IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE CALABAR JUDICIAL DIVISION

OLDEN AT CALABAR.

BEFORE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANUSI KADO

18^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025                                              SUIT NO.: NICN/CA/42/2021

BETWEEN:

Mr. Oscar O. Bassey ………………………………………,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, claimant 

AND:

First Bank of Nigeria Plc .....……………………………………………….. defendant.

JUDGMENT.

1. Vide a general form of complaint dated 21^st October, 2021 and filed on the same date, accompanied by statement of facts, witness statement on oath, list of witnesses, list of documents and photocopies of documents to be relied on at the trial, the claimant claimed against the defendant the followings reliefs:-
2. A DECLARATION that the suspension and subsequent termination of the employment of the Claimant on a fictitious and false allegation is grossly unlawful and illegal.
3. 2         A DECLARATION that the termination of the employment of the Claimant without  affording the Claimant fair hearing is a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights of the Claimant.
4. 3.        A DECLARATION that the refusal and neglect by the Defendant to contribute its percentage of the remittances into the Retirement Savings Account (RSA) of the Claimant domiciled with his Pension Fund Administrator, Premium Pension, from      March, 2013, is unlawful, illegal and amounts to breach of contract and a contravention of the Pension Reform Act.
5. 4.        A DECLARATION that the freezing/blocking or placing of a no-debit order on the Salary Account of the Claimant by the Defendant, without an order from a competent            court of jurisdiction, is highhanded, oppressive, unlawful and a violation of the Claimant's fundamental right to property.
6. The sum of N290, 768.41 (Two Hundred and Ninety Thousand, Seven Hundred and Sixty Eight Naira, Forty One Kobo) being the Claimant's monthly salary/entitlement from the date of suspension, being March 11, 2013, to the date of termination and until the determination of the instant suit or the date of judgment.
7. The sum of N69,275.50 (Sixty-Nine Thousand, Two Hundred and Seventy Five Naira, Fifty Kobo) being the Claimant's monthly Cost of Living Allowance from the date of suspension, being March 11, 2013, to the date of termination and until the determination of the instant suit or the date of judgment.
8. AN ORDER OF MANDATORY INJUNCTION compelling the Defendant to remit its percentage of the monthly contribution of the Claimant, into his Retirement Savings Account (RSA) domiciled Premium Pensions, the Claimant's Pension Fund Administrator, from March, 2013 till judgment is entered in this Suit.
9. AN ORDER OF MANDATORY INJUNCTION compelling the Defendant to unblock or deactivate the no-debit order placed on the Salary Account of the Claimant forthwith.
10. GENERAL DAMAGES in the sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) for the unlawful and illegal freezing/blocking of the Salary Account of the Claimant, without an order from a competent court of law, thereby frustrating and constraining the Claimant into a state of impecuinity.
11. GENERAL/EXEMPLARY & PUNITIVE DAMAGES of N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) for the psychological trauma, emotional torture and losses suffered by the Claimant as a result of the actions of the Defendant.
12. Payment of Transfer Allowance from Calabar to Ikom branch N400,000.00 (Four Hundred Thousand Naira) only.
13. The sum of N600,000.00 (Six Hundred Thousand Naira) only for performance.
14. 13.      Hotel accommodation from 28th February, 2013 to 11th March, 2013 at Ikom branch at the cost of N9,000.00 (Nine Thousand Naira) daily, totaling N117,000.00 (One       Hundred and Seventeen Thousand Naira) for 12 days.
15. The sum of N155,664.00 being amount reduced in upfront payment for 2014.
16. N50 million (Fifty Million Naira) only general damages for unlawful termination of employment.
17. N2m (Two Million Naira) as cost of this litigation.
18. Upon being served with the originating process commencing this suit, the defendant on 20/1/2023, filed its statement of defence wherein it denied the claimant’s claim.
19. The claimant testified in proof of his case as CW1. Documents were tendered in evidence through CW1, they were admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits C1 C27. CW1 was at the end of his examination in chief cross examined by counsel for the defendant, there after he was discharged.
20. The defendant in proof of her defence called one Festus Ola, who testified as DW1. Four documents were tendered in evidence through DW1, they were admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits DW1A to DW1D. At the end of his testimony DW1, was cross examined by counsel for  the claimant, thereafter he was discharged.

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT:

5. The claimant joined the services of the defendant vide letter dated 19/3/20007, as a senior banking assistant. The claimant’s employment was confirmed after the expiration of 6 months’ probation. Vide the letter dated 13/8/2008, the claimant was promoted to the rank of banking officer. The employment of the claimant is regulated and governed by the defendant’s Employer’s Handbook. During the period of his service the claimant served at Calabar Main branch, Marina resort, Ndidem Usang Iso Road Branch Calabar and Ikom Brach of the defendant. At Ndidem Usang Iso Road Branch Calabar, the claimant served as Automated Teller Machines custodian and in charge of the keys to the Automated Teller Machine keys. While Messrs Iye Archibonmg, Eteng E. Eteng and Rebecca Okakwu, the then manger were in charge of secret number combination of the ATMs.
6. Between 30/8/2012 and the end of Dec ember, 2012, there were reported issues and complaints of partial dispensary of cash and missing funds from the defendant’s ATMs. Because of the missing funds the claimant promptly sent mails to the appropriate authorities in the defendant’s head office in Lagos to rectify the anomalies. However, there was no response but there are other mails exchanged acknowledging the complaint. The customers affected by the ATMs problem lodged complaint on 4/2/2013 and 6/2/2013. When issues of pilfering were raised, the claimant was the only one punished because he had the keys, despite the fact that the ATM machines was being operated and managed by the trio and no one person could successfully access and operate the ATMs exclusively.
7. The claimant was vide memo dated 4/2/2013, redeployed to Ikom. Vide another memo dated 27/2/2013, he was warned to report immediately at Ikom. The claimant on 28/2/2013, reported for duty at Ikom. The claimant performed his duties at Ikom until the 11/3/2013, when he was arrested like a petty thief in the Ikom Branch and taken to Calabar by the police authorities acting the script of some persons. Vide memo dated 11/3/2013, the claimant was suspended from duties on the allegation of pilfering from ATM. The claimant was not paid  his transfer allowance from Calabar to Ikom in the sum of N400,000.00 and hotel accommodation from 28/2/2013 to 11/3/20, at the cost of N9,000.00 totaling N117,000.00 for 12 days. The claimant has not also been paid the sum of N600,000.00 being his performance benefit under the terms and conditions of service for the year 2013. According to the claimant investigation conducted by the police did not find him wanting rather it was Mrs Rebecca Okakwu that was asked to make statement under caution as a suspect.
8. The defendant without following laid down procedure in clause 14 of the defendant’s handbook, and despite being exonerated by the police the defendant on 11/3/2013, suspended the claimant from service. That notwithstanding the suspension, he constantly reported to the defendant’s business premises entered the attendance register to perform his assigned role but was never paid his salary & allowances. This complained was communicated to the defendant vide letter dated 20/5/2013. 
9. The claimant applied for a personal loan against salary subject to terms and conditions. On 17/10/2011, a letter of life insurance plan was issued to the claimant. The credit life assurance plan is to take care of outstanding debt any borrower may leave behind in the event of loss of job of the borrower.
10. The claimant stated that his upfront allowance for 2013 was N465,453.00. in 2014, the claimant’s upfront allowance was reduced to the sum of N309,789.00 leaving an outstanding sum of N155,664.00 yet to be credited to  his account.
11. The claimant stated that his account number 2008513508 was blacked by the defendant since 2014 without any explanation. The claimant till date cannot access his account because of the blockage by the defendant.
12. The claimant was summarily terminated on 3/1/2014 and has not received his salary and entitlement since his suspension on 11/3/2013. Before his summary termination, he was suspended for pilfering and has not been charged, arraigned or prosecuted in any court of law or court of competent jurisdiction, in respect of the allegation made against him by the defendant. despite several demands for a fair assessment of the situation and payments of his salaries, the defendant blatantly unheeded and this threw the claimant into a state of abject poverty and penury. As a result of the traumatic effect of the defendant’s actions, the claimant was struck by stroke sometime in March, 2014 and was bedridden as a result of his state of health and in-pecuniousity his wife packed out of their matrimonial home and deserted him. It took the intervention of his church who sent a driver to convey him  to the church where he was constantly prayed for until he recovered six months and two weeks thereafter. While going through prayers in church his children were evicted since he could not pay rent. He had to relocate to the village together with the children. He also lost his son due to lack of funds for payment of medical attention.

        THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANT:

13. The case of the defendant is that the claimant was employed vide letter dated 19/3/2007 and in the course of his employment he served as Automated Teller Machine Custodian and other employees of the defendant particularly Iye Archibong, Eteng Eteng and Rebecca Okakwu were officially authorized to ensure that the claimant carried out his duties as the custodian of the Automated Teller Machines diligently in line with the Bank’s policies and guidelines. By the defendant’s management policy guidelines, the claimant was supposed to carry out his duties as the custodian of the Automated Teller Machine under the supervision of other designated staff at all material times. However, the designated staff of the bank mandated to supervise the claimant admitted that due to pressure of work they were not able to supervise the claimant in the execution of his duties as custodian of the Automated Teller Machines at all times. The Claimant took advantage of the lack of supervision and resorted to pilfering cash from the Bank’s Automated Teller Machines. The Defendant states that the allegations in paragraph 10 of the Statement of Facts are materially false and misleading. The few instances of reported partial dispensing of funds by the Bank’s Automated Teller Machines did not justify the huge loss of funds suffered by the Bank during the material time the Claimant was Custodian of the Bank’s Automated Teller Machines and had unhindered access to the aforesaid machines.
14. According to the defendant the claimant was not dismissed because he was in possession of the keys to the Bank’s Automated Teller Machines. After a thorough investigation by the Management of the Bank, it became apparent that all the circumstantial evidence led to the irresistible conclusion that the claimant abused the privilege of having unhindered access to the Bank’s Automated Teller Machines. During the course of its investigation into the incident leading to the filing of the present suit, the Claimant’s allegation that Rebecca Okakwu instructed him to hand over the keys of the Bank’s Automated Teller Machines to Mr. Wilson Adebanjo was found to be untrue. The defendant avers that during the course of its investigation into the incident leading to the filing of the present suit, it was established that Mr. Wilson Adebanjo only assisted the claimant on one occasion to remove some cash that was trapped in the Automated Teller Machine in the presence of the claimant and at the instance of Rebecca Okakwu who was also physically present when he removed the trapped cash from the Automated Teller Machine took place.
15. In line with the standard management policies and guidelines of the Bank, the Claimant herein lodged a complaint of ATM Issues by electronic mail to the Bank’s ATM Support Group at its Head Office. The complaint lodged by the Claimant was looked into by the appropriate employees of the Bank. The claimant was re-deployed to Ikom Branch of the Bank within the terms of his contract of employment. And to enable appropriate authority conduct a comprehensive investigation of the incident leading to the dismissal of the claimant from the Bank. As a result of the preliminary investigation carried out by the appropriate authority, it became expedient for the Bank to suspend the claimant by memorandum dated 11/3/2013. While the defendant carried out its internal Investigations it also lodged an official complaint with the Nigerian Police Force as a responsible corporate entity since the act of gross misconduct committed by the Claimant also constituted the offence of stealing.
16. The Defendant deny that claimant was not paid transfer allowance and hotel accommodation. The claimant is also indebted to the Defendant by a personal loan against salary in the sum of N2,500,000.00 (Two Million Five Hundred thousand, repayable in 48 equal instalment, with annual interest of and the aforesaid loan had not been liquidated at the time. The collateral for the aforesaid facility was the Claimant’s Salary/Allowances. The claimant was paid correct entitlement were credited into his Staff Account and the deductions made pursuant to his personal Loan Against Salary duly effected in line with the Bank’s letter of offer dated 17^th October, 2011.
17. In response to allegation of blockage of account, the defendant the Bank exercised its right of lien over funds standing to the credit of the Claimant in his Staff Account.
18. In response to summary termination, the defendant stated that after the Defendant had carried out a proper investigation of the incident leading to the commencement of the present suit and all the affected employees given ample opportunity to respond to their respective queries, the Appropriate Committee of the Bank found the Claimant culpable of pilfering which constitutes gross misconduct and recommended his dismissal in line with the Bank’s policy and guidelines. The Report of the Disciplinary Committee dated 11/9/2013, indicted the claimant. The Management of the Bank adopted the aforesaid Report of the Disciplinary Committee and the Claimant was accordingly dismissed from employment. The claimant’s dismissal was in accordance with his contract of employment as contained in the Employee Handbook.
19. The Defendant denies paragraph 38 of the Statement of Facts. The circumstantial evidence received by the Bank’s Disciplinary Committee was cogent and compelling to establish that only the Claimant had the opportunity to pilfer money from the Bank’s Automated Teller Machines at all material times before the commencement of this suit,
20. In accordance with the management policy and guidelines of the Bank, the Claimant was suspended by memorandum dated 11/3/2013, to enable Bank’s Auditor carryout unhindered investigation of the incident leading to the filing of the present suit. 
21. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any of the reliefs endorsed in paragraph 46 of the Statement of Facts, as there is no factual or legal basis for any of the reliefs sought by the claimant against the defendant.

     REPLY TO STATEMENT OF DEFENCE:

22. In reply to the statement of defence the claimant stated that promotion of staff is purely at the discretion of the management of the defendant. and not only based on performance. That is to say it is on merit and performance. Thus, why, defendant conducts annual appraisal there to appraise the performance of the staff members. It is the appraisal that is determinant for promotion and special tours. Any staff member that scores 85% is usually due for promotion that year.  The defendant’s management discretion comes up when many staff fare above 85% and beyond defendant’s annual budget for the year.
23. The claimant stated that Rebecca Okakwu, Eteng Eteng and Iye Archiboung were not supervisors, but were co-custodian because they handled the  most sensitive part of the ATM lock which is the number combinations. The claimant was only in possession of the ATM keys. Without imputing the number combination after the outer door is opened by the claimant, nobody can have access to cash in the ATM.
24. Claimant stated that the only officer who acted as watchdog over ATMs is the resident internal control officers who are head office staff resident in the branch, and this is to ensure effective control policies in the branch. The resident internal control officer at all times material to this suit, did not observe any control lapse in any of their spot checks else they would have queried the manager and there was no such query. No single person had unhindered access to ATM, due to dual control. It was when Rebecca Okakwu was in possession of both the keys and number combinations that a lot of things happened. The claimant denied that it is only on one occasion that Mr. Wilson Adebanjo that had access to the ATMs. At the time claimant was transferred to Ikom there was no official allegation of pilfering against the claimant. The defendant was still doing call overs to check where the missing funds might have been trapped. The claimant was not given opportunity to be involved in the call overs but other co-custodians were in the picture  and knew about the efforts of call over of missing funds. The claimant’s redeployment was vide memo of 27/2/2013, was a normal posting. The issue of pilfering came up on 11/3/2013 by Rebecca Okakwu.
25. The defendant has no legal right to place a lien on the account as this will be contrary to paragraph 3 of the letter of life assurance  of 17/10/2011. The claimant violated the said paragraph and placed lien on claimant’ account till date. Thereby causing untold hardship to the claimant. The suspension of the claimant was premeditated, malicious and illegal. The said suspension was not targeted at the conduct of unhindered investigation of the allegation levelled against the claimant, but was a prelude to termination of the claimant’s employment. And does not in any way constitute an abuse of court process. The claimant is entitled to reliefs sought.  

     THE SUBMISSION OF THE DEFENDABNT:

"Whether the claimant has established his case on the balance of probability to be entitled to the reliefs sought in his Further Amended Complaint filed on 21^st November, 2016".

27. In arguing the sole issue counsel submitted that the claimant has failed to establish his case on the balance of probabilities, having failed to establish with certainty and clarity, the bank’s failure to accord him fair hearing in the matter.
28. According to counsel the contract of employment leading to this suit is that of the master servant relationship and not an employment with statutory flavor, however, the defendant being an organized employer has setup internal mechanisms for hearing and determination of allegations of the nature for which the claimant herein was accused. It is submission of counsel that the defendant rightfully terminated the employment of the claimant who had been accorded fair hearing before the termination of his employment.
29. Counsel submitted that the Constitutional right to fair hearing guaranteed by section 36(1), 1999 Constitution, is founded upon the twin pillars of natural justice, that is audi alteram partem, which means hear the other side and nemo judex in causa sua which means no one should be a judge in his own cause. The panel of inquiry setup to hear the claimant’s case and which panel sat in Port-Harcourt, rightfully recommended the determination of claimant’s employment after hearing from his own side of the story.
30. It is submitted that a master can dispense with the services of his employee with or without any reason whatsoever, that is, for bad or good reason or no reason at all, as the employer does not owe an employee any explanation or apology in this regard, provided the employer has kept to the procedure governing the determination of the employment. In such a situation, there is nothing the court can do, as the court cannot impose or force a willing employee on an unwilling employer. In support of this submission counsel placed reliance on the cases of Olaniyan v. University of Lagos (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599; Ativie v. Kabelmetal (Nig.) Limited (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 430) 667, (2008) LPELR-591 (SC); Longe v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc. (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 313) 46; Civil Service Commission, Imo State v. Ukweozor (2017) LPELR - 42856 (CA).
31. According to counsel the termination of claimant’s employment was not baseless. It was predicated on the fact that claimant was indicted by the preliminary investigation carried out in the defendant’s bank that he could not account for monies given to him in the course of his duty daily and routine duties to feed into the ATM Machine. The claimant could not prove that his termination was out of malice. He is under obligation to prove same.
32. In concluding his submission counsel urged this Honourable Court not to honor the claimant's invitation to grant an unsubstantiated claim which is clearly against the law as this Court which is a court of justice cannot grant reliefs not sought for before it. This Honourable Court is a court of Law and not a court of speculation. The Claimant was rightfully relived of his appointment as the regional panel of investigation heard his case and recommended his termination. Counsel urged the court to dismiss claimant case.
    1. THE SUBMISSION OF THE CLAIMANT:
33. Daniel K. Kip, Esq; counsel for the claimant adopted the final written address of the claimant as his argument in this case. in the final written address three issues were formulated for determination. They are:-
    1. Whether the Claimant was given fair hearing by the Defendant and by extension the Disciplinary Committee set up by the Defendant to investigate the alleged incident of pilfering from the ATM involving the Claimant, Messrs Iye Archibong, Eteng E. Eteng and Mrs Rebecca Okakwu?
    2. Whether the suspension and eventual summary dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant was not illegal, unlawful, wrongful, and contrary to international labour standard and international Best Practices?
    3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought and the Defendant liable to the claimant for any Damages?

ARGUMENTS:

34. Issue 1: Whether the Claimant was given fair hearing by the Defendant and by extension the Disciplinary Committee set up by the Defendant to investigate the alleged incident of pilfering from the ATM involving the Claimant, Messrs Iye Archibong, Eteng E. Eteng and Mrs Rebecca Okakwu?
35. In arguing issue 1; counsel submitted that the claimant was not accorded fair hearing by the defendant and its Kangaroo Committee in the investigation and determination of the allegations against him. Fair hearing is a basic derivation from the fundamental principles of natural justice captured in the maxims nemo judex incausa sua and audi alteram partem. On the one hand, no man, institution or organization (in this case the Bank) should be a judge in its own case; while on the other hand, Mr Oscar Bassey should have been heard not just summoned, questioned, and then dismissed summarily. Mr. Oscar Bassey should have been allowed to question his accusers and allowed to test their veracity with any evidence in his arsenal. This is basic and cannot be dispensed with. Was the Claimant allowed this fundamental right? It did not happen. Instead, the Claimant was suspended without pay, put through the treadmill of police brutality, then dismissed summarily without consideration of the fact that one must be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law before undergoing such corporal punishment from outside prison.
36. Counsel submitted fair hearing according to law envisages that both parties to a case be given ample opportunity of presenting their respective cases without let or hindrance from the beginning to the end. – EKPETO V WANOGHO [2004] 18 NWLR (PT. 905) 394 at 411. The principle of fair hearing is so sacrosanct that it must be observed wholly in judicial and quasi-judicial investigative procedure. Where there is failure to observe religiously the tenets of fair hearing and properly so, then the entire proceeding becomes a nullity and any decision therefrom becomes tainted, in fact illegal. Just like jurisdiction, the absence of it vitiates the proceedings however well conducted. ATANO V ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BENUE STATE [1988] 2 NWLR (PT. 75) 201; SALU V EGIBON [1994] 6 NWLR (PT. 348) 23 AT 40; CEEKAY TRADERS LTD V G. M COMPANY LIMITED [1992] 2 NWLR (PT. 222) 132.
37. Counsel submitted that where an employer alludes to commission of crime by its employee and gives that as reason for sacking him, he (employer) has a duty to prove the commission of such crime, and to accord the staff opportunity to defend himself, (where the staff did not confess to such crime) or has denied the allegation. See the case of YUNUSA UMAR GUNDA VS UNIVERSITY OF MAIDUGURI (2014) LPELR – 23351 where it was held as follows:
38. "For as pointed out in University of Calabar v. Essien (1996) 10 NWLR Pt. 477 P.229 @ 262: "Where an employer dismisses or terminates the appointment of an employee on the ground of misconduct, all that employer needs to establish to justify his actions is to show that the allegation was disclosed to the employee. That he was given a fair hearing...and that the Disciplinary Panel followed the laid down procedure if any and accepted that he committed the Act after its investigation.”
39. Also, in Ntewo v. University of Calabar Teaching Hospital & Anor (2013) LPELR-20332 (CA), the Court of Appeal likewise held as follows: "Where an employer dismisses or terminates the appointment of an employee on grounds of misconduct, all that the employer needs to establish to justify his action is to show that the allegation was disclosed to the employee; that he was given a fair hearing that is to say, that the rules of natural justice were not breached and that the disciplinary panel followed the laid down procedure if any, and accepted that he committed the act after investigation."
40. It is submission of counsel that fair hearing according to law demands clear impartiality without the look of any bias against one of the parties. Therefore, a denial of a party of his right to be heard is a breach of his constitutional right as enshrined in Section 36 (6) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and breach of natural justice. To support his contention counsel relied on the case of OTAPO V SUNMONU (1987) NWLR (PT. 58) 587; STATE V ONAGORUWA (1992) 2 NWLR (PT. 221) 33.
41. Counsel continued his submission that although in the case of VINCENT UGO V DIOKPA UMMUNA [2018] 2 NWLR (PT. 1602) 102 AT 131 the Court of Appeal held that an indolent party cannot complain of lack of fair hearing, MR. OSCAR BASSEY was never indolent as he complied with every Police summons and every panel invitation without let or resistance. It is submitted that the conclusion should be simple and straightforward. The Claimant was not given fair hearing and as a result of the deprivation of the basic tenets of fair hearing, the consequence of the whole investigation is a nullity, an illegality ab initio. The chronicles or incidence of negation of the principles of fair hearing are many and can be detailed plainly to wit:
42. Arrest of the Claimant based on allegation of Mrs Rebecca Okakwu from Ikom and transmitted to Calabar like a common criminal.
43. Incarceration of the Claimant in an unsanitary Nigerian Police cell together with hardened criminals and murder suspects without prior arraignment.
44. Claimant physically beaten and brutalized by inmates at the State Housing Police Station.
45. Suspension without pay or preliminary investigation vide letter dated 11^th March 2013 after bail on the 12^th day of March 2013.
46. Refusal to pay the Claimant his due during the suspension contrary to the terms on the Memo of suspension (Exhibit C18) and Article 14 (4) of the Employee Handbook (Exhibit C4).
47. Claimant account No. 2008513508 was blocked since 2014 without explanation.
48. Frustration of Police Investigation by Mrs Rebecca Okakwu upon the IPO Inspector Bassey Ibor coming close to incriminating the co-custodians and Mrs Rebecca Okakwu.
49. Disciplinary Committee deprivation of the Claimant of a chance to confront his accusers and to present his case other than being questioned and hammered,
50. Punitive redeployment to Ikom while investigations were still ongoing.
51. Memo of 11^th March 2013 suspended the Claimant from duties on allegation of pilfering from the ATM. Pilfering is a criminal offence similar to SECTION 382 (1) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE ACT CAP C38 LFN 2004 A person who fraudulently takes anything capable of being stolen, or fraudulently converts to his own use or to the use of any other person anything capable of being stolen, is said to steal that thing. The State Housing Police Station investigated the matter and exculpated the Claimant (MR. OSCAR) but implicated Mrs. Rebecca Okakwu (Branch Manager) and asked her to make a statement as a suspect. Despite exoneration by the Police and consequential implication of Mrs Rebecca Okakwu, the Respondent vide memo of March 11, 2013 suspended Mr. Oscar while leaving Mrs Rebecca free to keep working.
52. The Claimant as ATM Key Custodian worked with Mrs. Rebecca Okakwu, Mr Eteng E. Eteng and Iye Archibong who were co-custodians of the ATM Combinations. It is rather shocking that the Claimant became the fall guy and was summarily dismissed as seen in Exhibit C23 dated January 3, 2024. Exhibit C4 in Clause 14.4 on Suspension provides suspension with pay but the Claimant was deprived of due pay during the period of his suspension from March 11, 2013 even to termination date in Exhibit C23 of January 3, 2014 even till date. There are many instances of unfair treatment without allowing Claimant to make any form of representation in defence of the allegations made against him.
53. According to counsel an employee cannot be removed or dismissed for a specific misconduct in the absence of adequate opportunity afforded him to justify or explain same. Before an employer can dispense with the services of his employee, all he needs to do is to afford the employee the opportunity of being heard before exercising his power of summary dismissal, even where the allegation for which the employee is being dismissed involves accusation of crime. In support of his contention counsel relied in the case of YUSUF v. U.B.N. (1996) 6 NWLR (PT. 457) (Pp. 41-42, PARAS. H-B).
54. Counsel urged the court to resolve issue one in favour of the claimant and declare the procedure leading to claimant’s summary dismissal illegal, null and void breaching rules of fair hearing and principles of natural justice.
55. Issue 2; Whether the suspension and eventual summary dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant was not illegal, unlawful, wrongful, and contrary to international labour standard and international Best Practices?
56. Counsel submitted that parties are ad idem, and it has been adequately demonstrated by the claimant in compliance with the extant state of the law on bringing an action for wrong termination of employment, that the claimant was an employee of the defendant (See Exhibits C1 and C2). The Claimant has also presented before this Honourable Court the Terms and Conditions regulating the employment relationship between parties (Exhibit C4), one which the Claimant will be inviting this Honourable Court to interrogate in order to ascertain the rightfulness of his suspension and eventual dismissal.
57. According to counsel employment relationship between the parties in the instant case is one of master/servant. In such contract of service; the Court will determine the parties’ rights and obligations particularly in an action for wrongful termination like this one from their contract of service including their terms and conditions of employment agreed to by the parties as these terms and conditions are the bedrock of the parties’ rights. See the case of AFIBANK (NIG.) PLC. V. OSISANYA [2000]1 NWLR. 
58. Firstly, it must be pointed out that the though Minutes of the Disciplinary Committee as seen in the Memo of 11^th September, 2013 (Exhibit DW1B), recommended Summary Dismissal, the Letter terminating the Employment of the Claimant (Exhibit C23), did not state the reason for the summary dismissal of the employment of the Claimant. In other words, the Claimant did not and never know the reason for his summary dismissal until he filed the instant suit and the defendant filed its defence brandishing the Memo containing the recommendations of the Disciplinary Panel.
59. This Court per Hon. Justice Ikechi Gerald Nweneka in the unreported case of MISS OPULENCE OGOCHUKWU OJIERENEM V. SMACKERS LIMITED (THE PLACE RESTAURANT) & ANOR. – NICN/LA/04/2021, sitting in the Lagos Division held in its judgment of 28^th January, 2025, as follows:

"As stated in the preceding paragraph, current labour jurisprudence postulates that an employer cannot terminate the employment of an employee without a valid reason connected with the employee’s capacity, conduct, or based on the employer’s operational requirements. This is so despite the stipulations in the employment contract, and regardless of the character of the employment, whether statutory or contractual."

49. Counsel submitted that the failure of the defendant to state the reason for the summary dismissal of the Claimant renders such a dismissal wrongful and unfair. Relying on Section 254C[1][f] of the 1999 Constitution and Section 7[6] of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, this Court has held in several cases including Ebere Aloysius v. Diamond Bank Plc [2015] 58 NLLR [Pt 199] 92 and James Adekunle Owulade v. Nigerian Agip Oil Company Limited, Suit No. NICN/LA/41/2012, unreported judgment delivered on 12th July 2016, that every employer must give a valid and justifiable reason for terminating the employee’s employment, and that international best practices and labour standards are the benchmark against which labour and industrial relations in Nigeria are to be measured. There is no gainsaying that the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention concerning Termination of Employment at the Initiative of the Employer, 1982 (No. 158), specifically Article 4, states that the employment of a worker shall not be terminated unless there is a valid reason connected with their capacity or conduct, or based on the operational requirements of the employer. This convention emphasizes the need for a legitimate reason for termination.  Similarly, the accompanying ILO Recommendation (No. 166) further elaborates on the need for a fair reason and provides guidance on procedures, including the right to be heard and the need for warnings for unsatisfactory performance or misconduct.
50. Counsel submitted that the Court of Appeal in Sahara Energy Resources Ltd v Oyebola (unreported) CA/L/1091/2016 judgement delivered 3 December 2020 has held that the Court has a duty and an obligation to apply international best practices in the resolution of labour and employment disputes having been so empowered by the Constitution.  It is also submitted that the Defendant failed to issue the Claimant a Query before he was suspended, in contravention of Paragraph 14 of the Employee Handbook on “Disciplinary Procedure” which reads thus:

“When an employee fails to perform his/her work satisfactorily or commits an act of misconduct or negligence, he/she shall be given a query to explain the circumstances regarding his/her conduct within 48 hours.”

51. It is submitted, in the instant case, there is no record of any query issued to the claimant, in line with the above procedure, before the claimant was suspended. It is submission of counsel that the current law on termination of private employment is that the employer must comply with the termination procedure provided in the terms and conditions of employment, and provide a valid and justifiable reason for the termination.
52. By virtue of Section 122[1] and 2[1] of the Evidence Act, 2011, Article 4 of the ILO Convention No. 158 of 1982 has been applied in a litany of cases. Counsel urged the court to take judicial notice that the fact that the Defendant must provide a valid reason for terminating the Claimant’s employment need not be proved. It is submitted the breach of the contractual procedure for the suspension and termination of the employment of the Claimant renders the termination wrongful, while the failure to provide a valid and justifiable reason for terminating the employment renders it an unfair dismissal.
53. The Defendant hinges the summary dismissal of the Claimant on the Banks policy and guidelines and the Report of the Disciplinary Committee dated 11^th September 2013. The Defendant’s management adopted the Report of the Disciplinary Committee (Exhibit DW1B) and dismissed the Claimant accordingly. The Defendant also relied on the Employee Handbook (Exhibit C4 AND DW1A). Wrongful dismissal is bound to arise where an employee contends that his contract has been wrongfully repudiated by the employer; or where he feels that his contract has not been brought to an end in accordance with the procedure laid down in the contract of employment or the governing documents of the relationship, as in this case, the employee handbook, in so far as such termination does not contradict the Labour Act.
54. Ideally, an employee is held to be validly removed from his employment if he is removed for good cause with proper notice, and by an agreed or statutory procedure. Wrongful termination or dismissal is one carried out contrary to the terms of the contract or without reasonable notice – GODWIN WEHA V EBICE COMPANY LIMITED (2004) 11 CRN 135.   Proper notice cannot be dispensed with so also compliance with the terms of employment where that is clearly spelt out in the employee handbook or policy guidelines of the employer. A brutal scrutiny of Exhibit C4/DW1A shows gaps in compliance by the defendant and the law is ex nihilo nil fit. Clause 14 was clearly not complied with leaving a lacuna that cannot be filled by any amount of damages or reparations.
55. In LONGE V FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC (2010) 2 CLRN 21 Adekeye JSC declared that ‘suspension is neither termination of the contract of employment nor a dismissal of the employee.’ A Suspension operates to suspend the contract rather than terminate the contractual obligations of the parties to each other. At the point Mr. Oscar was suspended vide Exhibit C18 on March 11, 2013; he was still entitled to his due as contractual obligations had not been terminated. Can it really be said that Clause 14 of the Employee Handbook of the Defendant (Exhibit C4) was followed by the Defendant? I think not. Clause 14.4 provides expressly that:

An employee may be placed on suspension with pay (1/2 basic salary and full housing, utility, transport, allowance and medical facilities). The period of suspension shall range from one month to six months as may be determined, and such period shall be recognised in determining the length of employment with the Bank. Other conditions regarding suspension are:

If any employee is suspected of dishonesty or any other serious misconduct, he/she will be suspended from duty for a period not exceeding six months during which investigations shall be concluded.

If the investigations are not concluded within six months, the employee shall remain suspended until such a time that the investigations are concluded

If after investigations he/she is exonerated, he/she shall be recalled; the balance of his/her basic salary and any other entitlements shall be paid from the date of suspension. If, however, the employee is found guilty he/she shall be dealt with in accordance with the Bank's Disciplinary procedures.

If an employee is suspected of a criminal offense by the Police, he/she may be suspended accordingly.

56. A cursory look at the foregoing provision in Exhibit C4 shows a grand departure from the Defendant's own stipulation of what should be done in a situation where a staff is suspended. Section 36(5) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, 1999 (AS AMENDED) provides that everyone before this Honourable Court is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence guaranteed under the section 36 (5) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1999 (AS AMENDED) was never volunteered the Claimant and he was treated like a common criminal and an outcast from the beginning of the process and this continued even after his suspension.
57. In UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR V ESIOGU (1997) 4 NWLR (PT. 502) 719 AT 723 the Court held that the word "suspension" meant a temporary deprivation, causation, or stoppage of, or from the privileges and rights of a person. The suspension is not a demotion of rank, office, position, or the rights of the employee given to him under the law. Suspension itself is not a ground for termination. - UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR V ESIOGU (1997) 4 NWLR (PT. 502) 719 AT 723. In the substantive suit the Defendant treated the suspension ab initio like a demotion, a permanent stoppage of work and this is confirmed by the stoppage in the payment of benefits and entitlements due to the Claimant.
58. Counsel urged the court to resolve Issue 2 in favour of the Claimant and against the Defendant.
59. Issue 3; Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought and the Defendant liable to the claimant for any Damages?
60. Counsel started arguing issue 3 by making reference to the case of MUHAMMED v. DHL LIMITED [2001] FWLR (Pt 38) 1312 (CA), where the court held that in an uncontested civil case, the Claimant may establish his case with a minimum of proof. However, in a contested case, the case may be established by a balance of probabilities. What amounts to a minimum of evidence is a matter for the court to decide on the peculiar facts of the case. Thus, scanty and insufficient evidence adduced by the Claimant at the trial will not amount to a minimum of proof which would entitle the Claimant to a Judgment against the defendant. In this case sufficient evidence have been adduced by the Claimant tendered, admitted and marked exhibit C1 to exhibit C26 together with the Claimant himself giving first hand testimony of the facts of the case without Defendant torpedoing the evidence of the Claimant either in Cross examination or in any other counter process. The evidence adduced by the Claimant has not been scanty but very cogent and convincing. The standard of proof required to succeed in a civil action is proof on preponderance of evidence or balance of probability. It is trite rule of evidence that whosever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist. See section 131 of the Evidence Act, 2011.
61. The standard of proof in legal circles as regards civil cases is on a balance of probabilities while the burden of proof generally rests on the party who stands to be annihilated if no evidence is tendered in proof of alleged facts. This position is cast in stone and made further explicit in Section 133 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011 which conveniently provides that:

In civil cases the burden of first proving existence or non existence of a fact lies on the party against whom the judgment of the court would be given if no evidence were produced on either side, regard being had to any presumption that may arise on the pleadings

62. This burden aptly captured in Section 133 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011 is the burden of proof succinctly described in Halsbury Laws of England (5^th Edition Vol 11, 2009 p.571, para 769) as the ultimate probandi or ultimate burden of proof. Learned authors MM Stanley Idum and J. A Agaba in their legal text on Civil Litigation in Nigeria on page 516 describes this as the general burden of proof or persuasive burden of proof. It resides on that party who institutes the original action which is the Respondent in this case. Furthermore, it is the burden cum obligation of establishing facts and contentions which will support the claimant’s case and ultimately convince the court of Claimant’s claims. This burden of proof is constant and does not oscillate back and forth between the Claimant and Defendant like an unfaithful wife bouncing between two lovers. Consequently, a claimant does not have a choice in the matter but to satisfy the court that the condition which entitles the claimant to appropriate relief(s) have been satisfied; the direct consequence of failure to discharge this burden is certain failure of the entire case of the Claimant and no legal gymnastics can free the Claimant from the strangle hold of defeat if the burden of proof on Claimant is not dispatched properly. See BUPA V BUKA (2003) FWLR (PT 183) 38; SONGHAI LIMITED V UBA (2004) FWLR (PT 189) 1244; WILSON ESI V CNPC/BEP INTERNATIONAL & ANOR (2014) ALL FWLR (PT 742) 1813; OJUKWU V OBASANJO (2003) FWLR (PT 182) 1766 AT 790.
63. In SONGHAI LIMITED V UBA (2004) FWLR (PT 189) 1244 AT 1258 the court held that the basic principle governing the incidence of burden of proof is that he who asserts must prove. This is only a rule for deciding on whom the obligation of going further if he wishes to win, rests. Similarly, in WILSON ESI V CNPC/BEP INTERNATIONAL & ANOR (2014) ALL FWLR (PT 742) 1813 the Court of Appeal restated the position of the law succinctly that the burden of proof is always on the party whose case will be adversely affected if the particular facts in issue are not proved. It is important to also emphatically declare that a case must be decided on the strength of the Claimant’s case and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case. A.I.C LTD V NNPC (2005 11 NWLR (PT 937) 563; CARLEN (NIG) LTD V UNIJOS (1994) 1 NWLR (PT 323) 631; ALIBE V YARO (2001) LPELR (7022); MARTCHEM INDUSTRIES (NIG) LTD V M. F KENT (WA) LTD (2005) 10 NWLR (PT 934) 645]
64. Counsel submitted that having resolved the first two issues in favor of the Claimant the conclusion is quite direct and that is that the Claimant is entitled to all the declarations and reliefs sought after in the originating process. Counsel submitted that this Honourable Court is vested with the powers and the jurisdictional competence to grant the reliefs sought, as there are constitutional and statutory provisions that allow for this relief. It is worthy of note, at this junction, that it is a trite principle of law that award of damages must relate to the justice of the case in dispute. In lending judicial credence to the foregoing, the court, in SONIBARE v SOLEYE [2009] 4 MJSC (PT.II) P.137, held thus:

“It is a trite principle of law that award of damages must relate to the justice of the case in dispute.

65. Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved by the Claimant; this is no secret but trite law. To succeed in a claim for special damages the Claimant must plead the special damages and give necessary particulars and adduce credible evidence in support. The claimant must satisfy the court as to how the sum claimed as special damages was qualified. Special damages are awarded for actual or exact losses suffered. PER RHODES VIVOUR JSC in LUKE NWANEWU ONYIORAH V BENEDICT C ONYIORAH & ANOR LER (2019) S.C 254/2008.
66. The position of the law is clear that on no account can a trial judge make his own assessment or speculate on special damages. An assessment would be correct and valid if it is arrived at strictly on the evidence accepted by him in establishing the amount to be awarded. [See ODULAJA V HADDAD (1973) 11 SC PT 1; UNION BANK OF BIG PLC V CHIMAEZE (2014) 4 SC (PT III) V 110; IALAJU AMAYE V AREC (1990) 6 SC N.157; SPDC NIG LTD V TERBO & ORS (1996) 4 NWLR (OF 445) V. 657]
67. Counsel also submitted that there is a distinction between "general" and "special" damages. General damages are such as the law will presume to be the direct, natural or probable consequence of the act complained of. Whereas, special damages are such as the law will not infer from the nature of the act. They are exceptional in their character and must be claimed specially and proved strictly. [See MCGREGOR ON DAMAGES HARVEY MCGREGOR, MCGREGOR ON DAMAGES (18TH EDN REVISED, SWEET AND MAXWELL, 2010). Put in much more simpler terms, when it comes to special damages, all the losses claimed on every item must have crystallized in terms and value before the trial. [See SHODIPO & CO LTD V DAILY TIMES (1972) ALL NLR 842.
68. Counsel also refers to the dictum of PATS ACHOLONU JSC in NEKA B.B.B MAN CO LTD V ACB (2004) 2 NWLR (PT 858) 521 best describes special damages:

‘A damage is special in the sense that it is easily discernible and quantified. It should not rest on a puerile conception or notion, which would give rise to speculation, approximation or estimate or such like fraction. (Underlining mine for emphasis) [See also CALABAR EAST C.T & C. S LTD V IKOT (1999) 14 NWLR (PT 639) 225 SC.

69. Special damages mean a liquidated amount of money which the plaintiff has against the defendant as resulting from some act or omission on the part of the defendant. It is different from general damages because a claim for special damages is an estimated sum of money unlike a claim for special damages which is not an estimated sum. See ABABA CIVIL LITIGATION IN NIGERIA PAGE 342.
70. It is submission of counsel that the Claimant is entitled to general damages for the unlawful and illegal blocking of his salary account while still a bona fide employee whether on suspension or not especially since this was done without a valid court order from a competent court of law practically frustrating and constraining the Claimant into dire impecunity. The audacity of the Defendant to cross the Rubicon by freezing the bank account of the Claimant simply because the account stood with the Defendant is an offence that cannot be forgiven with a simple wave of the hand. Rather, there must be an example set here by granting punitive damages also. Psychological trauma has been suffered by the Claimant especially due to the death of the Claimant’s child which in itself is a direct consequence of the freezing of the Claimant’s account. Emotional torture beyond quantification has been suffered by the Claimant. It would be bad precedent to allow the Defendant go home Scott free with a pat on the back after the illegal freezing of the Claimant’s account. The unlawful termination of the Claimant’s employment above all cannot be left to slide as there is necessity for commensurate damages to be paid since a willing employee cannot be foisted on an unwilling employer.
71. Counsel argued that the wrongful termination of the Claimant’s employment on criminal allegation has constructively restricted the Claimant from exercising his skills for persons who may want to employ him all these years. May we commend to Your Lordship the House of Lords’ decision in HERBERT MORRIS LTD V SAXELBY (1916) 1 AC 688@ 699, where Lord Atkinson held as follows; 

“It is in the public interest that a man should be free to exercise his skill and experience to the best advantage for the benefit of himself and of all others who desire to employ him.”

“Anyone who loses his monetary earnings suffers untold hardship, for it becomes difficult for him to keep body and soul together.” 

COURT’S DECISION:

74. I have considered the processes filed by the parties and taken time to calmly read through the facts and evidence adduced by the parties. I have also taken time to scrutinize the several documents tendered and admitted in evidence. I have also considered the enlightening and weighty submissions of learned counsel for the parties, carefully noting the several decided cases relied upon by them.
75. In the final written address of the defendant a single issue was formulated for resolution. While the counsel for the claimant submitted three issues for determination. I have captured the argument of counsel as presented in their final written addresses in the earlier part of this judgment.
76. The claimant’s reliefs have also been reproduced hereinbefore. There are a total of sixteen (16) reliefs being sought by the claimant. The first four reliefs are for declarations; that the suspension and subsequent termination of the employment of the claimant on a fictitious and false allegation is grossly unlawful and illegal, the termination of the employment of the claimant without affording claimant fair hearing is a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights of the Claimant. The refusal and neglect by the Defendant to contribute its percentage of the remittances into the Retirement Savings Account (RSA) of the Claimant domiciled with his Pension Fund Administrator, Premium Pension, from March, 2013, is unlawful, illegal and amounts to breach of contract and a contravention of the Pension Reform Act. The freezing/blocking or placing of a no-debit order on the Salary Account of the Claimant by the Defendant, without an order from a competent court of jurisdiction, is highhanded, oppressive, unlawful and a violation of the Claimant's fundamental right to property.
77. Apart from the first four declaratory reliefs, there are other reliefs being sought these reliefs are: an order for payment of the sum of N290,768.41 (Two Hundred and Ninety Thousand, Seven Hundred and Sixty-Eight Naira, Forty-One Kobo) being the Claimant's monthly salary/entitlement from the date of suspension, being March 11, 2013, to the date of termination and until the determination of the instant suit or the date of judgment. The sum of N69,275.50 (Sixty-Nine Thousand, Two Hundred and Seventy-Five Naira, Fifty Kobo) being the Claimant's monthly Cost of Living Allowance from the date of suspension, being March 11, 2013, to the date of termination and until the determination of the instant suit or the date of judgment.
78. The claimant is also praying for order of mandatory injunction compelling the defendant to unlock the claimant’s account placed no-debit order. there is claim for general damages and exemplary and punitive damages. There is also claim for payment of transfer allowance from Calabar to Ikom in the sum of N400,000.00. the sum of N600,000.00 (Six Hundred Thousand Naira) only for performance. Hotel accommodation from 28th February, 2013 to 11th March, 2013 at Ikom branch at the cost of N9,000.00 (Nine Thousand Naira) daily, totaling N117,000.00 (One Hundred and Seventeen Thousand Naira) for 12 days. The sum of N155,664.00 being amount reduced in upfront payment for 2014. The sum of N50 million (Fifty Million Naira) only general damages for unlawful termination of employment and the sum of N2m (Two Million Naira) as cost of this litigation.
79. In Gabriel Ativie V Kabel Metal Nigeria Ltd (2008) 10 NWLR (Pt.1095) 399, @ 414, paras C-G, the Supreme Court respecting claim before the court stated, thus:-

‘‘The duty of a plaintiff, therefore, is to plead only such facts and materials as are necessary to sustain the reliefs, and adduce evidence to prove same. He may, at the end of the day, obtain all the reliefs claimed or less. He never gets more. Nor does he obtain reliefs not claimed. A court is therefore bound to grant only the reliefs claimed. It cannot grant reliefs not claimed.’’

80. It is clear that the law has always been that a claim is circumscribed by the reliefs being sought. And a claimant is only bound to adduce sufficient evidence in proof of his case. This means that this court is only bound to consider the reliefs presented to the court by the claimant and the court has no duty to go outside the reliefs being sought as the court cannot serve as farther Christmas dishing out unsolicited gifts. This court is duty bound to consider the reliefs as claimed by the claimant. A court cannot give to a party a remedy he has not asked for. A court is bound by the reliefs sought by the parties. The charity or generosity of a court is confined strictly to the reliefs sought. It cannot give over and above what a party has claimed. 
81. The first four reliefs in this case are for declarations; the law places a heavy burden on a claimant/plaintiff to establish his declaratory reliefs to the satisfaction of the court. Where he fails to establish his entitlement to the declaration by his own evidence the reliefs would not be granted even on the admission of the defendant. see Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 423; A.-G., Cross River State v. A.-G., Fed. (2012) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1327) 452; C.P.C. v. INEC (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1317) 260; FAAN V Green stone Ltd (2009) NWLR (Pt.1150) 624.
82. By the decision in the case of Ziideel v. RSCSC [2007] LPELR-3544(SC); [2007] 3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 554 SC; [2007] 1 – 2 SC 1, an employee who complains that his employment has not been properly determined has the onus to place before the Court the terms of the contract of employment, and prove in what manner the said terms were breached by the employer. The law is also trite that it is not the duty of the employer as a defendant to prove any of these facts. See also Morohunfolu v. Kwara Tech. [1990] 4 NWLR (Pt. 145) 506 SC, Ningi v. FBN Plc [1996] 3 NWLR (Pt. 435) 220 CA, Katto v, CBN [1999] 6 NWLR (Pt. 607) 390 SC, Adams v. LSDPC [2000] 5 NWLR (Pt. 656) 291 CA, Igbinovia v. UBTH [2000] 8 NWLR (Pt. 667) 53 CA, Taduggoronno v. Gotom [2002] 4 NWLR (Pt. 757) 453 CA, Okoebor v. Police Council [2003] 12 NWLR (Pt. 834) 444 SC, Ibama v. SPDC (Nig.) Ltd [2005] 17 NWLR (Pt. 954) 364 SC, Nigerian Gas Co. Ltd v. Dudusola [2005] 18 NWLR (Pt. 957) 292 CA, WAEC v. Oshionebo [2006] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1994) 258 CA and UBN v. Chinyere [2010] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1203) 453 CA. 
83. Briefly the facts of this case as can be gleaned from the pleadings, evidence on oath are that the claimant was employed by the defendant on 19/3/2007, as a senior banking assistant and his employment was confirmed after six months' probation. See exhibits C1 and C2. The claimant was promoted to the rank of banking officer on 13/8/2008, and his employment is governed by the defendant's Employer's Handbook. See exhibits C3 and C4.
84. The claimant while serving the defendant at Ndidem branch as ATYMs custodian, there were issues of cash discrepancies and missing funds from the defendant's ATMs. The claimant reported the issue to the Headquarters via emails. See exhibits C7, C8, C9, C10, C11, C12 and C13.
85. The claimant was redeployed to Ikom branch with immediate to serve as customer service officer of the branch. See exhibits C16 and C17. The claimant reported for duty at Ikom branch on 28/2/2013. However, vide memo dated 11/3/2013, the claimant was immediately placed on suspension on the allegation of pilfering from ATM Machines pending the determination of the allegation. He was also arrested by the police and taken to Calabar for interrogation. While on suspension the claimant will be paid half of his basic salary, full housing, transport and utility. The payment of half salary and other allowances was stated to be contingent on claimant’s signing attendance register on daily bases. See exhibit C18. Vide exhibit C19, the claimant requested for reimbursement of his March, and April, 2013, salaries.
86. The claimant was summoned to attend disciplinary hearing at Port-Harcourt. The defendant tendered exhibit DW1B, as the report of the disciplinary committee which recommended summary dismissal of the claimant. The defendant accepted the recommendation and summarily dismissed the claimant from her service. See exhibit C23.
87. However, the claimant has stated that he was not given fair hearing during the investigation, the suspension and termination as they were conducted without following due process. The claimant has also alleged that his account was blocked by the defendant, allegedly without a court order, causing financial hardship to him. The defendant admitted blocking the claimant’s account claiming it has right of lien because of the personal loan granted against salary to the claimant by the defendant in the sum of N2,500,000.00 (Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira). 
88. The claimant vide this action is claiming for voiding of termination of his employment, unpaid allowances, including transfer allowance, hotel accommodation, and performance benefits. The claimant is also seeking for damages for the psychological and emotional distress suffered due to the defendant's actions, including the impact on his family life.
89. The defendant has urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s claimant due his failure to adduce credible evidence to prove entitlement to the reliefs sought on balance of probability.
90. The claimant on his part insisted in his evidence and through his counsel in the submission made before the court that the claimant has proved entitlement of the reliefs sought by the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the court. He also stated that he was terminated on January 3, 2014, without being formally charged or prosecuted.
91. Before proceeding to determine the case of the claimant let me say that it is well settled law that in the context of employment law, an employer has the right to terminate or dismiss an employee for misconduct, even if the misconduct also constitutes a criminal offense, without waiting for the employee to be tried or prosecuted. This principle is supported by several case laws for instance in the case ARINZE v. F.B.N LTD (2004) LPELR-551(SC), where the Supreme Court held that an employer is not required to wait for the outcome of a criminal trial before dismissing an employee for misconduct. The court emphasized that the standard of proof in criminal proceedings, which is beyond a reasonable doubt, is different from that in employment matters, which is on the balance of probabilities.
92. Similarly, in ADAH v. BENUE STATE LOCAL GOVT. SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS (2016) LPELR-42961(CA), the Court of Appeal reiterated that an employer can exercise the power of summary dismissal for misconduct without awaiting criminal prosecution. The court noted that employment contracts often contain provisions that allow for dismissal on grounds of misconduct, and these provisions can be invoked independently of criminal proceedings. Furthermore, the case of N.B.C. PLC v. EKPO (2020) LPELR-51997(CA) clarified that an employer does not need to await the conclusion of criminal proceedings before dismissing an employee. The court highlighted that employment relationships are governed by the terms of the contract and the employer's internal disciplinary procedures.
93. it is pertinent to point out that the employer’s right to dismiss or terminate employment of his employee for misconduct without waiting for criminal prosecution, is dependent on the employer following due process as outlined in the employment contract and any applicable internal disciplinary procedures or law. This clarification becomes necessary due to the claimant’s assertion that he was neither tried nor prosecuted for any crime as the allegation of pilfering amount to crime.
94. Let me also before considering whether or not the claimant has succeeded in proving any of the reliefs being sought, say that both parties in their processes and respective final written addresses have interchangeably made reference to termination and dismissal as one and same thing. Let me say here that our labour jurisprudence, unlike in other climes, regards the two terms (termination and dismissal) as having different connotations, they do not mean one and same thing. There have been a plethora of authorities evincing subtle distinction between the two terms. See CBN & anor v. Mrs Agness M. Igwillo [2007] LPELR-835(SC); [2007] 14 NWLR (Pt. 1054) 393; [2007] 4-5 SC 158 at 200. In Alhaji M. K. v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc & anor (2011) LPELR-8971(CA), His Lordship Ogbuinya, JCA, stated thus:-

“Termination” or “Dismissal” of an employee by the employer translates into bringing the employment to an end. Under a termination of appointment, the employee is enabled to receive the terminal benefits under the contract of employment. The right to terminate or bring [an] employment to an end is mutual in that either may exercise it. “Dismissal” on the other hand is punitive and depending on the contract of employment very often entails a loss of terminal benefits. It also carries an unflattering opprobrium to the employee.’’

92. Termination in law is defined to mean, ‘’end in time or existence’’ see Blacks law Dictionary, West 6th ed (1990) 1471, this means in the law of contract, termination implies its end in time or existence or ceasation of the rights and obligations arising from and under the contract. Dismissal on the other hand, means to ‘’send away’’ particularly, ‘’from one’s employment’ ’or ‘’from service’’ to relieve from duty, or to release or discharge from employment. Sometime dismissal in the real sense is described as summary dismissal an expression defined by the court in ACB V Nbisike (1995) 7 NWLR (Pt.416) 725, as implying to relieve from duty, or to release or discharge from employment usually done or given immediately without attention to details or formal procedure.
93. In Calabar Cement Co. Ltd V Daniel (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt.188) 759, the court stated that: ‘’it is settled practice that the two provisions for dismissal and termination of a contract of employment operate independently of each other’’. The celebrated case of Olaniyan V University of Lagos (supra), present another illustration. What is clear is legally both termination and dismissal all imply removal from a particular employment. However, the consequences may vary.
94. It is interesting to point out that in Lasisi V Allied Bank (Nig.) Plc (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt.767) 542, the court of appeal agreed that an employer who has a right to dismiss an employee could resort to the lesser punishment of termination. This clearly shows clear distinction between the two terms.
95. It is apparent from the above case laws that some basic distinction has been recognized as between termination and dismissal simpliciter in contracts of employment that necessitate separate treatment of the doctrines of both principles. 
96. It can be deduced from the distinction, that the right to terminate can be exercised by both parties to the contract of service and when they do so reasons need not be given.  While the power to dismiss can only be exercised by the employer and in the exercise of that power the employer must state his reasons for doing so. Therein, lies the basic distinction from which some consequences flow in varied and varying forms. For instance, that means that the termination gives the parties the right to determine the contract at any time by giving the prescribed period of notice, dismissal on the other hand is a disciplinary measure not entitling the affected staff to notice or benefit. The power to dismiss is a power exercisable by the employer without a corresponding power in the servant. See Calabar Cement Co. Nig. Ltd V Daniel (supra), Abomeli V NRC (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt.372) 451, Adamo Gbalade V Ijebu-Ode DC (1962) 1 SCNLR 442, FBN Plc V Keneneth Mmeka (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt.1456) 507.
97. It is clear from the authorities cited above that dismissal carries with it infamy and deprives the dismissed employee of benefits while termination of employment does not. The term does not also apply to termination of appointment with retirement benefits. Also, while an employer is not bound to give any reason for lawfully terminating a contract of service, he must give reason for summarily dismissing the servant. In the instant case, the employer did not give any reason for the summary dismissal. It is not as though it woke up one night and decided to dismiss the claimant. The claimant was accused of pilfering ATMs belonging to the defendant, thus why he was suspended. Thereafter he was summoned to appear before disciplinary committee and after hearing he was dismissed. The claimant has insisted that the defendant did not follow due process in determining his employment and his right to fair hearing was violated as he was not afforded opportunity to questioned his accusers. The defendant on its part insisted claimant was afforded fair hearing as he appeared before the disciplinary committee and stated his case and he was found wanting and was properly dismissed in compliance with the provisions of staff handbook.
98. In an attempt to prove his case, the claimant placed before the Court a number of documents. See exhibits C1 – C27. They include: his letter of employment exhibit C1, letter of confirmation exhibit C2, letter of promotion exhibit C3, Employee Handbnook exhibit C4, several e-mails on complaints on ATM having issues.  Loan agreement and letter of insurance. There are also letters of transfers and suspension as well as dismissal all tendered by the claimant in proof of his case. in the letter of dismissal exhibit C23, no reason was given for the dismissal.
99. The claimant has in his pleadings and evidence tried to establish his innocence on allegation of pilfering and tried to show that if there is pilfering it cannot be he alone those who have the combination secret numbers must be involved as no one person can access fund in the bank alone without those in charge of secret combination numbers. The defendant on its part insisted that claimant alone was involved in pilfering. Let me say here that the duty of court in considering determination of wrongfulness or otherwise of dismissal from service does not extend to consideration of whether or not the employee in question is guilty of misconduct or the charges against him or not, that is not the work of the court. What the court was called upon to determine is whether the dismissal of employment in question followed due process or was in violation of conditions of service. If the employee disagrees, or challenges his dismissal from service in a Court of law, as in this case, the Court can only consider whether the employer complied with the relevant procedure in dismissing the employee or not. The Court cannot delve into the issue of whether the employee was guilty of the misconduct or not. To prove guilt of a person in doing an act is not within the province of the jurisdiction of a civil Court. Guilty, in its grammatical meaning has criminal elements of which only a criminal Court can adjudicate on. The court of appeal in the case of Tamti v. NCSB (2009) 7 NWLR pt. 1141 p. 631 @ 658, stated that: "The jurisdiction of the trial Court is determined by the claim of the plaintiff before the trial Court and in the instant case, the claim being for wrongful dismissal from service. It is not therefore the duty of the trial Court to venture to consider the involvement of the appellant in the missing 270 packages of cargo’’. 
100. Therefore, if this court is to delve into determination of pilfering, the court will be exceeding its bounds. By inviting the court to consider issue of pilfering the Court is being asked to investigate the allegation against the claimant. Investigation is not the duty of Court. The duty of Court is to consider the evidence before it in arriving at its decision. All that this Court is expected to do is to consider the evidence before it in order to see if the dismissal of the claimant was in accordance with exhibit C4, Employee handbook and any other law applicable. In Tamti v. NCSB p. 658, this Court per Abba Aji J.C.A, when dealing with similar issues said that: "The issue therefore was for wrongful suspension and subsequent dismissal from service. It is not therefore the duty of the trial Court in the circumstances to delve into the involvement or otherwise of the appellant in the missing of the 270 packages of cargo. It is not the function of this Court to investigate and consider the degree of culpability if any of the claimant. The jurisdiction of the Court in the circumstances is to consider whether the suspension and subsequent dismissal of the claimant was wrongful or proper in the circumstance but not investigate the level of his involvement in the pilfering. See also Bamiboye v. University of Ilorin (1996) 6 SCNJ P. 295 @ 327, is of assistance in appreciating the point made supra. 
101. I have thoroughly examined the Employee Handbook; exhibit C4/DW1B, it is clear to me that ample provisions have been made for taking disciplinary action against an employee of the defendant like the claimant in this case. The relevant provisions are as contained in Clause 14 with title Disciplinary Procedure at page 49 and Clause 14.4 suspension at page 51. The provisions are hereby reproduced for proper appreciation. They are:-

14       Disciplinary Procedures 

Management reserves the prerogative to discipline erring staff in accordance with the Bank’s laid down rules  and regulations.  The following procedures apply:

When an employee fails to perform his/her work satisfactorily or commits an act of misconduct or negligence, he/she shall be given a query to explain the circumstances regarding his conduct within 48 hours.

Further investigations maybe carried out on receipt of the reply to the query.

Depending on the gravity of the offence, the case could be referred to the Head Office Disciplinary Committee (HODC) or Human Capital Management Disciplinary Committee (HCMDC) or any of the relevant Business Development Office Disciplinary Committees (BDODC) depending on the location/grade of the affected employee. Subsequently, the employee may be let-off, cautioned verbally, issued caution letter, warned in writing or have his/her employment terminated summarily dismissed depending on the decisions of the Disciplinary Committee(s).

Defence At The Disciplinary Committee: Any employee whose case is being tried for the first time at Business Development Office or Head Office levels should be given an opportunity to appear before the Disciplinary Committee.   If the Committee is sitting outside the employee’s location, the Bank will bear the employee’s cost of transportation, accommodation and feeding during the visit but, subject to approval.

Appeal Against Sanctions: - A staff who is sanctioned and not satisfied with the Disciplinary Committee’s decision has the right to appeal to Head Office Disciplinary    Committee within 3 months of receipt of the letter of sanction and thereafter such appeal will be time barred. Except there is a clear evidence of the introduction of new facts, after an appeal case has been treated, repeated appeals will not be tolerated. Appeals should not go beyond two hearings.

Employees who appeal against Disciplinary Committee’s decision will bear the cost of transportation, accommodation and feeding themselves.

14.4     Suspension 

An employee may be placed on suspension with pay (1/2) basic salary and full housing, utility, transport allowance and medical facilities). The period of suspension shall range from one month to six months as may be determined, and such period shall be recognized in determining the length of employment with the Bank. Other conditions regarding suspension are:

If any Employee is suspected of dishonesty or any other serious misconduct, he/she will be suspended from duty for a period not exceeding six months during which investigations shall be concluded.

If the investigations are not concluded within six months, the employee shall remain suspended until such a time that the investigations are concluded.

‘An employee on suspension shall be required to report each working day for2 hours to an official designated by the Bank and shall sign to indicate compliance.

If after investigations he/she is exonerated, he/she shall be recalled; the balance of his/her basic salary and any other entitlements shall be paid from the date of suspension. If, however, the employee is found guilty he/she shall deal with in accordance with the Bank’s disciplinary procedures.

If an employee is suspected of a criminal offence by the Police, he/she may    be suspended accordingly,

14.5            Summary Dismissal 

An Employee may be summarily dismissed for certain acts of gross misconduct or negligence.  Such acts include:

Proven cases of theft, fraud, dishonesty, defalcation, irregular practices in respect of cash vouchers, records, returns, customer’s account or foreign exchange transactions.

Willful disobedience of a lawful order or serious negligence;

Drunkenness or taking drugs, other than for medical reasons, thus becoming unfit to carryout duties;

……………………………………

…………………………………….

No notice shall be given in the case of summary dismissal. In the event of summary dismissal, all terminal benefits shall be forfeited to the Bank. In the event that the terminal benefit paid cannot take care of his outstanding liability to the Bank. The Bank shall be free to proceed against him to recover the outstanding balance.

102. The above clear and unambiguous provisions of the Employee Handbook which is binding on parties in this case have made it abundantly clear on how a disciplinary action based on misconduct should be handled by the defendant in this case. Now, the question that needs to be answered is has the defendant in this case conducted the disciplinary action taken against the claimant in compliance with the rules and regulations contained in exhibit C4.
103. The grouse of the claimant as can be gathered from his pleading and evidence is that on 11/3/2013, he was issued with letter of suspension exhibit C18. This was followed by letter of dismissal exhibit C23, wherein he was dismissed without giving reason for such dismissal which he said is contrary to international best practices and Labour standards. Though the claimant appeared before disciplinary committee he was not given opportunity to cross examined his accusers. The defendant denied not following due process. They tendered in evidence exhibit DW1B, the report of the disciplinary committee as evidence of compliance with due process and affording him fair hearing.
104. Let me start with exhibit DW1B, this document is purported report of disciplinary committee. A careful perusal of this document will in no doubt show that this document can not be accorded any evidential value, as the document has no author and was not signed. The law is settled that a document that has no maker or which the maker has not signed is worthless piece of paper having no evidential value. It is trite that generally an unsigned document is worthless, see OMEGA BANK (NIG) LTD V O. B. C. LTD (2005) LPELR-2636(SC) where the apex Court held: "A document which is not signed does not have any efficacy in law. As held in the cases examined, the document is worthless and a worthless document cannot be efficacious." Per TOBI, J.S.C." see also Jinadu v. Esurombi-Aro (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt.1145) 55; Ikeli & Anor v Agber (2014) 222653(CA); Davidson & Ors v INEC (2021) LPELR-52805(CA). The non-execution of exhibit DW1B, naturally infects its genuineness and validity. Therefore, exhibit DW1B having been shown not to have been signed by its maker has no evidential value in the circumstances, the said document is hereby discountenanced for purposes of this judgment. 
105. apart from exhibit DW1B not been signed it is also an incomplete document for a document to be meaningful it has to be tendered in full for the court to be able to wholly consider its content to be able to come to a decision on it. By not tendering the full document the defendant is hiding the aspect that may not be favourable to it. 
106. Having found exhibit DW1B not to have evidential value the defendant has nothing before the court to establish that the claimant was accorded fair hearing or that there is compliance with due process.
107. It is clear from the pleadings and evidence adduced the claimant was not queried by the defendant. As no such query had been produced before the court this means the suspension and eventual trial and dismissal of claimant was not done in line with laid down procedure as encapsulated in Clause 14 of Employee Handbook exhibit C4, reproduced above. To make matters worse the position taken by the defendant, is that claimant was dismissed for pilfering, this position of the defendant goes contrary to exhibit C23, the letter dismissing the claimant from the service of the defendant which was silent on reason for the dismissal. This means that `the claimant was dismissed for no reason and this goes contrary to the clear provisions of ILO convention 158 Article 4. This also amount to clear violation of the international best practices in labour and employment.
108. In the case of SKYE BANK PLC v. ADEDOKUN OLUSEGUN ADEGUN (2024) LPELR-62219(SC), the Supreme Court has recognized that this court is empowered by the third alteration to apply international best practices in Labour and Employment law in dealing with cases comi9ng before the court. 
109. In view of all I have been saying above the suspension and dismissal of claimant from service were done in violation of mandatory provision of Employee Handbook exhibit C4, which is binding on parties. In law the general rule is that where the parties have embodied the terms of their agreement or contract in a written document as it was done in this case, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to add to, vary, subtract from or contradict the terms of the written instrument: See Mrs. O. D. Layode v Panalpina World Transport NY Ltd (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt 456) 544, Glaloye v Balogun (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt 148), Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd v Ozigi (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt 333) 385. The parties herein having agreed on terms and conditions of their contract in exhibit C$/DW1B, they are bound the provisions contained therein and none of them will be allowed to violate the terms and conditions of service. In determining the rights and obligations of the parties herein this court is also bound to restrict ots consideration to exhibit C4/DW1B.
110. The claimant has also made claim for salary, from the date of suspension to date of dismissal. He is also claiming transfer allowance and hotel accommodation in Ikom following his transfer. The defendant in response stated that claimants has been paid all his entitlement into his account. The claimant’s account is exhibit C22, there is nothing in it to show payment of claimant’s salary from date of suspension or payment of terminal benefits or transfer entitlements. Therefore, it is surprising that the defendant who has made positive assertion on payment of salaries and allowances, and all entitlements of the claimant to the claimant has failed and neglected to adduce evidence establishing the said payments to the claimant. In this situation ipse dixet is not enough, there is need for documentary evidence to support the assertion. The failure by the defendant to adduce evidence of payment they allegedly made to the claimant’s account and how much was paid to claimant goes to debunked the claim by the defendant that the claimant had been paid all his entitlement into his account.
111. Furthermore, if the claim of payment of claimant’s entitlement had been made, as alleged by the defendant, which I do not believe it had been made, it would be contrary to the clear and unambiguous provisions of clause 14.5, last paragraph of exhibit C4, which has made it clear that all terminal benefits shall be forfeited to the bank in respect of an officer whose employment was summarily dismissed, like the case of the claimant. If in actual truth the defendant had paid claimant terminal benefits for having been dismissed, the payment was contrary to clear provision of the Employee Handbook. The defendant has contradicted its Employee Handbook by asserting that claimant a (dismissed) employee had been paid his terminal benefits into his account, which the Employee Handbook exhibit C4, has in unequivocal terms has stated that it had been forfeited.
112. The claimant has proved entitlement to his unpaid salaries and transfer allowance since the defendant has failed to adduce evidence showing payment of same to the claimant. The claimant also alleged that the defendant has without notice or explanation blocked his account as he cannot access it. The defendant in response stated that it has right of lien, thus, why the blockage of claimant’s salary account. 
113. It is my view that the defendant does not have right to block claimant’s account without any explanation or an order of a court of competent jurisdiction in that respect. The action of the defendant in blocking/freezing claimant’s account amount to violation of the claimant’s right to property. In the circumstances the claimant has proved violation of his right to property. The defendant who blocked or freeze claimant’s account for no just cause has rendered itself liable to pay damages for the breach.
114. The claimant has also argued that the defendant has no right to any lien in view of exhibits C20 and C21, the documents evidencing the loan taken by the claimant from defendant. I have carefully studied these exhibits it is clear to me they are not capable of relieving the claimant of the burden of repayment of the personal loan which he had taken from the defendant. The reason being that the loan transaction is between the claimant and the defendant is independent and must be honoured by the parties. And none of the parties will be allowed to resiled or reneged from the agreement they entered into with their eyes wide opened. The Supreme Court in Lewis v UBA (2016) LPELR-40661(SC), Per MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, JSC (Pp. 15-17, paras. E-A), has this to say:-
115. ‘‘This because the contracts of employment and personal loans between the Appellant and the Respondent are two distinct contracts having distinct subject-matters and their duration not co-existent nor can it be said one is dependent on the other or that the right to terminate the contract of employment by either party could operate as a condition precedent to the repayment of the personal loan or balance thereof. A refresher to the situation is that the Respondent had fully performed his obligation under the contract for the personal loan by making available the said sums and the next step is the obligation for repayment by the Appellant within the conditions of the loan agreement and this obligation does not cease because his employment has ended. This is because mere hardship, inconvenience or other unexpected turn of events which have created difficulties though not contemplated cannot constitute frustration to release Appellant from that obligation. A situation which not even the death at the Appellant, grave as that might be would not alter the course of events of the repayment as his estate would bear the liability. I anchor on the case of Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham U.D.C. (1056) AC 696."
116. The defendant’s blocking of claimant’s account is a clear breach of their contract as there was no provision sanctioning doing or taking such action. It also amounts to wrongful interference with the claimant’s property rights. The defendant's unilateral action in blocking/freezing the claimant’s account without prior notice or explanation could be seen as a clear violation of the employee's rights, especially when the loan agreement did not explicitly provide for such a measure. In the case of Felemu v. AMCON (2022) LPELR-57757(CA), it was established that a loan agreement is distinct from the contract of employment, suggesting that the bank's actions should be governed by the terms of the loan agreement rather than employment terms.
117. The action of the defendant also constitutes a breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, which is inherent in contractual relationships. Therefore, the defendant was wrong acting in the way it did by blocking claimant’s account thereby implicating hardship on the claimant. 
118. In the circumstances the defendant is hereby ordered to the unblocked the claimant’s account forthwith. The claimant is also entitled to be compensated in damages for the losses suffered due to the account blockage.
119. Regarding the obligation to repay the loan, the dismissal of the employee does not automatically absolve him of the responsibility to repay the loan. The principle established in HYDRO HOTOLES LTD & ANOR v. AMCON (2020) LPELR-50740(CA) emphasizes that beneficiaries of loan facilities have both a moral and legal obligation to repay the loan. The claimant’s inability to repay due to lack of salary does not constitute a legal defense against repayment obligations unless the loan agreement or insurance policy explicitly provides for such a scenario.
120. The insurance plan mentioned in exhibit C21 could potentially cover the loan repayment in the event of job loss, but the failure to tender the insurance certificate seems to have weakened the claimant’s position. The insurance plan certificate if produced would have help in resolving this issue but it was not produced this goes to suggest that there was no such plan taken to cover claimant’s loan.
121. The claimant has also sought for declaration and mandatory injunction regarding pension remittance but there was no evidence to support the claim in the pleading. The absence of facts pleaded on pension remittance has deprived this court of power to consider those reliefs. In the circumstances there is no evidence in proof of reliefs bordering on pension remittances. 
122. From all I have been saying above, the claimant in this case has succeeded in proving his claim in part. In the circumstance I hereby make the following orders: -
123. A declaration is hereby granted that the suspension of the claimant without first issuing query to him as required by Employee Handbook is wrongful.
124. A declaration is hereby granted that the dismissal of the employment of the claimant without stating the reason for dismissal is against the international best practices is therefore wrongful.
125. A declaration is hereby granted that the termination of the employment of the Claimant without affording the Claimant fair hearing is a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights of the Claimant.
126. Relief 3 fails due lack of pleading and evidence in proof of the refusal and neglect by the Defendant to contribute its percentage of the remittances into the Retirement Savings Account (RSA) of the Claimant domiciled with his Pension Fund Administrator, Premium Pension, from March, 2013, the said relief is hereby dismissed.
127. A declaration is hereby granted that the freezing/blocking or placing of a no-debit order on the Salary Account of the Claimant by the Defendant, without an order from a competent court of jurisdiction, is highhanded, oppressive, unlawful and a violation of the Claimant's fundamental right to property. 
128. An order is hereby granted directing the defendant to pay the claimant the sum of N290,768.41 (Two Hundred and Ninety Thousand, Seven Hundred and Sixty Eight Naira, Forty One Kobo) being the Claimant's monthly salary/entitlement from the date of suspension, being March 11, 2013, to the date of termination and until the date of purported dismissal of the claimant from service i.e. 3/1/2014.
129. Relief 6 is not grantable as there is nothing in the Employee Handbook granting entitlement to such allowance to the claimant. 
130. Relief 7 is not grantable as there is no proof non-remittance of pension adduced by the claimant.
131. Relief 8 succeed, the defendant is hereby ordered to unblock, or deactivate the no-debit order placed on the Salary Account of the claimant forthwith.
132. The sum of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) is hereby awarded in favour of the claimant as damages for blocking/freezing his account. The defendant is hereby ordered to pay the claimant the sum of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) damages.
133. Relief 10 fails same is hereby refused.
134. Reliefs 11 and 13 are not grantable due to lack of proof as Clause 10.3 of Employee Hand book exhibit C4 at page 39, provides that for payment of inconvenience allowance of 15% of annual basic salary and lumpsum payment in lieu of hotel accommodation. The lump sum to be determined by management from time to time. The claimant has not proved how much is his annual basic salary for the court to know whether the sum of N400,000.00 being claimed is actually 15% of the basic salary. For hotel accommodation the claimant has not tendered any documentary evidence showing what the management has determined as his lumpsum entitlement. 
135. Relief 12, fails due to lack of proof same is hereby refused.
136. Relief 14, fails as the defendant has explained that the sum of N155,664.00 being claimed as amount reduced in upfront payment for 2014, was deduction for repayment of personal loan taken by the claimant.
137. Having found dismissal of the claimant to be wrongful for non-compliance with Employee Handbook and violation of international best practices, I award general damages in the sum of N2,000.000.00 (Two Million Naira) in favor of the claimant against the defendant.
138. The claimant did not adduce any iota of evidence in proof of relief 16 which is for the sum of N2 Million Naira cost of litigation, the said relief failed and is hereby dismissed.
139. All monetary aspects of this judgment shall be paid within 30 days from the date of this judgment failing which simple interest of 10% per annum shall apply. 
140. Judgment is hereby entered accordingly.

 

 

 

 

Sanusi Kado,

Judge.

REPRESENTATION:

Daniel K. Kip, Esq; for the claimant.

No appearance for the defendant.