Court
The National Industrial Court has upheld the submissions of the claimants against the defendants in a suit against the latter’s continued suspension from duty and seizure of their vehicles over an unsubstantiated allegation.The case was instituted by John Anebi Ochigbo, Irmiya Dachet Asa and Ibrahim Bello against Union Bank of Nigeria (UBN) Plc and Jafaru Abdulkadir.
The three claimants had told the court that while working for the first defendant (Union Bank) at its Murtala Muhammed Way, Jos Branch, they were issued variously with letters of suspension to each of them dated March 24, 2014.
The reasons given by the first defendant (the bank) for taking the action were that Irmiya Dachet Asa was accused of playing a role in authorizing fictitious cash deposits of N16.2 million into a customer’s account as restitution for various cash deposits done by the customer but reportedly suppressed by the former teller in the branch.
Bello Ibrahim was accused of playing a role in the unauthorized debiting of an estimated N120, 191,820 from the branch accountant.The claimants maintained that sometime in March 2014, while they were in their various offices at the branch, they were informed that their attention was required by some police officers from the ‘A’ Division Police Station in Jos, to go and explain some transactions carried out in their branch.
Thereafter, the claimants, in a court judgement distributed to journalists, stated that they were placed under arrest and informed by the police that it was for unauthorized financial transactions at their branch office, an allegation which landed them in detention for three days.They stated that four days later, they were taken to Lagos by a team of police officers from the special anti-fraud unit in Ikoyi for further investigation.
The claimants also averred that when they were going to the ‘A’ Division Police Station in Jos, they left their cars at the branch at and handed over the keys to the second defendant, Jafaru Abdulakadir until they returned. The cars are a Nissan Murano Jeep, a Toyota Avalon and Opel Vectra.They maintained that their cars had since been held by the bank, adding that all the attempts they made to remove them were unsuccessful as agents of UBN refused to release the keys to them. They said that there was no explanation for the bank’s action, as their letters of suspension did not say that they had been suspended from access to their cars, which are their personal property.
Apart from suspending them, they claimed that the bank had also blocked their salary accounts without any explanation.The claimants also maintained that although they are entitled to get half salary while on suspension, the 1st defendant UBN has not paid them since then, thereby putting them and their families through hardship.
Mr. J.B. Abutu was the counsel to the claimants while Mr. O.H. Okereke who held the brief of Mr. John Erameh was for the defendants.Replying, the defendants stated that after the suspensions, of the claimants, the 1st claimant (John Anebi Ochigbo) was dismissed while the 2nd and 3rd (Irmiya Dachet
Asa and Ibrahim Bello) were terminated, denying that they were still its staff members on suspension.
The bank further stated that in January 2012, one of its major customers, Jerry Alagbe and Son Ltd (distributor to Nigerian Breweries PLC), alleged that during reconciliation of its accounts, it found out that deposits made in the alcohol firm’s account between April 2011 and August 2011 through the branch, were not reflected.
According to the defendant, upon complaint by Nigerian Breweries, it was found out that the 1st claimant (Ochigbo) was aware that a total sum of N16,401,430.00 was received by Samule Usman Kato, an ex-staff of the bank as revealed from stamps on 18 deposit slips submitted by Jerry Alagbe and Son Ltd.
After cross-examination and adoption of final written addresses by the two parties, the court presided over by Mr. Justice E.D.E. Isele, ruled in favour of the three claimants.Isele held that the allegations made against the claimants about financial impropriety are clearly of a criminal nature but that no such prosecution had commenced against them well over two years since the allegations were reported to the police in the face of the claimant’s denials.
“The allegations against the claimants remain only allegations. They remain and are to be treated as innocent until proven guilty,” he ruled.“I hold, therefore, on the preponderance of evidence, the claims of the claimants should succeed in the following extents.“In the first head of claim, it is hereby declared that the continued suspension from duty of the claimants by the 1st defendant (bank) is not wrongful. All the three were properly placed on suspension by the 1st defendant and remain so. A master is entitled to suspend his or its servant employment for good or bad reason or no reason at all.”
In the second head of claim, Isele ordered the defendants to let all the three claimants to have access to their salary accounts of the bank having admitted that they were not blocked but merely dormant.He equally declared that the seizure and continuous detention of the claimants’ personal cars etc was wrongful while ordering the 1st defendant to pay the arrears of the claimants’ half salaries up till 22nd of November 2017.
The judge ordered the defendants to release the complaints’ cars to them, as there is no on-going criminal prosecution against them.Refusing the sack of the claimants as submitted by the defendants, the judge held that the dismissal and the termination of the claimants would only be effective when they are properly served.
0 comments:
Post a Comment