LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

National Industrial Court

HAMZA SA’AD DASIN -VS- GOTEL COMMUNICATION LIMITED

admin 0

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE YOLA JUDICIAL DIVIDION

HOLDEN AT YOLA

DATED THIS 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2019

BEFOREHIS LORDSHIP, HONORABLE JUSTICE K.D. DAMULAK

SUIT NO. NICN/YL/03/2019

BETWEEN

HAMZA SA’AD DASIN                       CLAIMANT

AND

GOTEL COMMUNICATIONS  LIMITED                  DEFENDANT

REPRESENTATION

  1. W. Chikason for the claimant.
  2. J. Garba with W. I. Danmutum andO. A Ogundeko  for the defendant.

JUDGMENT

  1. INTRODUCTION

This judgment is based on a claim of unlawful dismissal. The claimant filed a complaint against the defendant on 21/1/2019 accompanied by a witness statement on oath, list and copies of documents to be relied upon as required by the rules of this court. The claimant is seeking for the following reliefs;

  1. A DECLARATION that the purported dismissal was unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional and of no legal effect whatsoever.
  2. ORDER directing the Defendant to effect the pending promotions of the Claimant, assess and pay up the associated benefits thereto.
  3. AN ORDER directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant his outstanding salaries from July 2016 to December 2018 calculated at N5 359 673.40 (Five Million Three Hundred and fifty nine Thousand, Six Hundred and Seventy threeNaira Forty Kobo) analyzed as N 178,655.78 per month multiplied by 30 months)
  4. The sum of N 10,000,000 as general damages for the wrongful termination of employment by the Defendant.
  5. Cost of this suit.

The defendant filed a memorandum of appearance and a statement of defence on 1/2/2019

  1. FACTS OF THE CASE

The claimant was an employee of the defendant. he was accused and suspended for absence from duty from 14th to 20th July 2016 and also for false allegation and inciting statements. The disciplinary committee sat in his absence, found him guilty and he was dismissed by the management of the defendant, thus this suit.

  1. CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

The claimant testified as CW1 in line with the statement of facts on 4/5/2019 as follows;

The defendant employed me as principal producer vide a letter with reference No. RG/ADM/03/2658 dated 26th May, 2008. I Worked assiduously towards attaining the goals of the Defendant and was during the period subjected to so many designations and assignments. I was promoted to the rank of Assistant Director Programs, Radio, vide a letter of Promotion dated 17th March 2014.

 On the 22nd July 2016, as I was returning from the mosque during the afternoon break, I was vehemently denied access in to the premises of the Defendant by the security at the gate as according to the Security it was “an order from above” . All efforts to communicate with the authorities was abortive as my calls were not picked. I left for home and tried the next day without success.

On 25th day of July 2016 I found a letter entitled “SUSPENSION LETTER” which was thrown in to my compound by an unknown person, the letter which emanated from the Defendant. By the end of the July 2016, the letter was given effect by the Defendant cutting my salary by half despite the fact that there was never a charge on violation of any term of service guiding the employment of the Claimant. I received half salary for two months and was still denied access into the defendant’s premises. In September, 2018, I sent my lawyers to inquire into the matter, officers of the Defendant told them that I was dismissed and a copy of the dismissal letter was given to them. I perused the letter and all the allegations contained therein were false, baseless, unfounded and were never communicated to me. I was never given any fair hearing to respond to any of the allegations contained in the purported “LETTER OF DiSMISSAL” .

I suffered and still am suffering an untold hardship, economic loss, embarrassment, denigration, psychological trauma and moral demoralization resulting from the unlawful suspension and  unconstitutional termination of my employment. I was and still am denied my periodic promotions, emoluments and terminal benefits resulting from the unlawful and unconstitutional termination of my employment occasioned by the Defendant.

The claimant tendered 9 documents in evidence which were admitted and marked as exhibits HSD1 to HSD9. Reference will be made to any particular exhibit in the judgment as the need arises.

Under cross examination, claimant testified as follows;

I was posted to community and research department without a letter to that effect. I protested this posting on a WhatsApp group. I am not aware that Jane Eli and Sanda  Gana Fred wrote a petition against me for that post in the WhatsApp group. I was never issued any query. I was never invited to appear before the management disciplinary committee.

  1. CASE OF THE DEFENDANT

EVIDENCE OF DW1.

One Sanda Gani Fred testified for the defendant as DW1 on 20/6/2019 as follows;

I am an employee of the defendant in this matter and by virtue of my position I am well conversant with the fact of this case. The defendant made some minor restructuring in the organization and the claimant was redeployed to head the community outreach and research department. The claimant being not satisfied with the restructuring made some write ups in form of text message and posted it on the social media. I wrote a Petition to the management of the Defendant against the claimant because my name was mentioned on the write up.

Dw1 tendered two documents, complaint on a text message and the text message in Hausa with its English translation which were objected to, these documents were marked as exhibits SGF1 tendered and SGF2 tendered and ruling reserved till judgment.

Under cross examination, the claimant counsel tendered the defendant’s scheme of service through DW1 which was admitted and marked as exhibit BSGF3. DW1 testified that the name of the claimant does not appear on exhibit SGF2. The English translation of exhibit SGF2 emanated from Jane, it was translated on 18/7/2016.

EVIDENCE OF DW2.

DW2 was one Jane Eli Agzetiya, a staff of the defendant, she testified on 4/7//2019. Her testimony is the same with of DW1 in all respects. She tendered the petition per her paragraph 4, it was objected to but the court over ruled the objection and admitted it as exhibit JEA4.

Under cross examination, DW2 said exhibit JEA4 is an internal Memo not a petition. The text message was from an ananimous person.

EVIDENCE OF DW3.

DW3 was one  Puna Adamu  who testified on 4/7/2019 as follows;

The Defendant made some minor restructuring in the organization and the claimant was redeployed to head the community outreach and research department. The claimant being not satisfied with the restructuring made some write ups in form of text message and posted it on the social media. The management of the Defendant issued a query letter to the claimant dated 14/7/2016 but the claimant willingly refused to answer the query. From then the claimant absent himself from duty for a period of six days without anybody hearing from him in the office.

The management of the Defendant issued a letter of suspension from duty for six months to the claimant, and he was put under half salary pending the determination of the investigation panel on discipline. A panel of investigation was set up and the claimant was issued an invitation to appear before the disciplinary committee. I was a member of the disciplinary committee set by the defendant to investigate the attitude of the claimant. Upon invitation the claimant willingly refused to appear before the disciplinary committee and no reason was advanced by him for his absence. It was the disciplinary committee that recommended the dismissal of the claimant. The dismissal letter was served on the claimant through a courier service by name Domestic Airway Bill on the 3rd August 2018.

All necessary fair hearing and opportunities were given to the claimant but he refused to abide by it. When the Claimant was under the employment of the Defendant he has never been denied any of his promotions or entitlements.

DW3 tendered proceedings of the disciplinary committee for three dates; they were admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits PA5a, PA5b and PA5c.

Under cross examination, DW3 testified that I was one of the disciplinary committee members. I have seen a copy of the invitation letter to the claimant. I saw the evidence of service on the claimant, It was by courier. The domestic airway bill dated 3/8/2016 from Red Star Express was admitted through DW2 and marked as exhibit BPA6. The deliberations of the disciplinary committee were not based on exhibit BPA6. Exhibit BPA6 was addressed to Hamza Sa’ad Dasin, (Claimant).It was received by one Nuhu on 3/8/2016.The basis of the deliberations of the committee in the absence of the claimant was our conviction that the claimant was served our invitation by reason of exhibit BPA6. By exhibit HSD8, the claimant was absent from work between 14th July to 20th July, 2016.

  1. FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS OF THE DEFENDANT COUNSEL

In his final written address, learned   J. J. Shalli of counsel for the defendant formulated two issues for determination as follows;

  1. Whether or not the claimant has proven his case to warrant the court grant the relief sought.
  2. Whether or not the defendant has power to dismiss the claimant for committing acts of gross misconduct? 

Arguing issue 1, counsel submitted that it is a trite law that the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his case notwithstanding the weakness of the defendant’s case. The oral testimony of the claimant as PW1 is full of contradiction. The claimant stated  in paragraph 14, that the  allegation contained on the dismissal latter were baseless, unfounded and were never communicated to him. The claimant further stated in paragraph 8 that he found a  suspension latter in his compound. On that suspension latter, the cause for the suspension was rightly stated out. Where the  oral evidence does not bring out the facts in the statement of claim or where it is full of contradiction, the Court is entitled to hold and will hold that the claimant did not prove his case .See BONIFACE ANYIK &CO(NIG) VS UZOR (2006) 15  NWLR (PART 1003) P.560 AT P. 572. That the fact and documents pleaded and admitted by the claimant contradict each other more especially during cross examination.

Arguing his issue 2, counsel submitted that the defendant has the duty and responsibility to dismiss its staff who breached its rules and regulation by refusing to honour it invitation to appear before constituted authority. That the claimant is in breach of his employment letter, exhibit HSD1.That the claim against the Defendant are empty and of no effect. The claims of the plaintiff are not justifiable in Court as same cannot be granted. W.A.P.G.M.C VS OKEJIE (2004) NWLR (PART 857) 234 ATP. 238.

  1. FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS OF THE CLAIMANT COUNSEL

In his final written address, learned  Bello Bakari of counsel to the claimant  set out a summary of his arguments as six issues for determination. Learned counsel submitted that the claimant categorically states that the allegation were never communicated to him and he never knew his appointment was terminated and that fair hearing was not accorded him. By this we submit that the actions of the defendant were in absolute violation of the principles of fair hearing as enunciated in the case of ABUBAKAR TATAR! ALI POLYTECHNIC –V- MAINA (2014) 43 N.L.L.R. (PT 135} PG 160 @ 196,191 .It could easily be established by reading exhibit PA5a that service was not effected on the claimant at all. On the same footing, the committee further admitted that the HOA reported that the invitation was sent but there was no acknowledgement from the claimant. See item 3.1 of EXH: PA-5b dated 3/8/2016·

The committee resolved that, service be effected on claimant via currier service. It was one Nuhu that received the service not the claimant despite the fact that it was addressed and intended to be served on him.

Assuming without conceding that the claimant was even accorded fair hearing, the Defendant cannot by the rules establishing it dismiss the Claimant. That the dismissal contained in Exhibit HSD-9 is predicated on item 18:02 (i) & (ii) of the Condition of Service of the Defendant which stipulate for “termination of appointment” not Dismissal”.

That  failure to serve the Claimant with a Query and invitation letters to appear and defend himself before management disciplinary committee held render the report of the committee null, void and of no Legal effect. The Defendant’s failure to put the Claimant on notice violated his right to fair hearing and also the chance to make presentation in defense of the allegations leveled against him. There was no single witness that was shown to have testified before the panel.

That Exhibits PA-5a, PA·5b and P.A·5c were dumped on the court.

None of the witnesses called by the defendant was led through the documents to show how the documents defend or support the dismissal or the termination of the Claimant’s appointment. TERAB –V- LAWAN ( 1992)3 NWLR (PT 231)569@ 590.

That the wordings of exhibit HSD-8 and HSD-9 contradicted the allegation of absence from duty for 5 consecutive days which to the defendant contravened item No. 18:02 of the defendant’s condition of service (EXH:BSGF3).

That in the instant case, exhibits SDF-1 &2 where not certificated at all and therefore merit outright rejection by this court. Assuming without conceding the exhibits were obtained in compliance with section 84(2)EA, the exhibit which can speaks for itself and requires no further interpretation emanated from ‘Jane’ and sent to ‘Jenellee’ and it neither contained the name of the claimant nor suggested that it has any nexus or connection with him in whatever manner.

The entire evidence of the DW 1 and W2 are hearsay and speculative, which this court cannot rely on in reaching findings.

That the defendant failed woefully to present before this court any of the purported ·query letter’, ‘Invitation letter’ or any other relevant document that will convince this court that the claimant was properly put on notice and was given a  chance to defend himself.

That the defendant is a creation of a statute and its actions are governed by the statute including employment and the determination of the employment of its staff. The statute that governs the defendant affairs is Exhibit “BSGF-3”, defendant’s condition of service.

  1. DEENDANT COUNSEL’S REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW

Replying on points of law, defendant counsel, after re-enforcing his argument in the final written address, submitted that assuming but not conceding that the claimant employment was wrongly terminated, the claimant’s damages will be determined from date of his dismissal.  Measure of damages to be awarded to a servant whose employment was wrongfully terminated, a servant will only be paid for the period he served his master. And if he is dismissed, all he gets as damages is the amount he will have earned if his appointment is properly determined. The servant is to be paid all his salaries and entitlements up to the date of his dismissal.

  1. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The issue for determination herein considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence as well as written addresses of counsels is whether the claimant has proven his case to entitle him to the reliefs sought.

  1. COURT DECISION

Ruling on exhibits SGF1 tendered and SGF2 tendered were reserved till judgment. Exhibit SGF1 tendered is a complaint on a text message. The DW1 sought to tender exhibit SGF1 as the said petition he wrote to the management against the claimant.

It is not clear whether 13-07-2016 on the document is the date the document was written or the date of the text message complained of. The document is not addressed to anyone. The document does not have endorsement of receipt on the face of it by the defendant. The document on the face of it does not show that it was written to the defendant or received by the defendant; it is accordingly rejected and is so marked.

Exhibit SGF2 is the alleged text message posted by claimant on social Media in Hausa and the English translation. The Hausa text does not show that it is a print out from any social Media Platform, yet it has it last paragraph as follows;

HOA,

This was posted by Hamza Sa’ad Dasin on his page on the internet. Issue a query to him why he divulges confidential in breach of promise of  secrecy and spreading hatred among religious and tribal divides in and outside Gotel communications.

The document is not reliable and does not in any way qualify as the text of a message down loaded from the internet or any social media at all.

The alleged English translated version is shown to be an email from Jane(janeeli@ymail.com) to janeeli@ymail.com dated Monday July 18, 2016 at 11;42am yet it purports to be translated by Kabiru Musa, and stamped by Registrar, Upper Area Court 2, Yola, Adamawa State on 30/1/2019. This again shows nothing but unreliability. The document is rejected and is so marked.

The claimant contends that he was not given fair hearing as he was not served with the query letter or invitation letter to appear and defend himself before the disciplinary committee. It is for this that he prays for nullification of his dismissal, promotions and payment of the associated benefits thereto and an order directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant his outstanding salaries from July 2016 to December 2018, damages and cost of action.

Nullification and promotions implies reinstatement which is only applicable to appointments with statutory flavor.

Claimant’s counsel supported this position by arguing that the defendant is a creation of a statute and its actions are governed by the statute including employment and the determination of the employment of its staff. The statute that governs the defendant affairs is Exhibit “BSGF-3”, defendant’s condition of service.

Whether or not an order for reinstatement and payment of salaries during the period of termination and promotion can be ordered depends on whether or not the employment of the claimant has statutory flavor. See DAVIDSON OBIANWUNA v. NATIONAL ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY (2016) LPELR-40935(CA); MR. KUNLE OSISANYA V. AFRIBANK NIGERIA PLC (2007) LPELR-2809(SC); (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt.1031) 565

An   employment with statutory flavor was defined by the Court of Appeal in the case of N.E.P.A. v. EDEGBERO (2000) 14 NWLR (Pt.688)615; (2000) LPELR-6884(CA) relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in IMOLOAME V. WA.E.C. (1992) 11/12 SCNJ 121 at 135; (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 303  thus;

What in effect is an employment with statutory flavour.
The Supreme Court had in the case of Imoloame v. WA.E.C. (1992) 11/12 SCNJ 121 at 135; (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 303 defined it as:
“Where the contract of service is governed by the provisions of a statute or where the Conditions of Service are contained in regulations derived from statutory provisions they invest the employee with a legal status higher than the ordinary one of Master and Servant. They accordingly enjoy statutory flavour”.:

Claimant counsel is of the opinion that Exhibit “BSGF-3”, defendant’s condition of service is a statute; the short answer is, claimant is wrong. In law, when an employment is said to be governed by statute, the statute there is a reference to an Act of either the State House of Assembly or National Assembly as opposed to the condition of service of a defendant. See Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th Edition at page 1633 where Statute is defined as “a law passed by a legislative body, specific legislation enacted by any law making body.”

Claimants letter of employment, exhibit HSD1, states that other terms of the appointment are spelt out in the company’s condition of service, exhibit BSGF3. The said exhibit BSGF3 provides for length of service in paragrap13:01, staff salaries in paragraph 14, and discipline in paragraph 18.

I find and hold that the employment of the claimant with the defendant, a limited liability company, governed by exhibit “BSGF-3”, defendant’s condition of service, is not one with statutory flavor but merely a master and servant relationship.

The implication of this, by the authorities of DAVIDSON OBIANWUNA v. NATIONAL ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY (2016) LPELR-40935(CA); MR. KUNLE OSISANYA V. AFRIBANK NIGERIA PLC (2007) LPELR-2809(SC); (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt.1031) 565, supra, is that  the dismissal of the claimant cannot be declared  null and void and so promotion and payment of attendant benefits thereto cannot be ordered either. Only Payment of withheld salaries during period of suspension may be ordered based on the condition of service.

The defence of the defendants is that the claimant was dismissed for absence from duty without permission from 14th to 20th July 2016 and divulging confidential information in breach of oath of secrecy. This is supported by exhibits HSD8 and HSD9 as well as the evidence of DW3 under cross examination.The claimant did not file a reply to deny this, neither was this allegation contradicted in cross examination.

 On the accusation of divulging confidential information in breach of oath of secrecy, the evidence before the court does not support it even though claimant did not deny same.

On the allegation of absence from duty without permission from 14th to 20th July 2016 there is also no denial by the claimant in any way.  Claimants counsel rather submitted in his final written address that while on the allegation of absence from duty, counsel posited that Claimant was absent from duty and no one heard of him for a period of Six Days contrary to the contents of exhibits HSD-9 which accounts for Five days absence, again there is contradiction and as such we maintain our argument contained Under issue 3.

I find that paragraphs 1 and 2 of both exhibits HDS8 and HDS9 contain allegation of absence from duty for 5 consecutive days from 14/7/2016 to 20/7/2016. (actually 7 days)

The allegation of absence from duty for six days from 14th to 20th July 2016 is not in any way a contradiction such as to discharge the claimant from denying or contradicting same. That fact stands as proven against the claimant.

The much a do about want of fair hearing canvassed by the claimant herein is unfounded as exhibit BPA6, Domestic airway bill shows that the letter was addressed to the claimant and received by one Nuhu. The claimant never denied that he was in that address, he never denied knowledge of the said Nuhu who Acknowledged receipt, on the contrary, it was the claimant who produced the said exhibit BPA6 through his counsel, he cannot deny service of the said invitation letter.

In the circumstance therefore, it is the finding of the court that the claimant was granted an opportunity to defend himself and that is fair hearing. I find and hold that the claimant was not denied fair hearing.

The claimant alleges that he got the suspension letter in his premises on 25/7/2016, He was paid half salaries for July and August 2016, He was locked out of defendants premises, His lawyer went to the premises of the defendant and was given a copy of his dismissal letter in September 2018 and same was given to him in December 2018.

However, exhibit HSD 8 shows that the suspension letter was written on 20/7/2016 and the dismissal letter, exhibit HSD 9 shows that the dismissal letter was on 23/8/2016. The fact that claimant receives his half salary last in August 2016 agrees with the fact of dismissal on 23/8/2016. The non payment of salary from September 2016 to date is a fact that constitutes termination in the circumstance of this case.

The question is whether the dismissal was in line with the terms of employment. The position of the law is that an employer has discretion to give a lesser punishment to an employee, but it has no discretion to give a higher punishment than that prescribed. See UDEGBUNAM V  F.C.D.A ((2003) 10 NWLR (PT.829) P487

see also DAVID &ORS VINTERIOR OPTIONS (2015) 57 MLLR (PT.196)P.382 AT PP 436 -437.

By Paragraph 18.02 (ii) of exhibit BSGF3, relied upon by the defendant in both the suspension letter and the dismissal letter, the punishment for absenteeism is termination of appointment where an employee is absent from duty for three consecutive days. There is no provision for dismissal for absenteeism. Offences warranting dismissal are spelt out in paragraph 18.04(a) to (k), which paragraph is not relied upon by the defendant in dismissing the claimant, absenteeism is not listed in paragraph 18.04(a) to (k).

 By the authorities of UDEGBUNAM V  F.C.D.A and DAVID &ORS VINTERIOR OPTIONS supra, by the agreement of parties, the only punishment for absenteeism is termination of appointment and the defendant has no discretion to give a higher punishment than that prescribed.

Accordingly, I find and hold that the dismissal of the claimant for absenteeism is contrary to the terms of appointment and wrongful.

Being that the employment of the claimant does not enjoy statutory flavor and so reinstatement cannot be ordered, and in keeping with the latin maxim of ubi jus, ubi remedium, the only remedy available to the claimant is any such remedies whatsoever as the claimant may appear to be entitled to as the Court thinks just, in line with section 14 of the NICA 2006, which provides as follows;

  1. The Court shall, in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it by or under this Act in every cause or matter, have power to grant, either absolutely or on such terms and conditions as the Court thinks just, all such remedies whatsoever as any of the parties thereto may appear to be entitled to in respect of any legal or equitable claim properly brought forward by the Court so that, as far as possible, all matters in dispute between the parties may be completely and finally determined and all multiplicity of legal proceedings concerning any of those matters avoided.

In the opinion of this court, the just remedy for the claimant in the circumstance of this case is an order remitting his dismissal to termination with his terminal benefits to be paid and it is so ordered with effect from the date of his dismissal.

The dismissal of the claimant is accordingly remitted to termination in line with the condition of service from the date of dismissal.

The implication is that the claimant is entitled to any terminal benefit allowed by the condition of service.

Now the claimant was employed in May 2008 and was terminated in August 2016, this is a period of   8 years and 3 months. By paragraph 19 .04, gratuity for a staff who has served for up to 5 years but less that 10 years , as the claimant herein, is 7 weeks gross salary for each completed year of service. The claimant is entitled to 7 weeks gross salary for eight years.

The defendant is ordered to calculate same and pay to the claimant based on his last gross pay with the defendant.

The claimant is also entitled to one month salary in lieu of notice as provided for by paragraph 18.03(ii)(b) of the condition of service, exhibit,BSGF3 and it is so ordered.

  1. COURT ORDER

On the whole, the claimant’s case succeeds in part and it is hereby declared and ordered as follows;

  1. It is hereby declared that the dismissal of the claimant for absenteeism was wrongful, same being contrary to the terms and condition of service.
  2. The dismissal of the claimant is hereby remitted to termination with effect from the date of dismissal.
  3. The defendant is hereby ordered to calculate and pay to the claimant 7 weeks gross salary for eight years as gratuity.
  4. The defendant is hereby ordered to pay to the claimant one month salary in lieu of notice.
  5. The defendant is hereby ordered to make the said calculations and file same in the registry of this court within two weeks of this judgment failure upon which the claimant shall be entitled to make same calculation and file same in the Registry of this court.
  6. The defendant is hereby ordered to pay the calculated sum within 30 days of this judgment failure upon which the sum filed in the registry of the court shall attract 10 % interest per annum.

I make no order as to cost.

This is the judgment of the court and it is entered accordingly.

…………………………………………….

HONOURABLE JUSTICE K.D.DAMULAK

PRESIDING JUDGE, NICN, YOLA.

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE YOLA JUDICIAL DIVIDION

HOLDEN AT YOLA

DATED THIS 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2019

BEFOREHIS LORDSHIP, HONORABLE JUSTICE K.D. DAMULAK

SUIT NO. NICN/YL/03/2019

BETWEEN

HAMZA SA’AD DASIN                      ……………………………………….. CLAIMANT

AND

GOTEL COMMUNICATIONS  LIMITED                 ……………………… DEFENDANT

 

JUDGMENT ORDER

 

WHEREAS the claimants took out a complaint on 21/1/ 2019 against the defendant seeking the following reliefs:

  1. A DECLARATION that the purported DISMISSAL was unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional and of no legal effect whatsoever.
  2. ORDER directing the Defendant to effect the pending promotions of the Claimant, assess and pay up the associated benefits thereto.
  3. AN ORDER directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant his outstanding salaries from July 2016 to December 2018 calculated at N5 359 673.40 (Five Million Three Hundred and fifty nine Thousand, Six Hundred and Seventy threeNaira Forty Kobo) analyzed as N 178,655.78 per month multiplied by 30 months)
  4. The sum of N 10,000,000 as general damages for the wrongful termination of employment by the Defendant.
  5. Cost of this suit.

AND after hearing the evidence of both parties and the address of M. W. Chikason for the claimant andS. J. Garba with W. I. Danmutum and  O. A Ogundeko  for the defendant, it is held that the case of the claimant succeed in part and it is hereby ordered as follows;

COURT ORDER

  1. It is hereby declared that the dismissal of the claimant for absenteeism was wrongful, same being contrary to the terms and condition of service.
  2. The dismissal of the claimant is hereby remitted to termination with effect from the date of dismissal.
  3. The defendant is hereby ordered to calculate and pay to the claimant 7 weeks gross salary for eight years as gratuity.
  4. The defendant is hereby ordered to pay to the claimant one month salary in lieu of notice.
  5. The defendant is hereby ordered to make the said calculations and file same in the registry of this court within two weeks of this judgment failure upon which the claimant shall be entitled to make same calculation and file same in the Registry of this court.
  6. The defendant is hereby ordered to pay the calculated sum within 30 days of this judgment failure upon which the sum filed in the registry of the court shall attract 10 % interest per annum.

            GIVEN UNDER THE SEAL OF THE COURT AND THE HAND

                  OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE,  HON.  JUSTICE K. D. DAMULAK

                  THIS 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019.

 

 

 

 

            ………………………………….                                   

            HON. JUSTICE K. D. DAMULAK

                              JUDGE

admin

Website:

Related Story