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.”