The Hon. Justice Ibrahim Galadima, now of the Lagos Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court has dismissed the suit filed by Mr. Samuel Ezi, against Tecon Oil Service Limited for failing to sustain the alleged entitlement to terminal claims.

The Court held that Mr. Samuel Ezi’s evidence suggesting that he was informed by a staff of the HR department that the terms and conditions of service for senior staff were incorporated into his letter of employment is an inadmissible and hearsay evidence.

From facts, the claimant- Mr. Samuel Ezi had submitted that he was employed as Group Finance and Administrative Manager on 5/5/2002, and he worked in that capacity until 1/2/2016 when his employment was terminated by the Oil firm.

Mr. Ezi averred that as per the conditions of service for senior staff in the firm, he is entitled to the sum of N33,614,424.00 not the sum of N8,000,000.00 already paid by the firm and all effort to get his balance of N25,614,424.00 proved abortive.

In its defense, the defendant – Tecon Oil Service Ltd maintained that Mr. Ezi was paid his terminal benefits as calculated by the company’s account department on the basis of the contents of his letter of employment, and averred that the suit is merely vexatious, gold-digging and unjust and must be dismissed in the interest of justice.

The defendant’s counsel, Callistus Uriem, submitted that Mr. Ezi does not fall within the category of persons eligible to benefit from the conditions of service for senior staff since he was a member of the management staff and so lacks any locus standi to institute the suit.

Meanwhile, Mr. Ezi’s counsel, M.U. Ejuwa, had argued that the company’s witness could not prove that his client was only entitled to the sum of N8,000,000.00 and so he did not provide any template or documentary proof in support of his assertion.

Delivering the judgment after careful evaluation of the submissions of both parties, the presiding judge, Justice Ibrahim Galadima, dismissed the suit against Tecon Oil in the interest of justice.

Justice Galadima however ordered the firm to pay Mr. Ezi a month’s salary in lieu of the notice of termination if that had not been paid already, as his employment was terminated by the oil firm. He is entitled to have been given a month’s notice before the said termination or be paid a month’s salary in lieu of the termination.

“There is no gainsaying that this evidence is in the least, self-defeatist as it goes a long way to emasculate the case of the claimant. It is clear that the claimant is not a member of the association (i.e. PENGASSAN), the body contemplated in the conditions of service for senior staff. It is thus baffling why he seeks to benefit from enforcing the provisions of the said agreement in computing his terminal benefits vide formulae contained in those documents. This seems like a desperate venture on his part.” The Court ruled