DAVID OSALADOR OSAHUN -VS- UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE KANO JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT KANO

Before His Lordship:-

HON. JUSTICE E.D. E ISELE – JUDGE

DATE: 4^TH FEBRUARY 2020 – SUIT NO: NICN/KN/02/2017

BETWEEN

DAVID OSALADOR OSAHUN – CLAIMANT

AND

UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC – DEFENDANT

REPRESENTATION:

Claimant – Present

Defendant – Absent

APPEARANCE

A.O. Abdurraheem, Esq. holding brief of M.K. Umar, Esq. for the Claimant

A.I. Lawrence, Esq. with Mamuna Suleiman, Esq. and Rhoda Aransiola, Esq. for the Defendants.

JUDGMENT

The Claimant, by means of complaint filed on the 3^rd day of January 20 2017 approached this court for the following reliefs:

A DECLARATION that the purported dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant on the allegation of “gross misconduct” is illegal, void and amounts to sheer show of highhandedness and same goes contrary to the terms and conditions contained in the Claimant’s letter of employment as well as the Defendant’s Handbook.

A DECLARATION that the purported dismissal of the appointment of the Claimant by the Defendant on the allegation of “gross misconduct” is illegal, ill-motivated and invalid same having no bearing with his charge and the letter of suspension that bothers on “alleged involvement in fraud” to which he was accordingly charged by the disciplinary committee.

A DECLARATION that the purported Dismissal of the appointment of the Claimant by the Defendant on an allegation that was criminal in nature and pending before the EFCC amounts to utter display of autocratic policies of the Defendant, gross abuse of all civilized employment ethics and same goes contrary to the terms and conditions contained in the Claimant’s letter of employment as well as the Defendant’s Handbook.

A DECLARATION that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of N190,500/64 one Hundred and Ninety Thousand Five Hundred Naira Sixty Four Kobo Only. Being the balance of the three (3) months half salary withheld by the defendant during the suspension period from June to August 2016.

A DECLARATION: That the Claimant is entitled to receive from the defendants a compensation package to the tune of N381,800.72 Three Hundred and Eighty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Two Kobo Only in lieu of a formal notice as per the conditions governing the employment of the claimant.

AN ORDER directing the defendant to pay to the claimant forthwith his annual salary, allowances and related emoluments over the period his employment was wrongfully terminated from 4^th October 2016 which stood at N1,952,300.24 One Million Nine Hundred and Fifty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Four Kobo Only Per annum.

AN ORDER Directing the Defendants to forthwith pay the claimant his annual increment which is 15% of his regular annual salary.

AN ORDER Directing the defendant to pay to the claimant the sum of N5,000.000 (Five Million Naira Only) as general damages for denial of peace of mind, trauma, defamation of character, and emotional distress suffered by the Claimant.

AN ORDER Directing the defendant to pay to the claimant the sum of N18,000,000 (Eighteen Million Naira Only) as exemplary damages.

AN ORDER Directing the defendants to pay the claimant interest at the rate of 23% per annum which is the lending rate of the defendant being, interest over the sum claimed and accruing from the day this suit is instituted to the day judgment is consequently delivered.

AN ORDER Directing the defendants to pay the claimant 10% court’s interests over the judgment debt from the date of the judgment until final liquidation of same.

AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE LETTER OF DISMISSAL Dated 4^th October 2016 issued to the claimant by the defendant, being null, void, unconstitutional and of no effect whatsoever.

AN ORDER Directing the defendants to pay to the claimant the sum of N567,000 Five Hundred and Sixty Seven Thousand Naira Only as aggravated damages, cost of filing this action, legal fees and related incidental and expenses incurred by the claimant.

Also filed together with the complaint are: the statement of fact, list of witnesses and list (together with the copies) of document to be relied on at the trial.

The defendant, in response filed its memorandum of appearance alongside its statement of defence dated 25/3/2017 and filed 6/4/2017. In the course of the hearing the defendant filed an amended statement of defence dated the 21^st of March 2019, and issues were joined by the parties and the matter proceeded to hearing.

At the Trial, the claimant testified on his own behalf as CW1 while Joseph ODEBOJU a control officer with the defendant testified for the defendant as DW1.

At the conclusion of evidence, parties were ordered by the court to file and serve their respective written addresses this they did the defendant written address is dated 18^th July 2019 while that of the claimant was dated 26^th August 2019. The defendants also filed a reply on point of law dated and filed on 3^rd September 2019.

From the pleadings, the case of the claimant is that he was an employee of the defendant between 12^th March 2007 and 4^th October 2016 when he was purportedly dismissed from the employment (evidenced by exhibit D & D1) That on 12^th March 2007 he was employed by the defendants as a processing officer vide an offer of employment. (Evidenced and marked, exhibit A & A1). That the Claimant also claimed that on 3^rd August 2009, his employment was confirmed consequent upon his satisfactory performance and diligence vide a letter of confirmation (evidence and marked exhibit A2). That on 1^st February 2012 he was promoted to the rank of Deputy Service Officer by the defendants in appreciation and recognition of his sterling performance and contribution to the growth of the bank. (Evidenced by exhibit A3), that he claimed that on 7^th August, 2012 he was redeployed to Kano Bank Road branch of the defendant as cash officer (evidenced by exhibit B1). That he held the said position of cash officer from August 2012 to January 2015 when he was posted to cash management centre (CMC) as team member. He averred that sometimes late in July 2015 he was re-assigned to his former desk in Kano main as cash officer to relieve one Ngozi Oyinbo, who was in turn to relieve one Sani Mohammad as branch operation manager of Kano Main.

The Claimant also avers that it was during his being on seat as cash officer (relieve) that news started filtering that a teller, and his cash officer at France Road branch, Kano have collected mutilated cash in N1000 and N500 denominations from the said branch and that upon moving part of the N1000 denomination to CBN a complaint was made by CBN. He averred that by mid-August 2015 he moved back to cash management centre (CMC) as team member while Sani Mohammed resumed and Ngozi returned to her desk. The claimant also avers that on 3^rd June 2016 he received a query Titled “Discovery in CMC during re-confirmation of mutilated cash” due to the audit going on, to which he responded vide an email dated the same day marked exhibit C to C3). He also avers that on the same 3^rd June 2016 the defendant lodged a complait in Kano office of the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) against him, and other colleagues: Bola Elegbede, Boudilon Oiwoh, and Morris and after inter rogation, later released on administrative bail the claimant also avers that on 6^th June 2016, he received a letter placing him on suspension on:

“Alleged involvement in fraud by accumulation of mutilated note” (evidenced and marked as exhibit C4 and C5) that consequent upon that said letter, he was placed on half salary of N63,500 from June 2016 to August 2016, and that the defendant did not pay him any salary for September and October 2016. The claimant also avers that on Wednesday 17^th August 2016 he was invited via email to appear before a disciplinary committee on that charge of “acceptance of mutilated notes not fit for deposit with the CBN amounting to N25,330,000.00 and poor management of the CMC vault leading to shortages totaling N4,845,200.00 and potential losses amounting to 20,484,800.00 (evidenced by exhibit (C6 and C7). In further averments the claimant avers that management of CMC is reserved for officers on assistant manager and above as stated in the operation policy manual. The claimant further avers that he was thereafter served with a letter of dismissal dated 4^th October 2016 for “Gross misconduct” (evidenced by exhibit D & D1). The claimant avers that upon receipt of the letter of dismissal, he caused his attorneys to implore the defendants demanding that the dismissal should be rescinded as it was wrongful and done in breach of the law and the contract governing their relationship. That the defendant response to his attorneys was blurred with not only unconvincing language but a resolve not to see reason and act reasonably and the defendants reply showed clearly and reiterated that the claimant was not dismissed for fraud (evidenced by exhibit F1 and F2) He averred that, contrary to the defendant’s reply, it was not within his job description to manage CMC vault nor was it his duty to accept mutilated notes but his duties and responsibilities as conveyed to him by the defendants were:

i)Lead cash evaluation and supply (CIT), to branches.
ii)Ensure effective utilization of physical assets (bullion vans, escorts, cars).

iii) Ensure prompt TAT in line with service level Agreements.

iv)Maintenance of up – to – date registers, job title and description showing official duties is (evidenced by exhibit D3). He also averred that he was neither queried nor given a fair hearing for any of the offences which attracts dismissal as itemized in the handbook, the claimant further avers that he was entitled to the following emoluments;
a)Annual salary of N1,904,300.24 which translates to N127,600.24 monthly after tax.
b)Compensation package of N381,800.72.
c)Annual increment of 15% of (a) above

The claimant also avers that, when he was placed on suspension for 3 months, he received half salary of N63,500 monthly and the suspension however lasted for more than 3 months and he was not paid for the additional months.

Under cross – examination the claimant as CW1 was asked to read exhibit E4 paragraph 17:32 which he read and on gross misconduct and reads the paragraph and said that the list of gross misconduct is not exhaustive he was asked as well to look at paragraph 17:32 III on willful and blatant circumvention of laid down policy which he read out. He was also asked whether he resorted to ADR which he answered NO. He confirmed claims he asked the court to calculate his entitlement from 4^th October 2016 till judgment is given, and was asked whether from that 4^th October 2016 he had rendered any service to the defendant and he answered NO. Asked directly, if in other words “you want the defendant to pay you for that period for work not rendered” CW1 answered in the affirmative stating that his dismissal was illegal; On the question, that the Audit complained that the figures in the cash register and that of the cash on ground did not tally CW1 answered NO.

THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANT

The case of the Defendant as deduced from its statement of defence and witness statement on Oath of the DW1 is that the claimant was deployed to the cash management centre as team member, and subsequently was posted out of the cash management centre and later reposted back to the cash management centre. The defendant avers that precisely on 2^nd June 2016, the audit carried out a count of the places of mutilated cash held in the vault of cash management centre, that the cash count revealed explicit discrepancies between the physical cash and the record maintained in the cash register, that examination of some packets of N1000 and N500 denominations recorded in the cash as N631,000.00k revealed outrageous shortage totalling N308,000.00k, the defendant avers that further detailed cash count/sorting was conducted on the mutilated cash holding of N92,442,500:00 in order to ascertain the physical cash against the record maintained in the cash register, the defendant also maintained that the cash count/sorting exercise confirmed that out of N92,442,500, bank notes totaling N35,653,000:00 met the CBN criteria for mutilated cash had been deposited at the apex bank with another sum of N11,804,285.00 in lower denominations notes have been sorted but yet to be deposited as the approval of the CBN was outstanding, the defendant avers that cash count/sorting further confirmed that the balance of the cash holding of N92,442,500. Consisted of halved and shredded note with a total value of N37,994,945:00 and outright shortages totaling N6,990,270 contrary to the defendant corporate policy. The defendant avers that when they confronted the claimant with these facts vide a query, the claimant could not proffer any tenable explanation, the defendant further averred that by virtue of the facts it (the defendant) initiated a complaint against the claimant and others at the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

The defendant further averred that by its corporate policy, a staff placed under suspension shall be entitled to only 50% of monthly salary subject to the maximum of three months and that in the event the suspension extend beyond 3 months, such staff shall be placed on zero pay. The defendant also maintained that the claimant was subsequently invited to a disciplinary committee the purpose of which was to afford the claimant fair hearing. The defendant further averred that at the disciplinary hearing, it was discovered that the claimant had clearly circumvented the banks laid down operational policies and procedures in accepting mutilated notes and that it was discovered that the claimant poorly managed the cash management centre vault and also failed to maintain proper records of mutilated notes not fit to be reissued in the cash register, that owing to the claimants unsatisfactory representation at the disciplinary hearing, the panel arrived at a conclusion that the claimant was liable to be dismissed, the defendant avers that by the terms of contract entered into between the defendant and the claimant, it reserves the right to dismiss the claimant or other staff without notice or payment of any entitlements whatsoever if found liable for gross-misconduct. The defendants then urged the court to dismiss the action with substantial cost for hearing in competent.

Under cross examination of DW1, he told the court he worked at the internal control division of the bank and that he was in Kebbi between may and June 2016, that he got the information from the regional internal controller who supervises, whose name is Samuel Falade and that what Falade told him was all on record and that he heard the name of Bola Elegbede but he never met him and that he took a look at exhibit D2 and D3 and read the duties and responsibilities therein and that the Job description is that of head zonal processing centre and that there is no name on it and that he was aware that a spot check on cash on 27^th May 2016 was made and the cash was confirmed okay by internal control and that internal control conducts end of the month cash count every month and that there is difference between okay and completion. He was referred to exhibit D3, the Job description of a bullion officer which he read out. He also said that they could not ascertain whether the mutilated cash were collected from various branches and that there is no column for mutilated notes on the register and that as at the time he was not there so he did not inspect the register and that the total amount is N37.9 million not N23.5 million and that it was at the disciplinary committee and the period at which the collection of mutilated notes started were certain deposits at the CBN where made after the counting at the central bank, the bank was debited with the differential of over N13 Million, the cause of the debit is that the deposit made to CBN has mutilated notes inside it which the CBN had to Separate and shredded all the bad notes and that the CBN circular is on CBN website and its accessible and that he had seen the Claimants records and that everybody gets involved in managing the CMC.

THE WRITTEN ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES

The defendant framed four issues for determination.

1) Whether the claimant by the totality of the Evidence before this court has proved his claims against the defendant on the balance of probabilities.

2) Whether the claimants dismissal was illegal and void contrary to the defendants handbook (Exhibit E to E41)

3) Whether Query letter was served on the claimant and whether fair hearing was given to the claimant.

4) Whether the claimant discharged the onus of proof placed on him that would warrant the grant of relief F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M.

The learned counsel submitted on issue 1 that the claimant has failed to prove his case on a preponderance of evidence as provided by section 133 of the Evidence Act. He argued that based on the totality of evidence adduced before this honourable court, reliefs A, B and C of the Claimant claim cannot be sustained and urged the court to so hold. He further argued that it is trite law that terms and condition of contract of employment are the bedrock of any case where the issue of wrongful termination of employment calls for determination citing the case of ANIFOWOSHE V. WEMA BANK PLC (2015) LPELR 24811 CA Cpg 14 – 15 PARAS E – B).

He further submitted that it is the claimant case that the defendant acted contrary to the terms and conditions contained in exhibit A & A2 and exhibits E to E41; which the claimant claims which entitles the claimant to the grant of relief A, B & C of the claim. He further submitted that Exhibits A & A1 as well as exhibits E to E41 are the document that govern the relationship between the claimant and the defendant and both the parties are bound by terms as it was in the case of NIGERIAN CEMENT PLC V OBIDIKE (2017) All FWLR PART 909 (P. 186 PARA G – H where the Court held that:

“The document which regulates the relationship between an employee and employer is the service agreement or contract of service/employment. Thus parties are bound by the terms contained therein particularly where the terms are clear and un ambiguous”

And the case of RIVERS VEGETABLE OIL CO LTD V EGBOKOLE (2009) LPELR – 8379)

He further submits that in the instant case where no term and condition is stated in exhibit A & A1 as to the procedure for termination of the claimants employment, such contract of employment translates in to the common law principles of master servant relationship. Citing the case of ADIBUAH V. MOBIL OIL (NIG) PLC 2015 2 RELR – 40987 (CA) PP. 8 – 9 PARA A – B. he further submits that the onus is on the claimant to place before the court the terms of the contract of employment and to prove in what manner the said terms were breached by the defendant citing the case of KATTO V. CBN (1999) LPELR – 1677 (SC) PP. 9 – 10 PARA D – C citing also the case of AMODU V. AMODE (1990) 5 NWLR (PART 150) 356 to 370.

He further argued that the declaration reliefs A, B & C of the claimant claim cannot be granted by this honourable court having not been proved and substantiated with credible evidence.

On issue two counsel respectfully submits that the claimant’s dismissal for gross misconduct was not illegal or void as alleged but that the claimants dismissal was lawful and in accordance with the provision of exhibits E to E41 of the defendant handbook and equally refers this honourable court to exhibits E to E41 of the defendant handbook entitled (particularly at page 31 paragraph 17:3:2 which defines acts that constitute gross misconduct though not exhausted. He further submits that it’s settled law that an employer who hires an employee has the corresponding right to fire him at any time and in so far as that was done within the contract of service/employment; as it was in the case of 7up BOTTLING COMPANY PLC V. AUGUSTUS (2012) L PELR – 20873 (CA) PP 20-22 PARA (B) .

He further argued that it is trite law that an unchallenged and uncontroverted averment contained in a pleading is deemed to have been admitted and thus needs no further proof citing the case of TURAKI & ANOR V. SANKARA & ORS (2011) LPELR – 9203 (P. 42 PARA A – D where the court held that:

“The law is obviously, on the side of the respondent because it is trite that where a plaintiff fails to file a reply to averments in a statement of defence, he would be deemed to have admitted the averment there in”

See also the case of Unity Bank Plc V. Bouari (2008) LPELR – 3411 (SC).

The counsel further submits that on the strength of the above submissions and cited authorities to the effect that the claimant failure to file a reply challenging the averments in the defendants statement of defence amounts to an admission of the facts stated there in and urged the court to so hold citing the case of ACHONYE & ANOR V. EZE & ANOR (2014) LPELR – 23782 (CA).

On issue 3 the counsel argued that the claimant was queried and given fair hearing before his dismissal, he further argued that the claimant was invited to the defendants Disciplinary committee in Kano where he gave unsatisfactory explanation for violating the defendants laid down operational policies and procedures after which his employment was terminated on ground of gross-misconduct. He further submits that it is trite that where the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is contradictory, the plaintiff would have failed to discharge the onus of proof on him citing the case of YAKUBU V. JAUROYEL & ORS (2014) LPELR – 22732 (SC) and the case of AJONYE V. NWACHUKWU (2011) LPELR 3677 (CA) PP 24 – 25; PARA B – C PER Mohammed Lawal Garba J. C. A held thus;

“Speaking generally, the law is that where contradictions are shown in the evidence of witness called by a party on the materials facts he relies on in support of the position he asserts in a case, such evidence should, because it is not worthy of belief, not be believed and relied on by a court in deciding the facts in issue”.

He further argues that the claimants suspension from the defendants employment and the payment of half salary during the defendants investigation was in line with exhibit E to E41 (“Titled UBA Group HR Disciplinary Process and Sanctions policy of June 2010 also called handbook”)

He also refers this court to page 23 paragraph 13, 6, 3 of Exhibit E to E41 which provide thus;

“Suspension as a result of investigation shall attract 50% of full monthly salary subject to a maximum suspension period of 3 months (Excepts where shorter time period is mandated by legislation) payment of allowances shall be withheld during period of suspension. Withheld salaries and allowances shall however be returned if the case is determined in favour of the staff” and citing a case of OLADIMEJI 1 & ANOR V. AJAY, 2012 (LPELR) – 20408 (CA) (P.19 PARA C-D.

He further submits that Exhibit A & A1 and Exhibits E & E4 1 which contained conditions governing the employment of the claimant and the defendant has no provision for issuance of formal notice before termination of employment and the parties as well as the court is bound by the terms therein. Citing the case of AMODU V. AMODE & ANO (1990) LPELR – 466 (SC) P 26 PARA A) Where the court held that.

“It is trite law that parties to a contract are bound by its terms and conditions also reserves the right to dismiss the claimant on ground of gross misconduct without compensation or benefits in whatever name or wages” citing the case of UBN LTD V. OGBOH (1995) LPELR – 3387 (SC) PG 34 para C-8. On issue 4, the Defence further submitted that from the totality of evidence adduced before this honourable court the claimant has failed to lead credible evidence that would sustain the grant of reliefs F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M and having failed to discharged this onus the claim fails and should be dismissed citing the case of MBA YMBA (2012) LPELR 21 (CA).

The claimant in response raised two issue for determination as follows:

1) Whether the defendant, having given reason for the dismissal of the claimant, the Defendant has discharged the onus of establishing the reasons.

2) Whether the claimant is entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal, where the defendant has not discharged the onus of establishing the reasons for the dismissal.

On issues 1 the counsel submits that it is trite that an employer is entitled to terminate his employee’s appointment for good or bad reason or no reason at all. However, where the employer has adduced a reason for dismissing his employee, the onus lies on the employer to justify the reason. Citing the case NEPA V. ADEYEMI (2007) 3 NWLR (pt. 1021) P 313 where the court has this to say:

“An employer is not obliged to give reasons for the summary dismissal of an employee, however once reasons are given and they are disputed, the onus lies on the employer to justify the reasons by evidential proof”.

He further argued that the defendant has not satisfactorily discharged the onus placed on him to establish the reasons for dismissing the claimant citing the case of OSISANYA V. AFRIBANK NIGERIA PLC (2007) 6 NWLR (PT 1031) 565 at 576 – 577 And urged the court to hold that the reasons for the dismissal disputed by the claimant, has not been discharged by the defendant; hence, the dismissal was wrongful.

On issue 2 the counsel submits that the law regarding master and servant is not in doubt. There is no doubt that the contract of master and servant is subject to both statutory and common law rules, the letter of employment is exhibit A and A1, while the letter confirming the claimants employment is exhibit A2. He further argued that the terms of employment and procedure for discipline, including dismissal of the claimant, are not incorporated in those exhibit in the circumstance urge the court has to resort to common law to determine what is just in the circumstance.

He further submits that in an action of this nature, certain settled principles must always be borne in mind. The first is that in a master and servant relationship a dismissal of the employee by the employer, cannot be declared null and void and of no effect whatsoever and argued that an employee remedy is in damages where the termination of the appointment or dismissal is held to be wrongful see BANKOLE V. NBC (1968)2 ALL NLR 371 and OSAKWE V. NIGEIRIAN PAPERS MILL LTD (1998) 7 S.C NJ 22.

He further argued that the defendant suspended the claimant from 6^th June 2016 to August 2016 and paid him only half monthly salary of N63500 citing the case of Yusuf V. Volkswagen of Nigeria Ltd (1996) 7 NWLR 463 at 753 – 754 per Acholonu JSC (as he then was) held thus: “the employee has a right to salary during the period of suspension. Therefore, in addition to damages the claimant is also entitled to the balance of his salary during the period of suspension.

Replying on points of law, the defendants counsel stated that the critical issue to be determined before thus court is whether termination of the claimants employment by the defendant was in breach of the terms and condition of the contract? and not whether the defendant discharged the onus of establishing the reasons for the termination of the claimant employment. He further argued that it is trite law that in a case of master servant relationship, where an employee alleged wrongful termination of his employment, resort must be had to the terms and conditions in the contract of employment, he relied on the case of RAJI V. OAU (2014) LPELR 22088 (CA) where per MOJEED ADEKUNLFE OWOADE J.C.A CP 37 para D.F) held thus:

“The terms and conditions of contract of service are the bedrock of any case where the issue of wrongful termination of employment call for determination”

Citing also the case of ANIFOWOSHFE V. WEMA BANK PLC (2015) LPELR 24811 CCA).

COURT’S DECISION

Now the Claimant in his final written address has submitted amongst other that the Defendant had not satisfactorily discharged the onus placed on him to establish the reasons for dismissing the Claimant. Citing OSISANYA V. AFRIBANK (2007) 6 NWLR (pt. 1031) 565 at 576 – 577 per OGUNTADE JSC, the Court held.

“That an “Employer is not bound to give reasons for terminating the appointment of his employee. Where he give reasons for terminating the appointment of his employee. The onus is on him to establish the reason”.

The Claimant had gone on to submit that bearing in mind the gravity of the reasons adduced for dismissing the Claimant as contained in exhibit F2, the Defendant woefully failed to discharge the onus. Going on to refer to the evidence of DW1 as hearsay as DW1 has stated under cross examination that he was serving at Kebbi State between May and June 2016 and that he had been given information by one Samuel Falade and as such the weight of DW1’s evidence should not be given much weight citing ISHOLA V. S.G.B. And urged the court to hold that the reason for the dismissal disputed by the claimant has not been discharged by the Defendant that the dismissal was wrongful.

In response in it’s reply on points the Claimant had urged among others that what is most important in determining the case at hand is whether the terms and conditions of the contract of employment were breached by the employer. Citing PETER ONYEACHONAM OBANYE V. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC (2018) LPELR – 44702 SC) per ADAMU GALIAJE JSC at 30 – 31 para D.

The Defendant also contended at Paragraph 1.11 of the reply that it is a fact that in the entire gamut of the claimant’s statement of claim as well as reliefs, nowhere did the claimant allude or mention that his dismissal was wrongful due to the Defendant’s failure to satisfactorily justify the reason for his dismissal. That the claimant as a party is bound by his claims as was held in JEV & ANOTHER V. IYORTYOM & OTHERS (2012) LPELR – 9291 (CA) 2012 that it is trite Law that a party cannot make a case outside his claim by which he is bound before the court.

Having taken this much of the submissions of both parties I had cause to read through the claims of the claimant and the pleadings of the Defendant on this point and I do find that the claimant after receiving the amended statement of defence should have filed a reply to the statement of defence with this charge that they raised in his written address. However I find that doing so does not dent the presentation of the Defendant’s case especially regarding the cross examination of the claimant where he was at the earliest points in the proceedings confronted with portions of Exhibit E the Defendant’s Group HR Disciplinary Process and Sanctions Policy i.e paragraph 17 3.2 at pages 31 & 32 thereof on whether gross misconduct could be defined in exhaustive terms. This I hold was undoubtedly to demonstrate that the Defendant had acted in accordance with the rules governing the relationship between the parties. Any charge that the Defendant had to prove the reasons given for dismissing the claimant was taken care of in this piece of cross examination and I so hold.

And I hold further that the more recent authority of PETER OBANYE V. UNION BANK (Supra) relied on by the Defendant has succinctly stated the law that should prevail over this matter, that is, has the claimant proved that the Defendant breached any of the terms and conditions of the contract? Given the facts of this case before me I find and do hold that the claimant has not. The claims against the Defendant are hereby dismissed.

There are no awards as to costs. Parties to bear their own cost.

Judgment is entered accordingly.

…………………………………………………..

HON. JUSTICE E. D. E ISELE

4^th February, 2020