Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS BEFORE HER LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE O.A. OBASEKI-OSAGHAE DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 2016 SUITNO: NICN/LA/497/2012 BETWEEN MRS. ISSEY CELESTINA AKINLOLU-OJO - CLAIMANT AND UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA - DEFENDANT REPRESENTATION J.O. Ogunwale for claimant. M.E. Esonanjor, with P.O. Ndukwu for defendant. JUDGMENT The claimant filed this complaint on the 27th September 2012 against the defendant. By an amended complaint and amended accompanying processes filed on the 2nd April 2013, the claimant is seeking the following reliefs against the defendant: SPECIAL DAMAGES i) The sum of N1,739,632,14k (One Million, Seven Hundred and Thirty-Nine Thousand, Six Hundred and Thirty -Two Naira, Fourteen Kobo), being three (3) months’ salary in lieu of notice that would have been paid the claimant by the defendant, if claimant’s employment had been properly terminated in line with the defendant’s policy. ii) 22% interest rate per annum on the aforesaid three (3) months’ salary in lieu of notice from the date of filing this suit until judgment is delivered and 10% (percent) post judgment interest rate until the sum is liquidated. iii) The sum of N80,256.87k (Eighty Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty-Six Naira, Eighty-Seven Kobo) wrongly debited from the claimant’s account under the SSIT loan scheme. iv) 22% interest rate per annum on the aforesaid sum from the date of filing this suit until judgment is delivered and 10% (percent) post judgment interest rate until the sum is liquidated. v) The sum of NI20,000,000,.00 (One Hundred and Twenty Million Naira) only, being loss of income for l5 years, if claimant had remained in the employment of the defendant on a monthly salary of N579,877.38k ( Five Hundred and Seventy Nine Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seventy Seven Naira, Thirty -Eight Kobo). GENERAL DAMAGES vi) The claimant’s claim is for the sum of N120,000,000.00 (One Hundred and Twenty Million Naira) only being damages for unlawful termination of employment, loss of earnings, damages for compelling/forcing the claimant to resign from her job against her will despite her meritorious performance on the job. vii) The sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) only, being the cost of instituting and prosecuting this suit The defendant filed an amended statement of defence together with the accompanying processes on the 28th June 2013. The parties joined issues and the matter went to trial. The claimant’s case on the pleadings is that she joined the services of the defendant on the 4th of November 1999 as Assistant Manager in the Management Services Department and served in different units and in different capacities and was last promoted on the 17th of November, 2006. She averred that she held the position of Business Manager of the defendant Bank and served the defendant meritoriously up till 29th July 2011, when she was forced to resign without any reason. The claimant pleaded that on July 29th 2011 she was invited to the defendant’s Regional Office in Benin City where the Regional Bank Head and Regional Director, informed her of Management’s Decision that she put in her resignation without any reason or query or an opportunity to be heard if there was any allegation against her. The claimant averred that she was shocked at the request as she had in the same quarter single handedly earned the bank a N5,900,000,000 (Five Billion, Nine Hundred Thousand Naira) N.D.D.C contract account and executed the customer’s request for an APG of 15% of the total sum. She averred that she brought in several large accounts for the defendant. The claimant pleaded that the defendant started withholding her salary from the Month of April 2011, a trend which continued even after winning the NDDC contract and executing the APG for the same in the month of June that her salaries were withheld/seized. That without any justification she was denied access to the account she maintained with the defendant bank and her June and July salaries were seized. The claimant pleaded that the defendant placed a lien on her personal account without any justification which prompted her to write a letter of protest in August 2011 and that till date no explanations were proffered to her nor was she issued with any query. She pleaded that she was not involved in any fraudulent act or activities to warrant the decision of the defendant to request her to compulsorily resign from her job. That at the time she was compelled to resign, she was looking forward to a promotion/commendation as she had not been promoted in five (5) years preceding her forced resignation. The claimant pleaded that sometime in 2010, due to undue harassment, victimization and threats from her Regional Head and the Deputy Managing Director (Southern Region) she tendered a resignation letter which was not accepted nor processed on account of her loyalty, dedication and proven track record of excellence, hard work, integrity and commitment to the defendant. The then Regional Bank Head - Mr. Feyi Ogoji refused to process her voluntary resignation. The claimant averred that at the time she was transferred to head the Akpakpava Business office, it was in a state of persistent loss making for two (2) years prior to her posting and that, she turned the fortunes of the Business office around to profit making within a half year budget of one hundred and forty percent (140%). She averred that the defendant had sometime in 2007, posted her to head the Ikpoba Hill II Business office which was in a state of consistent loss making and she improved the deposit base by over a hundred percent (100%) and moved the business office to profit making position. That she believed she would be promoted as the Regional Director openly commended her hard work. The claimant pleaded that some time in December 2007, she obtained the Staff Shares Investment Trust (SSIT) Loan from the defendant, in order to invest in the defendant Bank’s shares, to the tune of N2,026,053k (Two Million, Twenty Six Naira, Fifty -Three Kobo), with an arrangement to repay the loan from her monthly salaries at an interest rate of 3% (three percent) per annum and at a refund rate of 5% upon liquidation of the loan. That the amount was invested in the defendant’s shares and she was not issued a share certificate. She averred that the loan was consistently debited from her account on a monthly basis, irrespective of whether the defendant paid her monthly salary or not. She took another Staff Share Investment Trust loan to the tune of Nl,941,809.35 (One Million, Nine Hundred and Forty-One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Nine Naira, Thirty-five Kobo) with the same terms and conditions and she was again not issued a share certificate to evidence her investment of the total sum of N3,967,862.35 (Three Million, Nine Hundred and Sixty Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Sixty Two Naira, Thirty Five Kobo) into the Bank for over 5 years. She averred that her account was consistently in debit. The claimant averred that the total amount which the defendant debited from her account and the interest charged on the SSIT loans amounted to the sum of N80,256.87k (Eighty Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty -Six Naira, Eighty-Seven Kobo). She stated that the defendant debited the total sum of N2,423,434.85 (Two Million, Four Hundred and Twenty Three Thousand, Four Hundred and Thirty-Four Naira, Eighty-Five Kobo), on the first investment of N2,026,053 (Two Million, Twenty-Six Naira, Fifty-Three Kobo). While on the second investment of N1,941,809.35 (One Million, Nine Hundred and Forty- One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Nine Naira, Thirty-Five Kobo), the total debit was the sum of N1,946,087.63 (One Million, Nine Hundred and Forty-Six Thousand, Eighty-Seven Naira, Sixty-Three Kobo). That sometime ago, the defendant by e¬mail informed her that her investment had yielded 25,000 (Twenty Five Thousand) units of bonus shares, without any share certificate to that effect. On the 24th of November 2012, she obtained her statement of account and discovered that while this suit was pending, the defendant had credited her account with the actual amount she invested in the SSIT Loan Scheme without the value of the bonus share issue and less the 5% refund rate, as agreed between the parties. She pleaded that at the time she invested the sum of N3,967,862.35 (Three Million, Nine Hundred and Sixty Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Sixty Two Naira, Thirty Five Kobo. into the Bank’s shares, each unit of UBA shares was sold at N44.00 at the Capital Market. That she had spent her life and had at the expense of her health and marriage, served the defendant meritoriously and that after her forced resignation, the defendant refused and neglected to avail her the information of the breakdown and how much she was entitled to as severance pay, despite repeated demands. She pleaded that there is no provision in the defendant’s staff handbook that allows an employee to be forced to resign against his/her will; and that the defendant did not comply with the staff handbook when it forced her to resign against her will. She pleaded that the defendant did not give her the mandatory three months notice nor pay her three months’ salary in lieu of notice, which would have amounted to the sum of NI,739,632,14 (One Million, Seven Hundred and Thirty- Nine Thousand, Six Hundred and Thirty Two Naira, Fourteen Kobo). She stated that the defendant ignored her letters of protests, which prompted her to brief her Solicitors who wrote the defendant and its principal officers. The claimant avers that at no time did she have any problems with any of her colleagues or co-staff at work, to warrant the kind of treatment meted out to her by the defendants, save for the Deputy Managing Director (Mr. Victor Osadolor) of the defendant (Southern Region) together with the Regional Director (Joan Abolo) who were consistently putting her under pressure. She averred that she has suffered untold embarrassment due to the mean and inhuman treatment meted to her. That the damages suffered by her are unquantifiable as the impression the defendant by its actions has created, is that she was laid off as a result of fraud while she was in their employment. She averred that this has dented her reputation and caused her unquantifiable damage having to clear insinuations from family, friends, associates and customers of the defendant. That the defendant has failed, refused to correct the wrong impression created and she has suffered untold hardship due to defendants’ infringement on her right to work, as she still had about fifteen (15) years ahead of her to work, till her retirement. The claimant (CW1) testified and called two other witnesses Pastor Emmanuel Chiazor (CW2) and Wilfred Chilaka Uchechi (CW3) in support of her case. Their evidence in chief was by their statements on oath which they each identified and adopted. The claimant’s statement on oath was in the exact terms of the pleadings. Under cross-examination, the claimant told the court that the defendant terminated her appointment orally. She said that she was orally directed to write a letter of resignation and she did so unwillingly. The claimant told the court that the Human Resources officer and two other officers asked her to put in a letter of resignation. She stated that her letter of employment is her contract with the defendant. She admitted that in year 2010 she voluntarily put in her letter of resignation due to intimidation and pressure but it was not accepted. CW1 agreed that when an employee resigns, he or she is not entitled to salary in lieu of notice. She admitted that she has been paid her salaries and that her account was credited with N8,742,708.50. She said she had been paid her terminal benefits and two months salary. She said the defendant does not owe her gratuity, exit pay and leave encashment. The claimant told the court that the two credit entries in her account on 24/10/2012 do not represent proceeds from the sale of her SSIT shares and that she has a claim on the SSIT debit and not on the shares. She explained that there are interest charges on debit balances and that N80,256.87 represented interest and debit charges on her loan account. She said that she was not dismissed or given a letter of termination. On being re-examined, she told the court that her benefits were paid after she resigned. CW2 under cross-examination told the court that he left the employment of the defendant at the time the claimant was still in the services of the defendant. He said he heard about the claimant’s performance and that he has facts to buttress his opinion that she is a miracle worker. He agreed that an employee’s duty to her employer is not a miracle. CW3 under cross-examination told the court that he was not in the defendant’s employment when the claimant resigned. He said he left the defendant’s employment in 2011. CW3 admitted that when he was in the defendant’s employment, the claimant never reported to him. He told the court that she was not rewarded for targets she met and that he had no evidence of the defendant’s commendation. CW3 said he was aware that the claimant was asked to resign but that he was no longer in the defendant’s services when she was asked to resign. The claimant then closed her case. The case of the defendant on the pleadings is that the claimant voluntarily resigned her employment and this was accepted. Her salary up to July 29, 2011 and all the entitlements due to her were credited to the claimant’s account No.1001452531 with the defendant. The defendant averred that the claimant has withdrawn from her account on September 2, 2011 the terminal benefits paid to her by the defendant, appropriated same to her use and benefit and that the breakdown of her entitlement were communicated to her. The defendant averred that in line with the exit clearance of the claimant, a lien was placed on her salary account to enable her severance payment to be posted as required and thereafter released to her as a personal account. The defendant averred that the claimant has full access to her account and withdrew her severance pay precisely on the 2nd of September 2011. That the claimant’s salary for April 2011 and all other monthly salaries due to the claimant prior to her exit from the service of the defendant was paid to her and she has full access to the account she operates in the bank. The defendant pleaded that the claimant’s entitlement as at July 29, 2011 when she voluntarily resigned her employment was N8,782,029.83, that her current account debit balance was N39,321.33 which was netted off from the sum of N8,782,029.83 leaving the balance sum of N8,742,708.50 that was credited to her account. The defendant pleaded that it never forced the claimant to resign her employment and that she is not entitled by any term in her contract of employment to either three (3) months’ notice or three (3) months’ salary in-lieu of notice upon resignation of her employment. The defendant stated that business generation and the attendant profitability in the defendant is a collective thing and no single individual can legitimately ascribe to herself the profitability attained by the defendant as an institution in any given period of time. The defendant averred that the claimant never obtained the Staff Share Investment Trust (SSIT) loan in 2007; that the claimant applied for SSIT shares during the January 2008 and June 2009 windows and share loans were booked for the two purchases as follows: Account No: TSO99900008205- N1,854,000.00; Account No: TSO99900002151: N2,320,000.00. That it was a term of the transaction that on a monthly basis staff that have the SSIT loan including the claimant will be debited with both principal and interest at 3%. That on account TSO99900008205 at the point of liquidation of the claimant’s SSIT Portfolio the principal and interest was the sum of N1,977,723.90 out of which the claimant effected payment overtime of the sum of N1,329,235.20 leaving a debit balance of N648,488.67. That on account TSO99900002151 the claimant at the point of liquidation had paid off both principal and interest in cumulative sum of N2,428,884.80. The defendant pleaded that on October 24, 2012 the sums of N2,026,053.21 and N1,941,809.35 being the sums due to the claimant on the liquidation of her shares under the SSIT scheme was credited to her account No. 1001452531 with the defendant. That the claimant took benefit of the sums credited to her account on the liquidation of the SSIT share scheme as it relates to her and has withdrawn the entire sum. The defendant averred that it never stated that a staff who subscribed to the trust will be issued any share certificate in respect thereof. That the shares in respect of the SSIT scheme were allotted from a pool and when a staff exits the bank the shares are pulled back into the pool. The defendant pleaded that the claimant’s account was credited with her accrual on the SSIT shares and the shares were pulled back to the pool on her exit. It averred that she knew she was not entitled to any share certificate on the SSIT share in line with the policy on the SSIT shares, she never raised any issue on share certificate and had in fact taken benefit of the payments made to her by the defendant on the SSIT shares. The defendant averred that all deductions and interest on the claimant’s account in respect of SSIT shares/loans were in line with the terms and conditions of the SSIT loan that she obtained. That it never promised or agreed with the claimant that upon her exit and pull back of the shares into the pool, she will be entitled to a refund at a rate of 5%. The defendant averred that it was not aware that the claimant was rushed from its office in Benin City sometime in 2003 to the hospital and if she travelled abroad for medical care it is a privilege as there abound in Nigeria several good hospitals and medical personnel. The defendant averred that it never treated the claimant in any way that is callous, mean or wicked and never caused any embarrassment to her nor infringed on her right to work or caused her any damage. The defendant called one witness Mrs Enobong Egere (DW) Team Lead Industrial Relations Department. Her evidence in chief was by witness statement on oath which she identified and adopted. It was in terms of the pleadings. Under cross-examination, DW told the court that the claimant voluntarily resigned her appointment and that she was not forced to. DW told the court that deductions from the claimant’s account were in respect of the SSIT share loan which she obtained in 2007. DW told the court that the claimant could not withdraw money from her account because there was a lien placed on it. She explained that when an employee leaves the bank, an exit clearance is issued. The bank reserves the right to place a lien on the account which is then lifted when the exit clearance is completed. DW said she could not remember how long the lien was in place. She told the court that in the SSIT scheme, no staff is entitled to share certificates; that the claimant was entitled to the value of the Shares at her exit. The defendant then closed its case. The parties thereafter filed their final addresses. The defendant’s final address is dated 5th August 2015 and is filed the same day. The claimant’s final address is dated 25th August 2015 and filed the same day. Learned counsel adopted their final addresses in support of their respective cases. Learned counsel to the defendant submitted one issue for determination as follows: Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs claimed against the defendant. He submitted that the onus is on the claimant to prove her claims citing Section 131 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act 2011, Ukaegbu v Nwololo [2009] 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194, Agballah v Chime [2009] 1 NWLR (Pt. 1122) 373. He further submitted that evidence led must be in support of the reliefs sought in the amended statement of facts. That where evidence is led in respect of fact not pleaded or where evidence is not supportive of the reliefs claimed, that piece of evidence goes to no issue and should be disregarded citing CBN v Dineh [2010] 17 NWLR (Pt. 1221) 125 at 161, Amadi v Chinda [2009] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148). He further submitted that the particulars of the special damages being claimed by the claimant were not set out in the amended statement of facts and have not been be strictly proved as required by law. He cited UBN v Ajabule [2011] 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 122 at 174, Cameroon Airlines V Otutuizu [2011] 4 NWLR (Pt. 1238) 512 at 544. He argued that there is no evidence of the claimant’s emoluments or, no evidence that she was forced to resign her job or that she is entitled to payment of salary in lieu of notice. Learned counsel submitted that claimant did not tender in evidence her letter of employment and did not lead evidence as to the content of her letter of employment. That it is incumbent on the claimant to prove the contents/terms of her engagement as an employee and to also establish by evidence the ways and manner there has been an infraction of the terms by the defendant. Learned counsel submitted that claims for salaries, emoluments, allowances and other benefits are in the nature of special damages for which strict proof is required citing Alao V Unilorin [2008] 1 NWLR (Pt. 1069) 421. He argued that evidence in proof of the allegation of wrong debit of N80,256.87k (Eighty Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty Six Naira, Eighty Seven Kobo) from the claimant’s account under the SSIT loan scheme was completely lacking. As it relates to the claim for the sum of N120,000,000:00 (One Hundred and Twenty Million Naira) being loss of income for 15 years, he submitted that the claimant has ceased to be an employee of the defendant since July 29, 2011 and she has failed to prove that there was a termination or a wrongful termination of her employment as alleged in her amended statement of facts. He submitted that the claim for general damages is without any basis citing U.I.C. LTD V T.A. Hammond (Nig.) Ltd [1998] 9 NWLR (PT 565) 340 at 367, Gambo V Ikechukwu [2011] 17 NWLR (PT 1277) 361. It was his contention that the claimant is not entitled to payment of either pre-judgment or post judgment interest citing Kurt Severinsen V Emerging Markets Telecommunication Services Limited [2012] 27 NLLR (PT 78) 374. He finally submitted that the claimant has failed to prove each of her claims. He then urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s case in its entirety. Learned counsel to the claimant submitted the following issues for determination: 1. Whether the claimant voluntarily resigned from the service of the defendant. 2. Whether the defendant does not make unauthorized deduction from the final entitlement of the claimant. 3. Whether fact that is within the knowledge of the both parties, needs not to be further proved. 4. Whether the defendant lied on oath. He argued that the claimant did not resign her appointment voluntarily and that the defendant told lies in the statement on oath. He referred to Section 125 of the Evidence Act 2011 that all facts, except the contents of documents may be proved by oral evidence and the case of Ogu v. M.I.&M.C.S. Ltd [2011] 8 NWLR (Pt. 1249)345. That on account T5099900008205 the defendant has admitted that what was deducted was different from what it deposed to as debit balance. He urged the court to invoke the provision of the Statute Of Fraud 1677 referred to Terrance v Bolton [1872] LR EQ 124. He argued that the evidence shows that a lien was placed on the claimant’s personal account which put her under serious suffering entitling her to special and general damages. He urged the court to expunge false depositions of the defendant witness and to invoke the Section 147 of the Evidence Act 2011. He finally urged the court to enter judgement in favour of the claimant. I have carefully considered the processes filed, the evidence of the witnesses, written submissions and authorities cited. The issues for determination are: (i) whether the claimant’s employment was unlawfully terminated; (ii) whether on the pleadings and evidence the claimant is entitled to the reliefs she is seeking. The claimant as required by law has placed before the court all the required component pieces of evidence relating to her appointment, status, service details and the applicable operative staff conditions of service. The law is settled that the burden of proof in a civil suit is primarily on the party who wants judgement to be entered in his/her favour. See Sections 131(1), 133(1) of the Evidence Act, Elegushi v Oseni [2005] 14 NWLR (Pt 945) 348. Civil suits are decided on the balance of probabilities, on the preponderance of evidence. Once a party asserts he/she must prove the assertion. The burden of proof is not static but shifts from side to side. The onus of adducing further evidence is on the person who will fail if such evidence is not adduced. See Nigeria Maritime Services Ltd v Afolabi [1978] 2 SC 79, Fadalallah v Arewa Textile Ltd [1997] 8NWLR (Pt 518) 546 at 556, SCC v Elemadu [2005] 7NWLR (Pt 923) 28. The claimant has complained that the defendant wrongly terminated her appointment. That she was forced/compelled to tender her letter of resignation. Her letter of resignation is reproduced as follows: 29th July 2011 The Head HCM UBA Plc 57 Marina, Lagos. Dear Sir/Madam LETTER OF RESIGNATION Pursuant to the meeting I had with the bank’s representative intimating me of the banks decision that I leave/resign my employment with the bank, I hereby state even as I tender my resignation reluctantly; • That I have served the bank for the past 11 years and 9 months without record of fraud; • That I have performed assigned task with dexterity and humbleness of heart which endeared many to the bank and continues to till date; • That I was appraised through an automated system that is incapable of assessing fairly the input of an individual; • That upon being assigned the responsibility of Business Manager, I have by the grace of God, moved the BO(s) from negative position to profit making with records to prove. In all of this, I stand ready to contribute to the growth of UBA Plc whenever given the opportunity in future. While thanking God for this priviledge, I wish to thank management for the opportunity to serve these years and wish the bank the best in its future endeavour. Yours Faithfully, Issey Celestina Akinlolu-Ojo. From the 1st paragraph of the claimant’s resignation letter, it is clear that she did not write the letter of her own free will but as a result of the directives of the defendant’s representative. There is no evidence before the court that the claimant infracted any term of her employment contract or that she was found wanting on her job as Business Manager. Rather, the claimant’s evidence of bringing in large accounts to the defendant bank is unchallenged. Her statement “I tender my resignation reluctantly” is very instructive in this regard. The defendant’s conduct in sending its officers to orally tell the claimant to leave/resign without any reason is a clear case of constructive dismissal. I find it to be an unwarranted harassment and humiliation of the claimant without any reasonable cause. On the balance of probabilities and preponderance of evidence, the only proper conclusion to arrive at in light of the evidence of withholding of the claimant’s April and June salaries without an explanation while she was still in service, is that the claimant was intimidated and harassed into tendering a letter of resignation. I find the manner the resignation letter was obtained from the claimant to be harassment and a naked exhibition of power. At this juncture, I must state that there is no room for unwarranted harassment and humiliation of any employee in the workplace. Section 34 (1) (a) of the 1999 Constitution makes provision for the dignity of person for every citizen. Furthermore, the defendant’s letter (Exhibit CAO1) to the claimant acknowledging the letter of resignation is dated July 7, 2011. This is earlier in time than the claimant’s letter of resignation dated 29th July 2011. It is an indication that the defendant had decided as at July 7, 2011 to do away with the services of the claimant and had prepared its letter of acknowledgement in advance. I find that the letter of resignation the defendant obtained from the claimant was not voluntary. I am satisfied that the conduct of the defendant bank amounts to a repudiation of the claimant’s contract of employment. I therefore hold that the defendant wrongfully terminated the claimant’s employment contract. Having found that the claimant’s employment was wrongfully terminated, she is entitled to salary in lieu of notice. Clause 8.4.2 of defendant’s handbook stipulates three months basic salary in lieu of notice for Managerial staff. The claimant was promoted to Deputy Manager with effect from November 01, 2006. The defendant by its letter dated 16th March 2012 (Exhibit C8) to the claimant’s Solicitors has stated that the sum of N1,313,496.56 labeled as salary in Exhibit CAO1 represents the claimant’s salaries for the months of June and July 2011. The claimant’s salary for one month is therefore N656,748.28 (Six Hundred and Fifty Six Thousand, Seven Hundred and Forty Eight Naira, Twenty Eight Kobo) and for three months N1,970,244.84. However, the claimant has made a claim for the sum of N1,739,632.14 (One Million, Seven Hundred and Thirty-Nine Thousand, Six Hundred and Thirty Two Naira, Fourteen Kobo) being three months salary in lieu of notice. Consequently, the defendant is ordered to pay the sum of N1,739,632.14 (One Million, Seven Hundred and Thirty-Nine Thousand, Six Hundred and Thirty Two Naira, Fourteen Kobo) being three months salary in lieu of notice to the claimant. This sum shall attract 22% interest per annum from the date of this judgement. On the claim for damages, there is no doubt that a sudden and abrupt disengagement of a bank employee gives the impression that the employee is involved in questionable financial dealings, fraud and/or gross misconduct. There is no evidence the claimant was involved in such. I find that the claimant was forced and humiliated into writing a letter of resignation when she had no such intention having done nothing wrong. She has been injured by the conduct of the defendant. Her integrity, pride, dignity and sense of self worth have been affected by the wrongful action of the defendant. She is entitled to an award of general damages pursuant to the provisions of section 19 (d) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006. Consequently, I award the claimant general damages in the sum of N7,880,979.36 (Seven Million, Eight Hundred and Eighty Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy Nine Naira, Thirty Six kobo) being the equivalent of one year (12 months) salary for harassment and humiliation in the work place. The claimant has admitted under cross-examination that the sum of N80,256.87 which she is claiming are charges on her loan account and that it represents interest and debit charges. She failed to adduce any proof that she was wrongly debited. This claim therefore fails. The claimant has also put in a claim for N120,000,000 ( One hundred and Twenty Million Naira) for loss of income for fifteen years which she would have earned in the defendants employment. The claimant is not guaranteed security of tenure in the defendant’s employment; neither does she have a fixed term contract of employment as either party may lawfully bring the employment contract to an end at any time. This claim also fails. For the avoidance of doubt, I hereby make the following orders: 1) The defendant is to pay the claimant the sum of N1,739,632.14k (One Million, Seven Hundred and Thirty-Nine Thousand, Six Hundred and Thirty Two Naira, Fourteen Kobo) being three months salary in lieu of notice. The sum shall attract 22% interest per annum from the date of this judgement. 2) The defendant is to pay the claimant the sum of N7,880,979.36 (Seven Million, Eight Hundred and Eighty Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy Nine Naira, Thirty Six kobo) as damages for harassment and humiliation in the work place. 3) Costs of N100,000 to be paid by the defendant. 4) All sums to be paid within 30 days. Judgement is entered accordingly. _____________________________ Hon Justice O.A.Obaseki-Osaghae