His Lordship, Hon. Justice Isaac Essien of the National Industrial Court sitting in Lagos in a ruling delivered Thursday 17th October 2019 dismissed the case filed by Mr. Olamide Adeniji Suing as the Lawful Attorney of Mrs Racheal Sonde against Union Bank of Nigeria Plc for violating the doctrine of Estoppel, ordered payment of 20,000 to the defendant within 7 days.

The court held that Mrs Sonde cannot institute the action in a representative capacity or in any other capacity to pursue the issue of gratuity which the previous judgment has already settled.

In summary, by a notice of preliminary objection dated and filed on the 27/2/19, the defendant-Union Bank sought for An ORDER of the Honourable Court declaring that by virtue of the doctrine of Estoppel by Conduct, Mrs Racheal Bukola Sonde is barred from filing the action whether in person or through a representative in interest and a consequential Order dismissing and/ or striking out the subject suit in limine for want of jurisdiction among others.

The learned counsel argued that a party to a litigation is estopped from raising the issues addressed in previous litigation in a subsequent one, and also pointed out that the claimant counsel also acknowledged and accepted that her gratuity was paid to her by the defendant.

In response, the claimant/ respondent counsel argued that the instant case is for payment of the claimant’s entitlement withheld on account of their dismissal which was declared wrongful by the National Industrial Court, while the previous action was for inter-alia for declaration that their dismissal was wrongful as due process was not followed. He submitted that this action is not caught up by res judicata.

After listening to the submissions of both counsel, the presiding Judge, Hon. Justice Isaac Essien held that the argument by the respondent counsel that claimant have option as to how they can claim for earnings due to them prior to their dismissal and that the subject matter of the present suit is as to the quantum of gratuity which the claimant is entitled to, does not have the support of the law.

“The claimant accepted the gratuity paid by the defendant, had all the opportunity in the previous suit to have raised a dispute as to the computation or the quantum of the gratuity he was entitled to but chose not to ventilate the issue in that suit, the law is that he cannot be allowed to re-litigate the issue of gratuity in piecemeal by instituting this action."

On the whole, the court upheld the preliminary objection and ordered the claimant to pay a cost of N20,000 to the defendant within 7 days.

Full Ruling/Judgment, Click Here