IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT LAGOS
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE (DR.) I. J. ESSIEN
DATE: 10th OCTOBER 2019.
SUITNO: NICN/LA/301/2017
BETWEEN:
- PETER AUGUSTINE ETEDERHI———————————-Claimant
AND
REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE REDEEMED CHRISTIAN
CHURCH OF GOD (R.C.C.G) —————————————-Defendant
REPRESENTATION:
- A. Owolabi Esq.
No representation for the Defendants
JUDGEMENT.
The claimant by a complaint filed on the 22/6/2017 sought the following reliefs from this court;
1) AN ORDER/DECLARATION that the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the defendant dated 12th June, 2015, be declared illegal, unlawful and absolutely contrary to the terms of agreement between the Claimant and the Respondent.
2) AN ORDER that the Respondent should pay the sum of N10,000,000.00k (Ten Million Naira) for the cost of General Damages caused by the Defendant to the Claimant due to the illegal, unlawful termination of the Claimant’s employment and non-payment of his entitlements for two (2) Years by the Defendant.
3) AN ORDER that the Respondent should pay the sum of N10,000,000.00k (Ten Million Naira) for the cost of Special Damages caused by the Defendant to the Claimant due to the illegal, unlawful termination of the Claimant’s employment and non-payment of his entitlements for two {2) Years by the Defendant.
4) And for such Order or further Orders at this Honourable Court may deem fit in this Suit.
The claimant filed a statement of facts and a witness deposition along with the the complaint. In response to the claim, the defendant filed a statement of defence and a witness deposition on the 5/7 /2017. Witness deposition filed along with the defence was withdrawn and struck out on the 3/4/2018 and another statement on oath of the defence witness was with the leave of court filed on the 19/2/2019.
Hearing in this suit commenced on the 21/1/2019. The claimant testified as the sole witness and tendered the following documents in evidence;
- Curriculum of the claimant admitted as Exhibit C1.
- Admission letter of Ladoke Akintola University. Ehibit C2.
- Testimonial from Ladoke Akintola University. Exhibit C3.
- RCCG certificate of participation admitted and marked Ehibit C4a, b, and c,
- Rufus Giwa Polytechnic Advance Diploma Certificate Exhibit C5.
- Rufus Giwa Polytechnic academic transcript. Exhibit C6.
- Rufus Giwa Polytechnic academic Transcript Exhibit C7.
- FRSC Certificate of participation. Ehibit C8.
- Ministry of labour Trade test. Exhibit C9.
- Rufus Giwa Notification of Result. Exhibit C10.
- Letter of confirmation of Appointment. Exhibit C11.
- Letter of termination of appointment, Exhibit C12.
- RCCG Workers Handbook. Exhibit C13.
- Letter of appeal dated 25/6/2015. Exhibit C14.
- Letter dated 25/6/2015, titled ‘Request for your fatherly
urgent intervention’. Exhibit C15.
- Letter dated 6/11/15, titled ‘Letter of Appeal: Reminder’
Exhibit C16. - Letter dated 6/12/2016 titled Re; Letter of Appeal. Exhibit
C17. - Letters Emanating from claimant solicitors, requesting for
investigation dated 30/1/2017. Exhibit C18. - Solicitors Letter dated 27/2/17. Exhibit C19
- Solicitors Letter dated 30/5/17. Exhibit C21.
- Letter of payment of severance package and photocopy of
Eco-bank cheque. Exhibit C22a and C22b. - Claimant family photo and claimant photo in tricycle. Exhibit
C23a and b. - RCCG Christian Bible College diploma. Exhibit C24.
- Christ Redeemer Ministry School of Discipleship Certificate.
Exhibit C25.
The claimant was cross examined and the claimant closed his case on the same date.
The defendant commenced his defence on the 3/4/2019. One Akintayo Moses Oluwaseun testified as DW1, and the sole witness for the defendant. He adopted his witness deposition and was cross examine by the claimant counsel. The parties adopted their final written address on the 15/7/2019. The matter was adjourned to today for judgment.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE.
The claimant was employed in the transport/mechanical department of the defendant for 12 years and 3 months before the appointment was terminated on the 12/6/2015. The claimant position is that his appointment was confirmed by a letter dated 13/5/2011. That prior to the termination of his appointment, he was not queried and that the termination of his appointment was in breach of the condition of service as contained in the defendant staff handbook. That no compensation was paid to him upon the termination of his appointment. Consequently he wrote several letters of appeal to the defendant without any positive response. That following his solicitor’s letter of 26/5/2017 the defendant made a payment of N155, 870.88k to him as his benefit/final entitlement. The defendant latter instituted this action wherein he seeks the claims as produced earlier in this judgment.
The Defendant position is that the defendant absconded from work and was pursuing an educational programme at LAUTECH Ogbomosho without the approval of the defendant, and that because of the absconment of the claimant he was not available to be served a query and to undergo disciplinary action. That the claimant admitted this in his letter of 25/6/2015 that he absconded from work. That the claimant was paid his full and final entitlement upon the agreement brokered by his solicitor Folorunso Ogunekun.
ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION.
From the facts and circumstances of this case it is the opinion of this court that the issue for determination is whether the claimant was wrongly terminated of his appointment for which he is entitled to the reliefs claimed in this action.
DECISION OF THE COURT.
In prove of his claim in this action the claimant tendered several documents. I have carefully reviewed all the exhibits and their evidential value as they relate to the facts in issue in this action I am of the view that Exhibits C1 to Exhibit C10 which relates to the educational qualifications of the claimant are of no relevance to the issue for determination in this action. Also Exhibits C14 to Exhibit C21 and Exhibit C23 to Exhibit C 25 are also of no help in resolving the issue in contention in this suit. Accordingly they will be discountenance in this judgment as they are without any evidential value worth considering in the determination of the issue in contention in this action.
To proof his employment status the claimant tendered Exhibit C11, the letter of confirmation of appointment. The claimant claimed that his appointment was terminated vide Exhibit C12. I have carefully examined the content of the said letter of termination. It is stated that the claimant was terminated effective from the 1st September 2006. The defendant stated in the letter that the reason for the termination is ‘abscondment from duty’
The letter further directed the claimant to submit all mission property in his possession including the identity card and thereafter obtain clearance which will enable the computation and payment of his final entitlement if any. Absconment from duty can be classed as a gross misconduct under clause 9:2:1 of the condition of service of workers and ministers of the defendant tendered as Exhibit C13. The offence attracts summary dismissal under clause 9:4 of Exhibit C13, however the claimant was not dismissed but was formally terminated of his appointment. There is no evidence before the court led by the defendant to justify that the claimant actually absconded from work. The DW1 admitted during cross examination that the defendant was never queried for absconding from work. Therefore there is nothing before this court establishing that fact. Be this as it may, the law is that an employer is at liberty to terminate the appointment of the employee for good reason and for no reason at all. This position was re-stated in the case of Idoniboye-OBU V. NNPC [2003]LPELR-1426 (SC) where the Supreme Court Stated that
‘Under the common law, an employer is entitled to bring the appointment of his employee to an end for any reason or for no reason at all. So long as he acts within the terms of the employment. The motive for doing so is irrelevant.
See also the case of Fakuade V. O.A.U.T.H.C Management Board. [1993]LPELR-1233 (SC)
It was within the right of the defendant to terminate the employment of the claimant and the defendant properly exercised that right when they did so in Exhibit C12. The mere fact that the defendant stated the reason for the termination to be ‘abscondment from duty’ did effect the import of Exhibit C12.
Even if the termination was wrongful which is not the case here, the subsequent receipt of the terminal benefit would have made the termination to be mutual. In the case of Julius Begger Nig.PLC V. Nwagwu, [2006]LPELR-8223 (CA) the court held that where an employee receives his terminal benefit after his employment is brought to an end, he cannot be heard to complain latter that his contract of employment was not properly terminated. This is because the acceptance of the payment by the employee renders the determination mutual.
I have carefully examined Exhibit C22a and C22b dated 26/5/2017, These are the letter of acknowledgment of the payment of the terminal benefit in the sum of N155,870.88k to the claimant and Eco-bank cheque No 00749713 in the above stated sum. In Exhibit C22a the claimant acknowledged the receipt of the above stated sum as his full and final settlement of all his claims against the mission (defendant). this acknowledgment was witnessed by his counsel Mr Folorunso Ogunekun. During cross examination the claimant admitted that he received the above sum in full and final settlement of all his claims against the defendant. Having received his final entitlement the claimant cannot turn around to institute this action. He has eaten his cake and still wants to have it Back. I belief if he did not understand the import of Exhibit C22a, his counsel Mr Folorunso Ogunekun should have advised the claimant properly, rather he is the one leading him on in this wild goose chaise of an un-existing cause of action. On the strength of the authority of Julius Begger Nig.PLC V. Nwagwu, ‘supra’, This court hereby holds that the termination of the appointment of the claimant was consensual. And for the reason stated in this judgment, the claims of the claimant in this action cannot be justified. The claims must fail. They are therefore accordingly dismissed.
_______________________________
HON. JUSTICE (Dr.) I. J. ESSIEN.
(presiding judge)
