Media
- Home
- Details
His Lordship, Hon. Justice John D. Peters of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Lagos Judicial Division on Thursday 26rd April in a judgment declared the termination of the employment of the Uchanma Ndukwe (Claimant) was not unlawful, gave an order of injunction restraining the Diamond Bank from selling the Claimant’s mortgaged house situate at No. 14, Enitan Adekanbi Street, Iju Road Ishaga pending after the eighteen (18) years tenor as contained in the Letter of Offer dated 17/6/14 in a case of Uchanma Ndukwe V. Diamond Bank Plc.
The Claimant approached this Court on 25/8/15 via her General Form of Complaint & Statement of Facts and sought the following reliefs inter alia; A declaration that the termination of the Claimant employment is unlawful. An injunction, restraining the Defendant from selling the Claimant’s mortgaged house situate at No. 14, Enitan Adekanbi Street, Iju Road Ishaga pending after the eighteen (18) years tenor as contained in the mortgage agreement.
The Claimant stated she was in the employment of the Defendant for nine years and worked last in the Defendant’s product programs team at the head office at commerce house No. 1, Idowu Taylor, Victoria Island, Lagos, in the credit analysis and processing division before termination in April, 2015.
The Claimant added that she was entitled to two months’ notice or two month salary in lieu before any termination, according to her contract of employment; that she was not given any notice or paid salary in lieu before termination of her appointment or at the day of termination; that she is entitled to pension and gratuity according to the Defendant’s policy having been in the service of the Defendant for nine years; that she was not also paid her pension, as also stated in the policy, having worked for more than three years and has been contributing 7.5% of her basic salary, transport and rent allowance.
It is also the case of the Claimant that she has mortgage and automobile loan with the Defendant and will abide by the terms and conditions of the loan by serving the loans; that 4% interest rate agreed by parties in the mortgage agreement should stand as it is; that the Defendant has threatened to foreclose the mortgage and sell the property if she did not pay the mortgage loan, contrary to what is stated in the mortgage agreement; that she took the mortgage while she was a staff and agreed to pay the redemption as at when due from her salary and at the interest rate of 4%; that based on this she signed the consent to sell the mortgage property, hoping she would be constant in making payment from her salary; that she is to start paying the mortgage loan in installment from the month of April, but unfortunately her employment was terminated in that month of April 2015, and this act of the Defendant made it impossible for her to start paying for the mortgage loan; that she has no means to start payment of the mortgage loan, as she has no means of income yet and has not gotten another job, which is caused by the “stigma of termination” on her record, which she pleaded with the Defendant to allow her resign but the Defendant remained adamant; that she will start servicing the mortgage loan whenever she secures another job and it will cause great injustice and hardship to her if the Defendant sells the mortgage property now that she has no means of income and contrary to the mortgage agreement which has tenure of eighteen (18) years and that she wrote to the Defendant through her Lawyer to reverse its decision on my unlawful termination but the Defendant maintained its stance on the matter and also a pre action notice was sent to the Defendant, yet it did not respond.
The case of the Defendant is that having been offered employment as a Banking Officer through the Defendant Bank’s Letter of Offer of April 27, 2006, the Claimant duly accepted and assumed duty as a member of staff of the Defendant on May 22, 2006; that on assumption of duty, particularly following her confirmation, the Claimant became a full-fledged member of staff of the Defendant Bank, entitled to the emoluments and allowances as substantially itemized and stated in the Claimant’s Letter of Offer of employment of April 27, 2006.
The Defendant Bank having made a determination that it no longer required the services of the Claimant as an employee of the Bank, duly served the Claimant with a letter dated April 21, 2015 and captioned “Cessation of employment”, duly informing the Claimant hereto that her service would no longer required and consistent with the requirements of the extant personnel policies stipulations of the Bank, elected, in lieu of the requirement for a two month's notice of termination, to bring the employment to an immediate cessation or termination by payment of two months’ salary in lieu of notice.
The outstanding on loans collected by the Claimant, debit balance on account and debit balance on the visa card used by the Claimant hereto and which indebtedness was designed to attract the staff rate of 4% interest for 90 days and thereafter interest at Monetary Policy Rate and that a substantial part of the aggregate loans obtained and collected by the Claimant was in respect of the Mortgage Loan of =N=21,500,000.00 (Twenty-One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira) which was used by the Claimant to purchase a set of real estate property situate and known as 14, Adekanbi Enitan Street, Elliot, Iju-Ishaga, Lagos State and in respect of which the Claimant executed an equitable mortgage and other legal instruments in favour of the Defendant, authorizing the Defendant to sell the said property in the event of the Claimant’s refusal or failure or default in paying back the loan.
After reviewing the argument of the parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice J. D. Peters expressed thus;
“I read all the processes filed with clear understanding. I heard the oral testimonies of the witnesses called at trial, watched their demeanor and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted. I also listened to the oral argument as canvassed by learned Counsel on either side…
The terms of engagement agreed by the parties respecting termination of the relationship is either one month notice or salary in lieu; or as may be subsequently prescribed in the personnel policies manual. No policies manual was tendered before me by the Claimant. Thus, she was ordinarily entitled to one month notice or one month salary in lieu of notice. The evidence before me is that the Claimant was paid 2 months' salary in lieu of notice. I hold that the Claimant was paid in lieu of notice of termination though it was used in liquidating part of her outstanding indebtedness to the Defendant. I thus refuse and dismiss this head of relief and hold that the termination of the employment of the Claimant was not unlawful.
In her evidence in chief, the Claimant averred that she took a mortgage from the Defendant; that she was to start repayment from her monthly salary in April 2015; that the Defendant terminated her employment in the same month of April and that the fact of termination has made repayment impossible and that she would commence repayment the very moment she secures another employment. The Claimant did not tender any exhibit in respect of this. It is worthy of note that the Defendant also counter claimed along the same line.
Furthermore, there is no provision or clause in the letter empowering the Defendant to sell the property under any circumstances at all to recover the loan given to purchase same. That being the case, an order of injunction is here issued restraining the Defendant from selling the Claimant’s mortgaged house situate at No. 14, Enitan Adekanbi Street, Iju Road Ishaga pending after the eighteen (18) years tenor as contained in the Letter of Offer dated 17/6/14.
The claim for =N=50,000,000.00 as general damages for unlawful termination of employment is not sustainable this Court having found and held that the termination of the employment of the Claimant was not unlawful. The claim for general damages is thus refused and dismissed.
