant to any harsh treatment whatsoever, humiliation or threat of being sacked by any of its officers, neither did they advise the Claimant to resign or communicate to the Claimant through Obi Ibekwe or any other person or in whatever manner any intention and/or threat to dismiss her from her employment as there are laid down formal and not informal regulations and procedures for exiting a staff that has erred and in the circumstance of the Claimant, no communication was required as she did not err at the time of her resignation. Rather, the Claimant for reasons best known to her voluntarily resigned from her employment vide a letter dated 1^st March, 2016. The defendant position is also that the Claimant who in her usual absent mindedness and lack of dedication negligently honoured unauthorized fraudulent NIP transfers and cash withdrawal by an impostor totalling N4,800,000.00 (Four Million, Eight Hundred Thousand Naira) from the savings account of one of the Defendant’s customers Tobechukwu Samuel Okafor, thereby causing financial hardship on the Defendant and consequent upon which the Claimant was required to reimburse the Defendant the sum of N2,400,000.00 (Two Million, Four Hundred Thousand Naira) vide a letter of caution issued against the Claimant. The state that the claimant was never coerced into taking a loan in the sum of N2,400,000.00 Rather, the Claimant applied and consented to taking the loan with repayment to be spread over a 48 months period from October 2015 from her account maintained with the Defendant to enable her offset her indebtedness in the sum of N2,400,000.00 which was used to reimburse the Defendant due to the Claimant’s negligence of honouring unauthorized fraudulent NIP transfer. That it was the claimant letter of consent that authorized the Defendant to book the loan of N 2, 400, 000. The defendant posits that all deductions that were made from the Claimant’s account were legal and in line with the loan of N 2,400,000 availed the Claimant on her instructions vide her letter of consent dated 8^th September, 2015. The defendant denies ever preventing the claimant from having access to her account, That as at November 30 2022, the claimant is indebted to the defendant in the sum of N5,595,67.44

The defendant also contends that the claimant knew that as a bank the defendant would charge interest on the loan granted by it and made demand for the payment of the loan after the exit of the claimant from the employment of the defendant. That the claimant terminal entitlement was used to partially offset the loan she owed the defendant at the point of her exit. That at the point of exit the claimant was advised in the letter of 18/3/2016, that her total indebtedness is in the sum of N5,595,67.44 The defendant counter claims this sum in this action. This represents the contending issues in this action.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION.

The claimant counsel did not file a final written address in this matter. The defendant in their final written address raise a preliminary point to the effect that the claimant filed a reply dated 14^th April, 2023 to the defendant’s consequential amended statement of defence and counterclaim but failed, refused and neglected to adduce any evidence in support of the aforementioned pleadings by not adopting the 2 witness statement on oaths dated 17^th April, 2023 respectively filed in support of them. It is the defendant’s submission that the failure and refusal to adopt the 2 witness statements on oath aforementioned is fatal to the Claimant’s case as it renders her reply dated 14^th April 2023 to the Defendant’s consequential amended statement of defence and counterclaim abandoned. Counsel argues further that the defendant’s consequential amended statement of defence and counterclaim dated 29^th March, 2023 stands unchallenged and therefore deemed admitted by the claimant. Let me state that the record of the court show that at the trial claimant in this action relied on the witness deposition dated the 8/2/2023 accompanying the amended general form of complaint. The deposition of the claimant filed on the 17/4/2023 is deemed abandoned along with the reply having not been relied upon by the claimant during trial.

See the case of Abubakar V. Joseph [2008]13 NWLR (Pt. 1104) Page 307 @ 357, Paragraphs D – E

However, let me state that the fact of abandonment of the reply and the deposition cannot amount to admission of the claim of the defendant as contained in the consequential amended statement of defence and counter claim. This so because the issues in the counter claim are adequately raised in the amended statement of facts and the claimant deposition in support of the facts. Therefore, this court would proceed on the understanding of resolving the question for determination in this case based on the issue joined on the facts by the pleadings and evidence led in proof of the facts by the respective parties to this action.

The defendant in this case formulated 2 issues for determination. I have carefully considered the issues. The issues formulated to wit; (i) Whether in the circumstances of this case, the claimant has sufficiently proved her claims against the Defendant? And Whether in the circumstances of the case, the Defendant has proved its Counterclaim and entitled to same?

are general statement of the duties of a court in the resolution of the dispute before the court. The issues as formulated above do not bring out the salient issues on the area of conflict which issue has been joined and which needs to be resolved. This court therefore formulates the following issues for determination:

1. Whether the claimant was pressured, or forced to resign her appointment base on the incident of 26^th February 2016 thus amounting to constructive dismissal of the claimant.

2. Whether the defendant can debit the claimant with loss occasioned in the course of banking operations and thereafter use the debit to deny the claimant of her terminal benefits.

3. Whether the claimant is entitled to the monetary reliefs claimed in this suit.

4. Whether the defendant is entitled to counterclaim the sum outstanding as part of the defendant loss debited to the claimant account.

ISSUE 1,

The case of the claimant is that on the 26/2/2016, Mrs Ownari Duke a customer of the bank and a person whom the claimant describes as a high profile customer of the bank visited the Redemption Camp branch of the defendant to conduct a transaction. The evidence is that this person is also a non-executive director of the bank at that time. She arrived the bank past banking hours but was still allowed entry into the bank since she had called before coming which call was not made known to the claimant. The Funds Transfer officer (FTO) tried to attend to her, but she insisted on seeing the Branch Manager (BM). She was directed to see the claimant who tried to assist with her transaction, but Mrs Onari flared up when the claimant tried to be of help to her. The claimant stated that there and then, Mrs Ownari told her that she should start looking for another job. The letter of Appeal Exhibit C9 dated the 21/7/2016 describes what transpired thereafter. She ignored the claimant and one staff Mr Toba Oladunjoye whom Mrs Duke had already called appeared on the scene and assisted Mrs Ownari Duke with the transaction she came to do after refusing to be attended to by the claimant. The evidence before the court is that this incident resulted in the claimant being summoned to the Head office along with the FTO and the Security man on duty on that date. This account was never disputed by the defendant. The evidence is also that at the defendant head office, the claimant and the 2 other staff were asked to resign within a few days without any disciplinary investigation being carried out if the claimant had committed any offence.

It is without doubt that a complaint about the incident of the 26/7/2016 must have been made to the headquarter of the defendant over the incident to warrant the claimant and the 2 other staff being summoned to the head office of the defendant. The evidence adduced by the claimant in paragraph 18 of his deposition is that based on the incident of the 26/7/2016, the FTO officer and the security officer were dismissed from the employment of the defendant. The defendant did not deny the fact of the dismissal of the other 2 officer of the bank. Claimant barely denied in paragraph 6 of their witness deposition that there was never any incident following the visit of Mrs Owanari Duke to the Defendant’s Redemption Camp branch during the normal banking hours relating to any verbal assault or resignation of the Claimant or any other of the Defendant’s staff. I find this denial very ridiculous. To deny an incident which was brought to the attention of the defendant leading to the claimant being summoned to the head office of the bank and also clearly reported in the Letter of Appeal exhibit C9 is an attempt to cover up an incident that occurred in the defendant place of work. In the response to the letter of appeal dated the 10/10/2016, and tendered as Exhibit C10, the defendant never denied the facts of the incident as stated in Exhibit C9. This fact portrays the defendant as an employer who is not in control of their work environment and cannot account for the daily activities in their place of work. The defendant has not also denied that the Funds Transfer officer (FTO) and the security man on duty were dismissed. This is an admission of the incident and if they were not dismissed the defendant should have led evidence to show that these officers were still in the employment of the defendant.

The claimant testified that after she was summoned to the head office over the incident of 26/7/2016, She was asked to resign. The claimant testified that she was uncertain of what lies ahead and being apprehensive of encountering financial hardship, she refused to put in a resignation letter but continue with her job. However, she was subjected to serious harsh treatment, humiliation, threat of sack by the bank’s senior officers which include the Branch Manager, the team lead Employee Relation Officer, and senior staffs at the defendant’s head office etc. If the claimant had committed and offence that would have attract the disciplinary decision of dismissal the defendant ought to have investigated the incident to determine the culpability of the claimant. There was no investigation institute to afford the claimant an opportunity to give her own account of what happened on the 26/7/2016. It is the claimant evidence that after the visit to the head office of the defendant she was continually pressured by his superior officers to resign. The claimant during cross examination stated that he was told by the Human Resources Manager Mr Obi Obikwe to resign because her appointment would be terminated, that it would be best to resign to avoid being blacklisted by CBN. In paragraph 16 of the claimant deposition he stated, 'That apprehensive of imminent dismissal, coupled with the unending victimization, harassment, hostility, and harsh working environment; and primarily based on the advice of the defendant through Obi lbekwe, I was forced to hurriedly put in a hand written resignation letter dated 1^st March, 2016 against my free will’.

The defendant has argued that the resignation of the claimant was voluntary. That the claimant was never forced to resign from the Defendant’s employment as she resigned on her own; probably to seek greener pastures in a different financial institution as its known among bankers. The evidence adduced before this court suggest a contrary position. First, I have examined Exhibit C3 the letter of resignation. The letter is handwritten and has cancellation which suggest the letter was written in a hurry which is evidence of pressure. Secondly the claimant from the evidence before the court had put in 9 years of service in the defendant employment and risen through promotion to the rank of a manager, it is very unlikely that a staff of this cadre would resign from employment of 9 years of service in 3 lines of sentences. I will reproduce the letter of resignation here

The Director

Human Capital Management

Marina, Lagos

NOTICE OF RESIGNATION

I Mrs Ejeke Joy Nneka with employment number A07446

Wish to resign my appointment with United Bank foe Africa

Effective Immediately dated 1^st March 2016

Yours Faithfully

Ejeke Joy Nneka

The last paragraph of the above reproduced letter wherein the claimant wrote that the resignation is effective immediately clearly punctures the argument of the defendant that the resignation was voluntary. It does appear that the letter was written in a hurry to avoid an unpleasant action that was to be taken, if the letter of resignation was not written and submitted. This finding of the court is anchored on the fact that this employment stipulates a period of notice to terminate as stated in Exhibit C1 which provides:

During the probationary period. Termination of appointment by either party will be subject to two (2) weeks notice in writing and in the case of a default, a payment of two (2) weeks basic salary in lieu of notice is mandatory. Subsequently, one month notice or one month salary in lieu of notice shall be required. (underlining for emphasis)

A voluntary resignation of the claimant as stated in the above paragraph of the Exhibit C1 would have required the claimant to give one month notice of intension to terminate the employment. This termination could not have been voluntary having regards to the content of Exhibit C9 the ‘Letter of Appeal’ in that letter the claimant wrote

In all of this, I will appeal that you give us second chance to serve again, staying at home these few months has exposed our families to challenging times, inability to feed, unable to pay school fees of our children and other associated bills. Our lives has been tough and rough these past few months. May I plead that you consider our appeal based on compassion and love for humanity.

Those words are evidence of regret on the part of the claimant for hurriedly resigning out of pressure from the claimant superior. It punctures the assertion of the defendant that the claimant resigned to probably to seek greener pastures in a different financial institution as is known among bankers. On the state of the evidence adduced in this case and the evaluation of the evidence, it is the findings of this court that the defendant pressured intimidated and forced the claimant to resign from the employment in fulfilment of the threat made by Mrs Ownari Duke on the 26/7/2016 that the claimant should start looking for another job. It is therefore a lie when the defendant in paragraph 11 of their witness deposition stated that none of the Defendant’s officers is answerable to Mrs Wanari Duke as an individual to carry out any instructions relating to the contract of employment that exists between the Defendant and its employees including the Claimant. In this case the defendant carried out the threat of Mrs Wanari Duke who at that time was a Non-Executive director of the bank who must have used her position to pressure and intimidate the management of the defendant to force the claimant to resign from her employment. It is therefore the finding of this court that the resignation of the claimant by exhibit C4 amounts to constructive dismissal.

Let me also say that the conduct of Mrs Wanari Duke leaves much to be desired. The 26/7/2016 should be a date that should be a day of infamy in her life for her conduct at the UBA branch of the Redemption Camp. The ego she exhibited over the very vulnerable claimant, who was all out to assist her which she rebuffed and still complained to the head office of the defendant leading to the pressure that engendered the forced resignation of the claimant is indeed what any person with conscience and humanity should not do. The hardship that followed the claimant forced resignation as expressed in Exhibit C9 the letter of appeal can only be attributed to her inhumane conduct at the bank on the 27/7/2016. I will say no more.

ISSUE 2

Whether the defendant can debit the claimant with loss occasioned in the course of banking operations and thereafter use the debit to deny the claimant of her terminal benefits.

The case of the claimant is that sometimes in 2015 a fraudster initiated a transfer of N3,920,000.00k and cash withdrawals of N880,000 from a savings account belonging to one Tobechukwu Samuel Okafor Domiciled at 60, Marina Business Office, after due processing, and in line with the defendant’s practice, the said NIP transfer and cash withdrawal was honoured by the defendant through her staffs which included the claimant. It later turned out that the approval of the NIP transfer and cash withdrawal was granted by unsuspecting staffs of the defendant to a fraudster who had posed as the original holder and authorized signatory to the account. The defendant penalised the claimant by transferring the sum of N2, 400,000 out of the total sum of N4,800,000 into the claimant account to be paid by the claimant. The claimant protested the action of the defendant. The claimant was forced to issue a letter of consent tendered as Exhibit D3, to book the sum of N2,400,000 into the claimant account no. 09990080020115. The sum was to be paid by the defendant in 48 month from October 2015.

The defendant position is that it was the negligence of the Claimant that led to her approving a fraudulent NIP transfer initiated by an impostor and the Defendant in order to serve as a deterrent to Claimant and other staff who are negligent in their duties was proper to sanction the Claimant as it recommended in the letter of caution Exhibit D4. In the response to the claimant solicitors letter of demand, the defendant stated thus:

Prior to her resignation, your client had requested that the Bank avails her a facility in the sum of N2,400,000,00 (Two Million Four Hundred Million Naira) with repayment to be spread over a 48 months period from October 2015.

Th defendant posits that the above sum was a loan granted to the claimant. This position is in clear contradiction of the content of Exhibit D4 the letter of caution which stated that the claimant was to reimburse the bank the sum of N2,400,000 for the loss to the bank.

Let me be very clear here, there is no evidence before this court to show that the claimant ever applied for a loan of N2,400,000. Rather the evidence is that the claimant was to pay the said sum to defray the loss to the bank. Therefore, the position in Exhibit C12 (the response to the solicitor letter dated 02/11/2020 Exhibit C11a) that the defendant availed the claimant a loan facility is false and is not supported by any evidence before the court.

Furthermore, the defendant in the letter of caution Exhibit D4 stated:

You failed to exercise extended due diligence on the subject customer’s account as you negligently authorized the fraudulent NIP transfers and cash withdrawals totalling N4,800,000.00 from the customer’s savings account by an impostor, despite the irregularities in the customer’s mandate, which subsequently crystallized into a loss.

By this position the claimant attributes the loss to the negligence of the claimant. The sum allegedly lost was N4,800,000 how the claimant came to hold the claimant liable to the sum of N2,400,000 remains a mystery. There is also no evidence before the court that show that the claimant was given the opportunity to defend his role in the transaction leading to the loss. The defendant did not also allege that the claimant benefited from the loss or connived with any other person to defraud the customer of the bank or the bank. The business of banking like any other business has its profit and loss sides. To hold the staff of the bank liable for every fraud committed by third parties without establishing direct negligent conduct or connivance by the staff of the bank in the ordinary course of their work is to shift loss component of business on the staff of the bank. Such act amount to unfair labour practice. It is worst that the loss is debited into the account of the staff of the bank as a loan. This practice cannot be tolerated. The bank cannot be allowed to shift the loss liability of its business component on its staff. It is therefore the finding of this court that the debit of the loss incurred by the defendant in the course of its business into the account of the claimant is unlawful as that cannot constitute a loan not-withstanding the letter of consent. It is the decision of this court that the debit of N2,400,000 into the account of the claimant must be reversed and credit given to the claimant for whatever sum that has already been paid or deducted from the salaries of the claimant.

ISSUE NO 3

Whether the claimant is entitled to the monetary reliefs claimed in this suit.

The case of the claimant is that the defendant has been deducting the sum of N50,000.00k as purported terminal debt from the claimant account. This the claimant did on the 25/01/2016, 24/02/2016, 24/03/2016, 25/04/2016, thus making the total deduction to be in the sum of N250,000.00k. Also on the 8/6/2016, the defendant also wrongly debited the claimant account with the sum of N2,150,000 as terminal debt obligation. That on the 8/03/2019, one Oyinyeamara Esther transferred the sum of N100,000.00k into the claimant account for a business transaction and the claimant withheld the money. The claimant also testified that the defendant at various times debited the claimant account with various sums. The claimant in paragraph 39 of her deposition tabulated the various deductions and the dates of the deductions which are reflected in the claimant statement of account tendered as Exhibit C8. The total deductions is in the sum of N1,790,027.03k. The claimant testified that the entire sum deducted by the claimant from the claimant account is N4,290,027.00K. The claimant also testified that between January 25, 2016 and 31 October, 2022 the defendant had also imposed several inconsistent interest rate on my account under the guise of running interest on Terminal Debt Obligation thus plunging the said account into a debit balance of N5, 595, 267.44 (Five Million, Five Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand, Two Hundred and Sixty Seven Naira, Forty Four Kobo).

The defendant testified that the claimant letter of consent authorised the defendant to book the loan. I have already stated in this judgment that the sum of N2,400,000.00k was not a loan but a punitive imposition to recoup the loss occasioned by the loss incurred by the defendant. I have also stated that the letter of consent could not have changed the character of that punitive imposition so as to turn same into a loan. The defendant has also argued that the deductions complained of by the claimant made in the claimant account were legal and in line with the loan. I have held that there was no loan granted to the claimant. Therefore, any deduction attributed to any alleged loan is an illegal deduction and must be reversed. The defendant has not been able to justify the deductions. The evidence show in Exhibit C8 that the defendant actually made the several deductions which plunged the account of the claimant into a debt of N N5, 595, 267.44. Having found earlier in this judgment that the defendant was wrong to have forced the claimant to assume liability for the payment of the sum of N2,400,000 and all the deductions earlier stated in this judgment, The claimant has asked this court in relief No 4 to order the defendant to refund the sum of N4, 290, 027 (Four Million, Two Hundred and Ninety Thousand, Twenty – Seven Naira only) being money unlawfully/wrongfully deducted from the claimant’s account. The court hereby finds for the claimant. The defendant is hereby ordered to reverse the sum of N4, 290, 027.00k to the claimant being the unlawful and illegal deduction from the claimant account.

In relief no 5, the claimant seeks an order compelling the defendant to pay the claimant the sum of N3,109, 045.86.(Three Million, One Hundred and Nine Thousand, forty-Five Naira, Fifty Four kobo) as her gratuity. This claim is a special damage claim. The law requires that that it should be specifically pleaded and strictly prove for its grant. See NNPC V. CLIFCO NIG. LTD. [2011] LPELR-2022 (SC) (Pp. 30 paras. B)

‘Evidence ought to be led before an award for special damages is granted. To succeed in a claim for special damages it must be claimed specially and proved strictly. The fact that it appears to be admitted does not relieve the party claiming it of the requirement of proof with compelling evidence.

Special damages are exceptional in character and so there is no room for inference by the court. It is unreasonable to consider a claim for special damages reasonable in the absence of proof. A claim for special damages succeeds on compelling evidence to justify it and not on the sums claimed appearing reasonable to the court.’ Per Rhodes-Vivour, J.S.C

In other words, a party who claims gratuity must plead the basis of the claim which must be derived from the contract of employment and also go ahead to proof the quantum of the claim. The evidence offered by the claimant in proof of this claim is in paragraph 60 of her deposition, that the last salary paid to her is N345,449-54. Since her forceful exit, the defendant has deliberately and/or intentionally withheld the payment of my gratuity for the nine years of service. The gratuity due and payable to the is N3,109, 045. 86k. The sum payable as gratuity is arrived at by multiplying the last salary earned by the number of years of service, that is N345, 449. 54 x 9 = N3,109,045.86. The defendant on the other hand has responded that the claimant was not entitled to gratuity. That the claimant was aware that the defendant does not pay gratuity to its exiting staff. The defendant position is not correct. Banks like the defendant pay gratuity to its exiting staff. However the claimant in making this claim failed to tender the Employees handbook which would have shown the years for qualification for gratuity and the parameter for such payment. The evidence given by the claimant above does not satisfy the requirement of strict proof. This claim must fail on the requirement of proof. The claim of N3,109, 045.86. is refused and is accordingly dismissed.

In claim No 6, the claimant seeks an order compelling the defendant to pay the claimant the sum of N2,150,000.00k being the claimant terminal benefit as determined by the defendant. The claimant relies on the response to the letter of resignation tendered as Exhibit C4. In that latter the defendant computed the total terminal benefit of the claimant to be in the sum of N2,150,00.00k. However, the defendant in that same Exhibit C4 used the terminal benefit as personal loan. In other-words the defendant used the claimant entitlement to defray part of the sum of N 2,400,00.00k which the defendant alleged they granted to the claimant as loan. This sum was the punitive liability forming part of the loss the defendant alleged it incurred as result of the fraudulent NIP transaction which the defendant alleged occurred as a result of the negligence of the claimant. I have already stated in this judgment that decision to hold the claimant liable for that loss is an unfair labour practice. I have also held that that sum cannot be debited to the account of the claimant as a loan. I have also ordered the reversal of the said punitive debit. Bearing this in mind, it is the finding of this court that it was wrong for the defendant to have used the sum of N2,150,00,00k being the claimant terminal entitlement to defray part of the illegal loan. I therefore find that the claimant has proved his entitlement to the above stated sum Judgment is entered in favour of the claimant against the defendant. The claimant shall pay the sum of N2,150.000.00k being the claimant terminal entitlement as computed in Exhibit C6.

In claim No 7 and 8. The claimant seeks a declaration that the defendant breached the banker customer relationship between her and the claimant by disallowing the claimant access and use to her money through wrongful deductions or withholding of the claimant’s money. The claimant also seeks an order compelling the defendant to pay the claimant the sum of N10,000,000 or breach of the banker/customer agreement to the claimant.

The case of the claimant is that sometimes on the 8/3/2019, one Ugorji Oyinyeamara Esther transferred the sum of N100,000,00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) into my account for a transaction. All efforts made by her to withdraw the money proved abortive as the defendant withheld the money and denied her access to and use of the money through wrongful and/or illegal deduction of same under the guise of terminal debt. I Have carefully examined the statement of account tendered as Exhibit C8. The entries on the 8/3/2016 show that the claimant received the sum of N100,000.00k as NFT transfer from one Ugorji Oyinyeamara Esther. At the date of the credit of the said amount into the account of claimant account No 1006932946, The account was already in debit by reason of the debit in the sum of N2,561,728.11k. This is the debit this court has adjudged to be unlawful debit of the claimant account with an un-existent loan. Without that unlawful debit balance the account would have been free for the claimant to access the N100,000.00k paid into her account. The defendant use of the said sum to offset part of the alleged loan is a breach of the banker customer relationship between her and the claimant by disallowing the claimant access and use to her money through wrongful deductions or withholding of the claimant’s money. It is therefore the finding of this court that the defendant is liable to pay the claimant the said sum. Judgment is therefore entered in the sum of N100,000.00k in favour of the claimant.

IN RELIEF NO 9

The claimant claims N 20, 000,000 as punitive and exemplary Damages for the unjust withholding of the unpaid terminal benefits, gratuities, entitlement and for illegal and unlawful deductions from the claimant’s salary account, There are parameters established by case law for the award of punitive and exemplary damages. In the case of KABO AIR LTD V. MOHAMMED (2014) LPELR 23614 (CA), also said: "Punitive damages which are also referred to as exemplary damages are intended to punish and deter blame worthy conduct and thereby prevent the occurrence of the same act in the future. They are awarded whenever the conduct of the defendant is sufficiently outrageous to merit punishment as where, for instance, it discloses malice, fraud, cruelty, insolence or flagrant disregard of the law." Exemplary damages, otherwise known as punitive damages is usually awarded to meet the end of punishment. A claim for exemplary damages need not be expressly pleaded. It is sufficient if the facts pleaded supports the award of exemplary damages, and it is shown to have resulted from the malicious acts of a party.

See CBN & amp; Ors V. OKOJIE (2015) LPELR-24740 (SC). The question is whether the act of the claimant justify the award of this class of damages. I do not think so. It is the duty of the defendant to protect the integrity of the account of its customers, however business accidents like the fraudulent NIP transfer do happen even when the bank has done what it should do in other to protect its customers. The only snack is that it sought to make the claimant liable for the loss without establishing the negligence of the claimant in this regard to the satisfaction of the court. Also, the defendant failed to show connivance of the claimant in the fraud or to stablish if the claimant benefited from the fraud. It is the finding of this court that no act of the defendant was sufficiently outrageous to merit punishment. The facts pleaded does not support the award of exemplary damages. This claim cannot be awarded it is accordingly dismissed.

IN RELIEF NO 10

Also the claimant claims the sum of N10.000.000 as damages for the psychological trauma and untold hardship suffered by the claimant as a result of the defendant’s unfair labour practice and unnecessary withholding of the claimant’s entitlement. There are a lot of decisions that support the award of this damages. In the case of UGWU & ORS V. NBL PLC (Pp. 26-27 paras. F) "The principles guiding the award of general damages are littered in a legion of judicial authorities of this Court and that of the Supreme Court. In the case of Elf Petroleum V. Umah &Amp; Ors. [2018] LPELR - 43600 (SC), the Supreme Court, Per OGUNBIYI, J.S.C held as follows:

"It is pertinent to re-iterate herein that in the award of General Damages, a wide-spread power is given to the Court comparable to the exercise of discretion of the Court. It is enormous and therefore far-reaching and contrary to the contention held by the appellant herein. The measure of general damages is awarded to assuage such a loss, which flows naturally from the defendant's act. It needs not be specifically pleaded. It suffices if it is generally averred. They are presumed to be the direct and probable consequence of that complained of. Unlike special damages, it is generally incapable of exact calculation." Per Umar ,J.C.A (Pp. 26-27 paras. F)

The claimant in his evidence testified that he was forced by hER superiors in the defendant work place to resign his appointment. The claimant in Exhibit C9 The Letter of Appeal painted a graphic picture of the consequences of her forced resignation thus:

In all of this, I will appeal that you give us second chance to serve again. Staying at home these few months has exposed our families to challenging times, inability to feed, unable to pay school fees of our children and other associated bills. Our lives has been tough and rough these past few months. May I plead that you consider our appeal based on compassion and love for humanity.

With these words, one can only imagine what the claimant is going through by reason of the defendant act of coercing and intimidating and ultimately forcing the claimant to resign from her employment. I have already held that the resignation of the claimant was never voluntary. In the light of the foregoing state of facts it is the finding of this court that the claimant is entitled to damages. I award the sum of N5,000,000. (Five Million Naira) in favour of the claimant against the defendant.

IN RELIEF NO 11

The claimant claims interest at the rate of 20% per annum from the above sum from 2022 until judgment. This claim is rather vague, the claimant did not state which sum the interest is to attach. The claim of pre-judgment interest is not granted as a matter of course. The law on this is stated in the case of UBA PLC V. SKYMIT MOTORS LTD (Pp. 41-42 paras. B)

"The law on award of pre-judgment interest has long been well established as awash in decision of the Supreme Court and this Court as replete in the law reports, so much so that it no longer posses any difficulty to decipher. In A.G Ferrero & Co Ltd v H.C (Nig) Ltd (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1265) 592 @ p, 608, the Supreme Court per Onnoghen, J.S.C (as he then was, now C.J.N.) had lucidly reiterated the position of the law on pre - judgment interest inter alia thus:

"A claim for pre- judgment interest may be made by a plaintiff on a right where (a). it is either expressly provided for in or is contemplated by the agreement between parties; (b). it is claimed under a mercantile custom;

(c ). it is claimed under a principle of equity such as breach of fiduciary relationship. It follows from the above that before a party can claim pre- judgment interest, he has to plead not only his entitlement to the interest but the basis of the entitlement either by statute or contract between the parties or mercantile custom or principle of equity such as breach of fiduciary relationship. It is for the Court to separate or conjecture or assume the facts relevant to the claim."

See also ETCO (MG.) LTD. V. G & T INVESTMENT LTD (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1234) 302 @ p. 321; STABILINI VISIONI V. METALUM LTD (2008) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1092) 416 @ p.433;

The claimant relief for pre-judgment interest must be anchored on this requirement to discharge the evidential burden . This is not the case in this action. The claim must therefore fail. It therefore refused and accordingly dismissed.

CONCLUSION.

The reliefs of the claimant in this action partially succeeds. Judgment is entered in favour of the claimant against the defendant in the following terms:

1.) A declaration that the action and/or decision of the defendant transferring liability of the defendant’s company on the claimant for money approved and paid out in the ordinary course of defendant’s business is illegal, wrongful, unlawful unfair labour practice and null and void.

2.) The defendant shall reverse all unlawful debit entries in the claimant’s salary account number 1006932946 (old account number 09990080020115) with regards to the illegal terminal debt liability imposed on the claimant, The defendant is hereby ordered to reverse the sum of N4, 290, 027.00k to the claimant being the unlawful and illegal deduction from the claimant account

3.) An order that the running interest unilaterally imposed on the Claimant’s account is wrongful, illegal null and void.

4.) An order compelling the defendant to refund a total sum of N4, 290, 027 (Four Million, Two Hundred and Ninety Thousand, Twenty – Seven Naira on|) being money unlawfully/wrongfully deducted from the claimant’s account.

5.) The claim of the sum of N3,109 045.86. (Three Million, One Hundred and Nine Thousand, forty Five Naira, Eighty Six kobo) as gratuity is refused and accordingly dismissed.

6.) The defendant is hereby ordered to pay the claimant the sum of

N 2, 150, 000.00 (Two Million, One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira only) being the Claimant’s terminal benefit as determined by the defendant

7.) A declaration is hereby made that the defendant breached the banker customer relationship between her and the claimant by disallowing the claimant access and use to her money through wrongful deductions or withholding of the claimant’s money.

8.) The Defendant is hereby ordered to pay/refund to the claimant the sum of N100,000.00k unlawfully applied to service the unlawful loan debited to the claimant account.

9.) The claim of N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) as punitive and exemplary Damages for the unjust withholding of the unpaid terminal benefits, gratuities, entitlement and for illegal and unlawful deductions from the claimant’s salary account is refused and accordingly dismissed.

10.The Defendant shall pay the sum of N5,000,000 (Five Million
      Naira) only being damages for the psychological trauma and untold
      hardship suffered by the claimant as a result of the defendant’s act
      of causing the forceful resignation of the claimant

11. The claim of pre-judgment interest at the rate of 20% per annum
from 2022 until judgment is fully and finally liquidated is refused and
accordingly dismissed

12. The defendant shall pay N2,000,000 as cost of this action.

The sum awarded to be paid directly to the claimant in this judgment other than the sum to be reversed in the account of the claimant shall be paid within 14 days from the date of this judgment failure of which it shall attract interest at the rate of 20% from the date of judgment until full liquidation.

Judgment is hereby entered.

___________________________________

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

(Presiding Judge)

REPRESENTATION.

I. Adekunle Esq with O. Temitope Esq. and O. Olofinte Esq for the claimant. J. Akinsete Esq. for defendant