Download PDF
By her General Form of Complaint dated and filed on 24th May, 2012 the claimant seeks the following reliefs: (a) A declaration that the termination of the claimant’s employment with the defendant for the reasons stated in the letter of termination dated 6th February, 2009 is in violation of the claimant’s right to fair hearing. (b) A declaration that the termination of the claimant’s appointment was wrongful. (c) Damages in the sum of N50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) for wrongful termination of employment and the consequential implication and effect on the claimant’s banking career on the alleged reason of fraudulent conduct which the defendant gave for the wrongful termination. Filed along with the Complaint are Statement of Facts, Claimant’s List of Documents and documents attached thereto. In defence, the defendant filed a Statement of Defence, Defendant’s List of Witness, Statement of Witness on Oath and List of Documents dated 11th October, 2012 and filed on 12th October, 2012. The case of the claimant is that she was an employee of the defendant between March, 2007 and 6th February, 2009. That she is 39 years old with Masters Degree in Public Administration from the University of Lagos and had since 1995 been developing a career in her preferred field of banking having served in Union Bank and United Bank for Africa before joining the defendant. She pleaded that prior to this suit she had previously instituted it on 26th May, 2009 as Suit No. LD/833/09 between her and Oceanic Bank International Plc but had discontinued it before that court and filed it afresh before this court following the enactment of Constitution (Third Alteration) Act, 2010. That she was employed as Assistant Officer 1 on the 8th of March, 2007. That shockingly on 6th February, 2009 the defendant repudiated the contract of employment by purporting to terminate it for the alleged reason of “fraudulent conduct in falsifying” her remuneration package from per previous employer. She pleaded that notwithstanding the criminal and grievous nature of the reason adduced for the termination, she was never notified of the accusation against her nor given the opportunity to defend herself prior to the decision conveyed to her by the defendant’s letter of 6th February, 2009. That the defendant acted in the manner complained of knowing fully well but not caring a hoot about the fact that by purporting to terminate her employment for alleged fraudulent conduct it was not only ending her career in its own bank but in the banking industry in general by reason of Central Bank of Nigeria regulation and general custom of Nigeria Banking Industry prohibiting any bank or financial institution from employing anybody whose previous employment in the industry was terminated for reasons associated with fraud. She further pleaded that she never engaged in any fraudulent conduct in obtaining her employment with the defendant and upon receiving and reading through the letter of termination as though it was mistakenly written to her, hence she took steps to find out through the bank’s rumour null the particulars of the fraudulent falsification she allegedly committed and to the office of the defendant’s Managing Director the baselessness of what she was thereby able to garner as particulars. That in her said letter of 17th February, 2012 she referred the defendant to all the documents she furnished in support of her application for employment to the defendant none of which to her knowledge was falsified. That the defendant maintained its stance by restating in a letter dated 13th March, 2009 that the available evidence does not substantiate her innocence. That she is up till now completely in the dark on the alleged available evidence which the defendant has up till now failed to make known to her or confront her with for her own explanation before the conclusion conveyed to her in the letter of termination that she had been found guilty of fraudulent conduct in falsifying her remuneration package from her previous employer. That it became clear to her that the defendant was not going to be persuaded to consider and withdraw its said letter of termination and reinstate her then she caused her Solicitors – Citipoint Chambers to inform the defendant by a letter dated 15th April, 2009 of her decision to drop her previous appeal for reinstatement into the service of an apparently unwilling employer but to demand a retraction of the baseless charge of fraud against her in the letter terminating her employment. That the defendant has up till date refused to heed the demand or otherwise respond thereto. She pleaded that despite her best effort she has since her said termination by the defendant been unable to obtain another employment even in the non-financial services sector as she has been unable to find an employer willing to employ her in the circumstance of the termination of her employment by the defendant. That by reason of the matter set out above she has suffered loss and damage, which include loss of opportunity to obtain further employment not only in her preferred banking and financial services sector, but with any employer in any other sector of the economy, unwarranted criminalization and stigmatization as a fraudster in reckless disregard of the due process of law and the consequential inconvenience, mental stress, torture and anxiety. The claimant thereafter repeated her claims. In reaction, the defendant denied paragraphs 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Statement of Fact. The defendant pleaded that the claimant applied to the defendant bank for employment and submitted her curriculum vitae and in the said curriculum vitae the claimant stated that she was working with United Bank for Africa Plc (UBA) as Representative Officer. That it was not stated in the claimant’s curriculum vitae that the claimant was an employee of or had worked with Tripple Edge Nigeria Limited. It pleaded the claimant’s curriculum vitae. That the defendant invited the claimant for an interview where she informed the defendant’s representatives that she was an employee of UBA with an annual salary of N1,200,000.00 (One Million, Two Hundred Thousand Naira) and pleaded claimant’s Interview Rating Sheets. That based on the representations made by the claimant to the defendant she was employed as an experienced banker and was offered the position of “Assistant Officer 1” at an annual salary of N2,062,500.00 (Two Million, Sixty Two Thousand and Five Hundred Naira). It pleaded a letter dated March, 2007. That after the claimant’s acceptance of her employment she underwent routine documentation process at the defendant’s Human Resources Department whereat she completed Personnel Record Form. That it was in Personnel Record Form that the claimant stated for the first time that her immediate past employer to be “United Bank for African Plc (under Tripple Edge)” with an annual salary of N350,000.00 (Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira), the facts of which were supplied by the claimant after she was employed by the defendant which were not disclosed at the interview. The defendant further pleaded that the inconsistencies in the information supplied to the defendant at the interview and information contained in the claimant’s Personnel Record Form prompted the defendant’s Human Resources Department to carry out series of investigations in this regard. That at the conclusion of those investigations, it was found out that the claimant was a “contract staff” with UBA and not an experienced banker as she claimed. That it was also found that the claimant’s annual salary at Tripple Edge, her employer was N420,000.00 (Four Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira) and not N1,200,000.00 (One Million, Two Hundred Thousand Naira). It relied on the internal memo dated 20th January, 2009. That the defendant referred the matter to its Control Group for further investigation who invited the claimant to defend the allegation of the disparities in the information supplied at the interview and the one contained in her Personnel Record Form. That after hearing from the claimant, the defendant’s Control Group recommended the claimant for disciplinary action in accordance with the defendant Human Resources Policy. The defendant relied on its Internal Memorandum dated 3rd February, 2009. That on 6th February, 2009 the defendant terminated the claimant’s employment in accordance with its Human Resources Policy. That by the claimant’s letter dated 17th February, 2009 the claimant appealed to the defendant to reconsider its position and reinstate her but after due consideration of the claimant’s appeal the defendant affirmed the termination of the claimant’s employment by its letter dated 13th March, 2009. The defendant further pleaded that due to the disparity in the information supplied by the claimant to the defendant and the one contained in the claimant’s Personnel Record Form and the then outgoing investigations by the defendant’s Human Resources Department, the defendant did not confirm the claimant’s employment. That the claimant was on probation throughout the duration of her employment to the defendant. The defendant finally pleaded that this suit is vexatious and frivolous. In her Reply to Statement of Defence, the claimant stated that paragraph 2 of the Statement of Defence is an attempt to misrepresent the truth and that her curriculum vitae was not the only document but just one of many other documents which the defendant obtained from her. That it is not in any case false that she was a Relationship Officer with UBA whereat she was identified for poaching by the defendant’s own officials for employment to work in defendant’s new branch at Adeniran Ogunsanya Branch and this was sequel to defendant’s discovery that she was the savings champion at the defendant’s rivals i.e. UBA Branch at 10 Abebe Village Road, Iganmu, Surulere, Lagos. That the insinuation that she concealed from the defendant the fact that her employment with UBA was a tripartite nature involving Tripple Edge Limited is belied by defendant’s request to Triple Edge Ltd for a reference letter on her to which the defendant obtained a response dated 21st July, 2008. The claimant further pleaded that what purport to be the first pages on the two sets of documents described in the defence as “claimant’s Interview Rating Sheets completed by interviewers at the interview” are later-day fabrications grafted to their second pages in dubious substitution for the actual first pages in the hands of the said interviewers. The claimant pleaded that the position of Assistant Officer 1 (AO1) at which she was employed is not a position for experienced banker and the reason stated in the letter dismissing her was that she fraudulently falsified her remuneration package from her previous employer not that she claimed a wrong employer. That the statement in the Internal Memo Ref. No. GG/EK/007/2009 of 20th January, 2009 as evidential document of the alleged fact that both oral and written statements were obtained from her in the course of investigating the strange allegation is false. That the same person that recommended her for dismissal without at all informing her of the allegation against her and taking her defence to the allegation was the same person that purportedly sat and made a decision on her appeal. That none of the two persons that interviewed her and to whom the defendant ascribed the authorship of the documents termed in the defence as “claimant’s Interview Rating Sheets completed by the interviewers at the interview” was interviewed at any stage of the so-called investigative process that culminated in her dismissal or re-affirmation of the dismissal. She stated that her employment letter stipulated a minimum of 9 months and a maximum of 12 months for confirmation of employment and that she was kept in the defendant’s employment for more than twenty months which was beyond the stipulated confirmation period that her employment was confirmed by conduct. Trial in this suit commenced on 10th December, 2012 with the claimant testifying in-chief as CW1. She adopted her statement on oath made on 19th September, 2012 and a further statement on oath made on 9th November, 2012. During cross-examination the CW1 maintained that she is a graduate of Sociology and has Masters Degree in Public Administration. That she did not write any aptitude test before she was employed by the defendant. That she was employed based on her banking experience and that she was never investigated about her previous employment before her employment was terminated on 6th February, 2009. She stated that she was never asked any question regarding her previous employment before she was terminated. That her immediate employer before she joined the defendant was Triple Edge and that she was not a member of staff of UBA before she joined the defendant. She agreed that the CV she submitted to the defendant did not state that Triple Edge was her previous employer. That it is true that she has not seen the document called Interview Rating and would not know how it looks. There was no re-examination. The claimant thereafter closed her case. The defendant opened its case by calling one Afolayan Olusoji Ebenezer who work in the Internal Audit of the defendant as a witness on oath made on 12/10/12 as his evidence-in-chief. Under cross-examination, the DW1 stated that he was employed on 12th July, 1999 by the then Oceanic Bank as an Assistant Officer and had not worked in any other bank before then. He stated that at that time that was not the entry level. That he does not have a personal interaction with the claimant and did not participate in the investigation that led to her dismissal. That all he stated in his statement on oath is based on the records of the claimant’s employment with the defendant. He denied knowledge of when the claimant submitted her CV to the defendant bank. That at the time the claimant was employed the lowest entry point was Professional in Training II followed by Professional in Training I and then Assistant Officer 1. That they do the bank work as professionals in training and they are equally posted to any department of the defendant. DW1 stated further that he was not employed as an experienced banker. That he is not aware that the claimant has Masters Degree. That he was told by his counsel that this suit was at the Lagos High Court. That from the claimant’s CV she had Masters Degree. That he does not know the handwriting of the person on the reverse page 33 where the signature is. The DW1 stated that the claimant told her interviewers of her previous salary and that he was not at the interview. That the salary package column is written N1.2m. He stated that document of page 66 is frontloaded by the defendant is the interview sheet of the claimant when she appeared at the interview and the salary package column is NIL. That in the said document before the court there is nothing to show in the interview sheet that the claimant said her salary was N1.2m. DW1 stated further that both contract and full time staff get the same level of experience. That from the look at the document p. 36 – 41 of the Reply of the claimant the said documents was signed at p. 41 by the claimant. That he could not remember when the claimant’s employment became effective and that he will not dispute it if he is told that it became effective on 30/4/2007. That every employee is expected to fill the form before starting to work in a bank and on page 39 the claimant disclosed that she was a staff of UBA under Triple Edge and the annual salary stated therein Post NYSC is N350,000.00. DW1 stated that he is unaware of the case at Lagos High Court and cannot speak on that. That page 44 is a letter of employment of the claimant from Triple Edge. That he does not know how the defendant came about the document tendered at the Lagos High Court. That on page 46 is a complete reference form for Triple Edge Nig. Ltd as regards the claimant. That the defendant requested for it from Triple Edge and from the records he cannot say whether the defendant wrote to Triple Edge. That he did not see the documents at the High Court before deposing to his statement and if he had seen it, it may make a difference to his witness statement on oath. That he has seen the document on page 49 of the Reply from his records which is entitled information dated 16th January, 2009 about 2 years after the personnel information confirmed which the claimant says she was from Triple Edge Ltd and the response to that email is dated 19th January, 2009. DW1 stated further that there is nothing in the record of the defendant to show that the claimant was queried or invited to explain herself as per the allegation. That Mr. Emeka Ofor and Frank Adetokunbo were not part of the Interview Panel that interviewed the claimant for the job. That it was on the basis of the investigation report that the defendant wrote the letter of termination. That none of the persons who interviewed the claimant were interviewed before coming to the report on page 72 neither were the reference persons invited to the committee. That after the claimant’s termination and the letter of appeal the defendant set up an Appeal Committee and the said Frank Adetokunbo that heard the appeal. That those who interviewed the claimant were not called. There was no re-examination. The defendant thereafter closed its case. Parties were ordered to file their respective Final Written Addresses in accordance with the provisions of Order 19 Rule 13 of the Rules of this court starting with the defendant. Defendant’s Final Written Address is dated 4/6/2013 while that of the claimant is dated 19/6/2013. Defendant’s counsel raised three issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether the claimant is entitled to a declaration that the termination of her employment with the defendant for the reason stated in her letter of termination dated 6th February, 2009 is in violation of the claimant’s right to fair hearing? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to a declaration that the termination of her employment with the defendant was wrongful; and 3. Whether the claimant is entitled to the sum of N50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) as damages? Arguing issue one, Learned Counsel submitted that the termination of the claimant’s employment for the reason stated in her letter of termination dated 6th February, 2009 did not violate the claimant’s right to fair hearing. That the reason for the termination came to fore as a result of the inconsistencies in the information supplied by the claimant during her interview prior to her employment by the defendant and those contained in the claimant’s Personnel Record Form that she completed after she was employed by the defendant. On the issue of fair hearing Learned Counsel referred the court to the deposition of the defendant contained in paragraph 9 of the statement on oath of DW1 to the effect that the claimant was invited by the Control Group to defend the allegation of disparities in the information supplied by the claimant at the interview and the one contained in her Personnel Record Form. That it was after the hearing that the Control Group recommended the claimant for disciplinary action. Counsel submitted that the fact that the claimant was given fair hearing can be seen from the defendant’s Internal Memorandum dated 20th January, 2009 report of the series of investigation by Human Resources Department and that the claimant neither denied nor rebutted by the claimant. He also referred to paragraph 9 of the claimant’s further statement on oath dated 9th November, 2012. That the claimant did not deny that her oral and written statements were obtained before her employment was terminated. He added that it was confirmed by the claimant’s letter dated 17th February, 2009 as well as an email dated 19th January, 2009 attached to the claimant’s Reply to Statement of Defence. Learned Counsel submitted that where an employee was given the opportunity of defending himself against the allegations leveled against him and he utilized the same, such an employee cannot complain of denial of fair hearing. He relied on the case of Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc [2011] 12 NWLR (pt. 1262) p. 624. He submitted that based on the pieces of evidence, it is undoubtedly clear that the claimant was given opportunity to defend herself. He continued that by the claimant’s curriculum vitae it shows that Triple Edge was not listed as the claimant’s immediate employer before she joined the defendant, rather United Bank for Africa Plc was listed as immediate previous employer and all of these were craftily done by the claimant to fraudulently secure employment with the defendant. That the contention of the claimant that her Interview Rating Sheets were forged cannot hold water as the said Interview Rating was not forged. He submitted that the allegation of forgery borders on commission of a crime which the claimant has the burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt but the claimant failed to discharge the said burden. He relied on the case of Agbi v. Ogbe [2006] NWLR (pt. 1160) p. 1. Learned Counsel submitted that the second interviewer Temisan T. completed the “Salary Package Information” column in his form with N1.2m. He urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s claim. On issue two, Learned Counsel submitted that the claimant is not entitled to a declaration that the termination of her employment was wrongful. That the claimant has failed to prove how the termination of her employment with the defendant was wrongful. He submitted that he who asserts must prove. He relied on the cases of Yusuf v. Adegoke [2007] 11 NWLR (pt. 1045) p. 332, Section 133 of Evidence Act, 2011 and Texaco (Nig) Plc v. Kehinde [2001] 6 NWLR (pt. 708) p. 224. He further submitted that where an employee in a master and servant relationship alleges wrongful termination, he has the onus of proving the assertion and he has to plead and prove the terms of his employment and the way the terms were breached by his employer. He referred the court to the cases of Anaja v. UBA Plc [2011] 15 NWLR (pt. 1270) p. 377, Monioh v. CBN [2007] 14 NWLR (pt. 1055) p. 504 and Kabalmetal Nig. Ltd v. Ativie [2012] 10 NWLR (pt. 775) p. 250. Learned Counsel submitted that the claimant woefully failed to plead and prove her terms of employment, the way and manner the terms were breached by the defendant and how the termination was wrongful. He urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s case in its entirety. He submitted that the termination of the claimant’s employment with the defendant is lawful and in accordance with the terms of her contract. Counsel noted that the claimant’s employment was never confirmed by the defendant and although the claimant’s letter of employment states that probation period would be 9 to 12 months from the date of commencement of service the defendnat could not confirm the claimant’s appointment as a result of the investigations being carried out by the defendant. He added that the claimant did not deny or rebut this piece of evidence and that the law is that where evidence given by a party to a proceeding is not challenged by the opposite party who had the opportunity to do so the court is obliged to accept such evidence as the truth and to act on it. He relied on the cases of CBN v. Igwillo [2007] 14 NWLR (pt. 1054) p. 373, Provost, LACOED v. Edum [2004] 6 NWLR (pt. 870) 476. He urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s claim for a declaration that the termination of her appointment was wrongful. On issue three, Learned Counsel submitted that the claimant is not entitled to the sum of N50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) as damages for alleged wrongful termination of employment. That the defendant having shown that the claimant’s employment was terminated in accordance with the conditions of service the claimant is not entitled to any sum as damages. He submitted that the law is that damages must be specifically pleaded and proved at trial. He cited the case of NICON Hotels Ltd v. NDC Ltd [2007] 13 NWLR (pt. 105) p. 237. That there is no evidence in support of the claimant’s claim for damages and that where a party fails to prove any claim before the court, such claim is bound to fail and must be dismissed, citing the case of Orji v. DTM Ltd [2009] 18 NWLR (pt. 1173) p. 467. He submitted that assuming but not conceding that the claimant has proved her claim for damages, the claimant is still not entitled to N50,000,000.00 as damages. That in case of wrongful termination the measure of damages is prima facie the amount the plaintiff would have earned had the employment continued according to the contract. He relied on the case of Imoloame v. WAEC [1992] 9 NWLR (pt. 265) p. 319, Nigeria Produce Marketing Board v. Adewunmi [1992] 2 All NLR p. 433, SPDC v. Olanrewaju [2008] 18 NWLR (pt. 1118) p. 1, UBN v. Chinyere [2010] 10 NWLR (pt. 1203) p. 453 and Ozigba Eng. Co. Ltd v. Iwuandi [2009] 16 NWLR (pt. 1166) p. 44. Learned Counsel submitted that in the absence of one month notice as required by the terms of employment the claimant is only entitled to one month salary in lieu of notice as damages. He finally urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s suit. Learned Counsel for the claimant formulated two issues for determination as follows: (a) Was the termination of the claimant’s employment with defendant properly or wrongfully done? (b) If the termination was improperly or wrongfully done, then to what extent, if at all, is the claimant entitled to the remedies she claims? On issue one, Learned Counsel submitted that parties in this suit are in private employment relationship and that the law is that a private employer reserves the right to hire and fire. That the court will not impose a willing servant on an unwilling master. He referred the court to the cases of Ajayi v. Texaco Nig. Ltd [1987] 3 NWLR (pt. 61) p. 577, Agbo v. C.B.N [1966] 10 NWLR (pt. 478) p. 370, Nfor v. Ashaka Cement Co. Ltd [1994] 1 NWLR (pt. 319) p. 222, Olatunbosun v. NISER Council [1988] 3 NWLR (pt. 80) p. 25. He added that the claimant is not challenging this general right recognized as inuring to the defendant as a private employer but her complaint is that the defendant has purported to exercise that right in a manner inconsistent with her own right both as a human being as employee. Learned Counsel submitted that once an employer has condescended to state a reason which are of a disciplinary nature for terminating an employee it must take care to act properly both in terms of procedure and substance otherwise the right to hire and fire becomes questionable. He added that the general burden on the claimant does not extend beyond proving the facts of the employment, the termination and the reason stated to her for it. That the burden of proving that the claimant was notified and heard on the charge and actually committed the offence for which she was found liable and therefore disciplined rest squarely on the defendant. He submitted that the claimant has proved her case while the defendant failed to prove what it pleaded as its defence to the claim. Learned Counsel submitted that the termination of the claimant’s employment being a disciplinary measure, the defendant was bound to observe the rule of fairness in the disciplinary measure, the defendant was bound to observe the rule of fairness in the disciplinary procedure it followed before coming to such very serious conclusion against the claimant that she fraudulently falsified her remuneration package from her previous employer. That the email by which an official of the defendant requested the claimant to confirm if she was converted to a core staff in UBA did not request for the claimant’s representation or defence on or to a charge of fraudulent conduct in falsifying her remuneration package from previous employer. That the investigators neither informed the claimant of the charge of fraudulent conduct in falsifying her remuneration package from her previous employer nor invite or give her the opportunity to defend the charge. Learned Counsel further submitted that at no time before the claimant was issued with the letter of termination of employment for the stated reason was she afforded opportunity to answer or defend any accusation nor even investigated or found guilty. He added the reference of the consideration of the appeal to an Appeal Committee which included the same Frank Adetokunbo is akin to allowing a person to be a judge in his own cause, the implication of such a procedure is clear in its outcome which can only be seen as predictably predetermined. He submitted that there was no factual basis behind the reason stated for her termination. He added that the charges pleaded in the Statement of Defence that the claimant failed to include that her employment with UBA was on a contract and that she was an experienced banker are mere afterthoughts being resorted to by the defendant in its desperate effort to extricate itself from the consequences of its unjustifiable treatment of the claimant. Learned Counsel submitted that an examination of the legal evidence at the disposal of the court will show that the defendant was not at all misled by anything in the curriculum vitae into inviting the claimant for a job interview and subsequently offering her employment. That the fact that there is no material difference in the experience which a contract staff and a full staff is that the fact that the claimant was a contract staff with UBA did not detract from the work experience the claimant claimed that institution in the stated areas of “Relationship Management”, “Handling enquiries/complaints, Account Conversion” and “Reconciliation of Accounts”. Counsel submitted that by the clear stipulation of Clause 2.5 of the Employees Handbook, termination of appointment of a probationary employee whose appointment has not been confirmed is allowed to be resisted for below par performance. That where an employee on probation is not performing to the expected level, his employment is permitted to be terminated. That the court can confirm from available evidence that the termination of the claimant’s appointment was not for unsatisfactory performance on the job under Clause 2.5 but as a disciplinary measure under Clause 7.2 of the said Handbook. He added that a bank employee whose appointment is terminated by one for the reason of below par performance is not prohibited from employment by another bank but the reverse is the case where “fraud” or such like is the reason for termination in which case the discharged employee becomes unemployable in the banking industry. Learned Counsel pointed out that those whose names and signatures appeared on the alleged claimant’s Interview Rating Sheets as the makers were never called by the defendant as witnesses at the trial. That if the court compares the version of the Interview Rating Sheet proffered as evidential document in the said Suit No. LD/833/09 with the version now proffered before this court, a fundamental inconsistency becomes immediately noticeable. That whereas the one that bears the name of Dele Alaba no sum of money is shown to have been entered by the alleged maker in the column for Salary Package Information the one proffered with the Statement of Defence in the defunct Suit No. LD/833/09 under the same Dele Alaba has the sum of N1.2m. That it is an indication that the defendant was merely making-up documents after the fact to justify the otherwise unjustifiable treatment against the claimant. Learned Counsel urged the court to hold that the charge of “fraudulent conduct in falsifying your remuneration package from your previous employer” which was the actual ground stated in the claimant’s termination letter was entirely a product of the defendant’s imagination which is not borne out and has remained unsubstantiated by evidence. On issue two, Learned Counsel submitted that the claimant has shown that the reason stated in the defendant’s letter of 6th February, 2009 which terminated the claimant’s employment was one arrived at without regard to and in violation of her fair hearing, and he urged the court to award her the remedial declaration she seeks. He submitted that the consequential remedy sought upon the termination being declared wrongful is damaged, citing the cases of Geidam v. N.E.P.A. [2001] 2 NWLR (pt. 696) p. 45, Obot v. CBN [1993] 8 NWLR (pt. 310) p. 140, Nigeria Produce Marketing Board v. Adewumi [1972] 2 All NLR p. 433. On the claim for damages of N50,000,000.00 Learned Counsel urged the court to disregard the defendant argument that damages must be specifically pleaded and proved at trial. He submitted that the requirement for specific pleading and proof of damages apply to claims for special damages and that the claimant’s claim herein is for damages simpliciter. He cited the case of Harold Shodipo & Co. v Daily Times [1972] 7 N.S.C.C. p. 635. He also submitted that the claim for damages is consequential upon the other claims for declaration and once the claimant succeeds on her claim for the two declarative reliefs the necessary foundation would have been established for the consideration of her claim for some monetary compensation for the ordeal she has been subjected to. He placed reliance on the cases of Imoloame v. WAEC [1992] 9 NWLR (pt. 265) p. 319, Nigeria Produce Marketing Board v. Adewunmi [1972] 2 All NLR, p. 433, SPDC v. Olanrewaju [2008] 18 NWLR (pt. 1118) p. 1, UBN v. Chinyere [2010] NWLR (pt. 1203) p. 453 and Ozigbu Eng. Co. Ltd v. Iwuamadi [2009] 16 NWLR (pt. 1166) p. 44. He added that the claimant was prevented from securing an alternative gainful employment and prevented from ameliorating her loss and that once this court finds this to be a direct natural consequence of the defendant’s act in terminating the claimant’s employment for the stated reason of fraudulent conduct in falsifying her remuneration package from her previous employer, it must be taken into consideration in weighing the damages to be awarded. He relied on the case of Akinfosile v. Mobil Oil Nig. Ltd [1969] 6. N.S.C.C p. 376. Learned counsel submitted that the claimant has established her entitlement to some award of damage and whether she is entitled to the full sum claimed or anything less is reserved for this court to determine. In conclusion, he urged the court to grant the reliefs of the claimant. There was no Reply on Points of Law. I have carefully considered all the processes filed in this case, the submissions made by Counsel and the judicial authorities relied upon. In my view, the issue for determination is whether the termination of the claimant’s appointment was wrongful and whether the claimant is entitled to her claim. The claimant herein was employed by the defendant as an Assistant Officer 1 by virtue of a letter dated 8th March, 2007. By a letter dated 6th February, 2009 the claimant’s employment was terminated with immediate effect based on the reason that the claimant fraudulently conducted herself in falsifying her remuneration package from her previous employer. Following the termination of the claimant’s appointment the claimant wrote a letter dated 17th February, 2009 appealing for reinstatement but the defendant refused to rescind the termination of the claimant’s employment. The claimant’s contention is that her employment was terminated on allegation that is criminal in nature without being notified of the accusation against her nor given opportunity to defend herself. She maintained that she never engaged in any fraudulent conduct in obtaining her employment with the defendant. On the other hand, the defendant contended that the claimant claimed to be an employee of UBA with an annual salary of N1,200,000.00 (One Million, Two Hundred Thousand Naira) based upon which the claimant was employed by the defendant as an experienced banker with the post of Assistant Officer 1 at an annual salary of N2,062,500.00 (Two Million, Sixty Two Thousand, Five Hundred Naira). That after her employment the claimant underwent a routine documentation at the defendant’s Human Resources Department where she stated in a form that her immediate past employer was UBA under Triple Edge with an annual salary of N350,000.00 (Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira). That the inconsistency in the claimant’s annual salary from her immediate past employer prompted investigation which revealed that the claimant’s annual salary from her previous employer was N420,000.00 and that the discovery led to the abrupt disengagement of the claimant from service. The law is that the master has unfettered right and liberty to terminate his servant’s employment or dismiss his servant from employment at any time and for any reason or for no reason at all, provided the terms of the contract of service between them are complied with. See Dudusola v. N.G. Co. Ltd [2013] 10 NWLR (pt. 1363) p. 423 at p. 438, Fakuade v. O.A.U.T.H [1993] 5 NWLR (pt. 291) p. 47. In the instant case, the defendant’s gave reason for terminating the claimant’s employment which is that she fraudulently conducted herself by falsifying her remuneration package from her previous employer. A look at the claimant’s curriculum vitae which document was attached by both parties the claimant claimed under head, experience to have worked at United Bank for Africa, as a Relationship Officer from 2004 – 2007 among other working experience. On page 4 of the claimant’s Personnel Record Form dated 23rd April, 2007 the claimant stated tht her annual salary at the UBA (under Triple Edge) was the sum of N350,000.00. There are two Interview Rating Sheets authored by two interviewers. While the one signed by Dele Alabi did not have any amount stated on Salary Package Information Column, the one signed by the second interviewer stated in the Salary Package Information Column the sum of N1.2m. The two Interview Rating Sheets were dated the 16th of February, 2007 and that the claimant’s employer before she joined the defendant was UBA. It was found that the two Interview Rating Sheets attached by the claimant in her Reply to the Statement of Defence apparently showing that the said documents were also filed Lagos State High Court by the defendant indicates that Salary Package Information Column of the two interviewers has N1.2m as the claimant’s annual salary from UBA. It is trite that an employer is not obliged to offer a reason for terminating the appointment of an employee, but once he does he is stuck with the reason and the reason is subject to the test of plausibility. Therefore, the court can competently inquire into the reason why an employee’s appointment was determined once issues are joined by the parties on it. See Com. Onah v. NLC [2013] 33 N.L.L.R (pt. 94) p. 104 at p. 155. In the said case the court held that, “The guiding principle is that an employer is not bound to give reasons for terminating the appointment of his employee. But where he gives a reason or cause for terminating the appointment, the law imposes on him the duty to establish the reason to the satisfaction of the court.” See also I.H.A.B.U.H.M.B v. Anyip [2011] 12 NWLR (pt. 1260) p. 1 at p. 19, S.P.D.C (Nig) Ltd v. Olanrewaju [2002] 16 NWLR (pt. 792) p. 38. I have earlier identified the facts contained in the claimant’s Curriculum Vitae, Personnel Record Form and the Interview Rating Sheet in a view to ascertaining the plausibility. It was found in evidence that the claimant’s immediate past employer was Triple Edge Nigeria Limited and not United Bank for Africa Plc (UBA). The claimant was only seconded to the UBA as a contract staff. The fact that the claimant was a staff of the Triple Edge and seconded to UBA was not made known to the interviewers during the interview. More so, the claimant never included Triple Edge in her curriculum vitae that she submitted to the defendant as one of the companies she worked with prior to her employment with the defendant. Rather, the claimant claimed she worked for UBA as a Relationship Officer. It is true that she was seconded to UBA but UBA was not her employer and if anything goes wrong with that employment one cannot hold UBA accountable. The name Triple Edge came to the defendant for the first time when the claimant completed her Personnel Record Form with the defendant apparently introducing information to her employment history. Secondly, the claimant claimed to have earned annual salary of N1.2m from her previous employer as contained in the Interview Rating Sheet. This sum was at variance with the annual salary of N350,000.00 subsequently claimed by the claimant. The fact that one of the interviewers did not include the sum of N1.2m in the Salary Package Information at the time of interview did not change the position because the two Interview Rating Sheets were dated and signed the same date. There is no doubt that the said sum of N1.2m weighed on the mind of the defendant to offer the claimant employment as Assistant Officer 1 on annual salary of N2,062,500.00 to the claimant as a core banking staff of UBA. In view of the above, the defendant has substantiated the reason adduced for terminating the employment of the claimant. Consequently, I hold that the termination of the claimant’s employment was not wrongful. Having held that the termination of the claimant’s employment was not wrongful, the claimant is not entitled to any relief claimed in this suit. Accordingly, the claimant’s suit fails and it is hereby dismissed. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. …………………………………… Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu Fishim Presiding Judge