The Presiding Judge, Calabar Judicial division of the National
Industrial Court, His Lordship, Hon. Justice M. N. Esowe has
declared the appointment termination of Mr Innocent Iroegbu with
the Bank of Agriculture Ltd as wrongful.
Justice Esowe ordered Bank of Agriculture Ltd to pay Mr Innocent
the sum of N3,000,000.00 as damages, N1,007,275.44 (One Million
Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy-Five Naira Forty Four Kobo)
as salaries for April, May 2011 and allowances.
The Court held that the act of the firm in terminating the
employment of Innocent at a time he gave them notice of legal
action is not coincidental but a ploy to gaggle him which is wrong
and unjust.
From facts, the claimant –Mr. Innocent had submitted that in
December 2010, he received a query on the allegation over unpaid
loan disbursed, responded to the said query and denied the
allegation.
Further that after series of engagement, a letter of indefinite
suspension was served on him and also ordered that his salary
should not be paid.
Four months after recalling from suspension, a letter was sent
to him to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken
against him regarding his inability to recover all the loans
disbursed and was also referred to the disciplinary committee, then
after his appearance before the disciplinary committee, he was
absolved and started receiving his full salary.
However, in May 2012, he received a letter directing the
deduction of 50% of his monthly salary, that when he protested and
issued a notice of legal action dated 18th June 2012 against the
firm, he got a letter dated 3rd July 2012 terminating his
employment.
Counsel to the claimant, Kemka Gbasam Esq. submitted that given
the nature of Mr. Innocent employment, the way and manner his
employment was terminated is wrongful, unconstitutional; urged the
Court to order the reinstatement of his client.
In defence, the defendants submitted that the submission that
claimant was absolved from the allegation only exists in his
imagination that the reason for the termination of the appointment
of the Claimant as stated in the letter is “services are no longer
required by the Bank” that the suit of bordering on all the
allegations by the Claimant linking his termination to same is
self-serving, speculative and misleading.
Learned Counsel to the defendants Effiom Ayi Esq. submitted that
Claimant’s employment was rightly and justly terminated and
Claimant has not been able to prove anything to the contrary, urged
the Court to dismiss this case for being un-meritorious and lacking
in merit.
Delivering judgment, the presiding Judge, Justice Esowe held
that no evidence before the court that the 1st Defendant’s- BOA Ltd
Employee Handbook was made pursuant to any Law/Act by which the
firm was established, and nowhere in his letter of employment where
it was stated that claimant’s employment would be regulated by the
Public Service Rules.
“In as much as the 1st Defendant has the power to hire and fire
with or without reason, the statement “services no longer required”
is not a statement to be used for someone who has put in more than
ten years of his life into the services of the bank.
“Therefore, if the reason for the termination of the employment
of the Claimant who has worked with the firm for over 10 years is
that his services were no longer required, this Court is of the
view that other words of encouragement and accolades would have
sufficed in place of the words services no longer required,
especially given the years of labour the Claimant has put into the
1st Defendant’s bank.
“This is also coupled with the fact that the time his services
were no longer needed was when he had served the Defendants a legal
notice to challenge the deductions in his monthly salary. This also
is worthy of condemnation for it is not a fair labour practice and
it must not be the norm that where an employee is forced/compelled
to enforce his fundamental rights in Court, the employer must
intimidate him with terminating his employment.
“As far as this Court is concerned, in the absence of evidence
that Claimant collected a staff loan from the 1st Defendant which
warranted the deduction of 50% of his salary, such allegations in
Defendants’ pleadings are fictitious, imaginary and imageries which
only exist in the subconscious mind of the Defendants, and I so
hold.”
The Presiding Judge, Calabar Judicial division of the National
Industrial Court, His Lordship, Hon. Justice M. N. Esowe has
declared the appointment termination of Mr Innocent Iroegbu with
the Bank of Agriculture Ltd as wrongful.
Justice Esowe ordered Bank of Agriculture Ltd to pay Mr Innocent
the sum of N3,000,000.00 as damages, N1,007,275.44 (One Million
Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy-Five Naira Forty Four Kobo)
as salaries for April, May 2011 and allowances.
The Court held that the act of the firm in terminating the
employment of Innocent at a time he gave them notice of legal
action is not coincidental but a ploy to gaggle him which is wrong
and unjust.
From facts, the claimant –Mr. Innocent had submitted that in
December 2010, he received a query on the allegation over unpaid
loan disbursed, responded to the said query and denied the
allegation.
Further that after series of engagement, a letter of indefinite
suspension was served on him and also ordered that his salary
should not be paid.
Four months after recalling from suspension, a letter was sent
to him to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken
against him regarding his inability to recover all the loans
disbursed and was also referred to the disciplinary committee, then
after his appearance before the disciplinary committee, he was
absolved and started receiving his full salary.
However, in May 2012, he received a letter directing the
deduction of 50% of his monthly salary, that when he protested and
issued a notice of legal action dated 18th June 2012 against the
firm, he got a letter dated 3rd July 2012 terminating his
employment.
Counsel to the claimant, Kemka Gbasam Esq. submitted that given
the nature of Mr. Innocent employment, the way and manner his
employment was terminated is wrongful, unconstitutional; urged the
Court to order the reinstatement of his client.
In defence, the defendants submitted that the submission that
claimant was absolved from the allegation only exists in his
imagination that the reason for the termination of the appointment
of the Claimant as stated in the letter is “services are no longer
required by the Bank” that the suit of bordering on all the
allegations by the Claimant linking his termination to same is
self-serving, speculative and misleading.
Learned Counsel to the defendants Effiom Ayi Esq. submitted that
Claimant’s employment was rightly and justly terminated and
Claimant has not been able to prove anything to the contrary, urged
the Court to dismiss this case for being un-meritorious and lacking
in merit.
Delivering judgment, the presiding Judge, Justice Esowe held
that no evidence before the court that the 1st Defendant’s- BOA Ltd
Employee Handbook was made pursuant to any Law/Act by which the
firm was established, and nowhere in his letter of employment where
it was stated that claimant’s employment would be regulated by the
Public Service Rules.
“In as much as the 1st Defendant has the power to hire and fire
with or without reason, the statement “services no longer required”
is not a statement to be used for someone who has put in more than
ten years of his life into the services of the bank.
“Therefore, if the reason for the termination of the employment
of the Claimant who has worked with the firm for over 10 years is
that his services were no longer required, this Court is of the
view that other words of encouragement and accolades would have
sufficed in place of the words services no longer required,
especially given the years of labour the Claimant has put into the
1st Defendant’s bank.
“This is also coupled with the fact that the time his services
were no longer needed was when he had served the Defendants a legal
notice to challenge the deductions in his monthly salary. This also
is worthy of condemnation for it is not a fair labour practice and
it must not be the norm that where an employee is forced/compelled
to enforce his fundamental rights in Court, the employer must
intimidate him with terminating his employment.
“As far as this Court is concerned, in the absence of evidence
that Claimant collected a staff loan from the 1st Defendant which
warranted the deduction of 50% of his salary, such allegations in
Defendants’ pleadings are fictitious, imaginary and imageries which
only exist in the subconscious mind of the Defendants, and I so
hold.”