MR. ISRAEL DICKSON UFOT V. SHAWSAND MEDICAL CENTRE LTD. (SUIT NO: NICN/PHC/95/2020)
Details of the Case
The Claimant (Mr. Israel Dickson Ufot) was employed as an accountant within the Defendant group (Shawsand medical Centre Ltd.). On thirteenth July 2018, the Claimant resigned from his appointment with the Defendant by way of a letter of resignation (Exhibit C3) with fast impact, stating that his resignation was “because of the incident of thirty first Could 2018 that happened within the Shawsand Medical Centre”. The Defendant accepted the resignation by its letter of response dated the identical thirteenth July 2018 (Exhibit C4). A dispute arose on fee of the Claimant’s severance advantages and wage in lieu of discover, provided that the Claimant resigned with fast impact. The resignation, in accordance with him, was additional to the recommendation of a sure Mr. Shawley Coker (the Director and majority shareholder of the Defendant), and as a means of resolving the incident which knowledgeable the felony grievance to the Police over bodily assault on the Claimant by a sure Dr. Peter Ewah, the Chief Medical Director of the Defendant. The Claimant asserted additional that he was provided an alternate employment in an organization associated to the Defendant by a letter dated twenty fourth July 2018, however the employment was rapidly terminated by the corporate vide its letter dated twenty fifth September 2018.
In its defence, the Defendant disagreed that the Claimant’s resignation was not voluntary. The Defendant counter-claimed for restoration of fee of the one-month wage in lieu of discover from the Claimant, having resigned with out due discover as stipulated within the Phrases of Appointment (Exhibit C2). The Defendant equally claimed a refund of monies arising from the audit discovery of double fee of the sum of N57,400 to a contractor, and lack of money within the sum of N120,000 by a cashier employees below the Claimant’s supervision. The skilled charge for defending the go well with shaped a part of the counter-claim by the Defendant.
On the finish of the trial, events proceeded to file and alternate their ultimate written addresses, elevating varied points for dedication by the court docket.
Points for Willpower
The problems for dedication, as reformulated by the cour,t are:
Given the state of pleadings and proof led, whether or not the Claimant proved his declare, significantly if his resignation quantities to constructive dismissal?
Whether or not the Defendant’s counter-claim have benefit?
Arguments
As a preliminary concern, counsel for the Claimant contended that the assertion of defence and counter-claim filed by the Defendant are incompetent, having been filed and served out of the time prescribed and with out transferring the movement on discover for depart of court docket to regularise similar. In view of this, he urged the court docket to discountenance the processes and deem that the go well with just isn’t defended by the Defendant. In response to this, counsel for the Defendant urged the court docket to shun technicality and regularise the movement, stated to not have been moved. In support of his submission on the necessity for courts to keep away from technical justice, he relied on NISHIZAWA LTD v JETHWANI (1984) LPELR-2037(SC).
Arguing the primary concern, counsel for the Claimant maintained that his resignation was not voluntary, and the Defendant refused to pay him his excellent remunerations as contained in his contract of employment. He posited that his resignation was induced by the incident of the assault on him by the Chief Medical Officer on the office, which led to police intervention and his eventual constructive dismissal. To buttress his assertion in regards to the bodily harm from the assault on him, the Claimant tendered pictures of the harm and a police medical report. The rationale for his resignation in Exhibit C3 was additionally acknowledged to be because of the incident of thirty first Could 2018 that happened within the Shawsand Medical Centre. In response, the Defendant denied the assertion about bodily assault, by the use of common traverse. The Defendant submitted that the Claimant’s resignation was voluntary because it was with fast impact, opposite to the requirement for a one-month discover or fee in lieu of discover.
Courtroom’s Judgement and Rationale
The Nationwide Industrial Courtroom, sitting in Owerri, per Justice N.C.S. Ogbuanya, in deciding the preliminary concern, relied on the provisions of Order 5 rule 5(1) of the foundations of the court docket, to the impact that “failure to adjust to any of those guidelines could also be handled as an irregularity and court docket could give any discretion because it thinks match”, the court docket thereby handled the “unmoved” movement as an irregularity. The assertion of defence and counterclaim have been accordingly regularised and deemed correct within the report of the court docket.
On the primary concern, the court docket discovered that the Defendant did not particularly deny the assertion of bodily assault on the Claimant, however adopted a common traverse defence, leaving the court docket to find out if the Claimant established his assertion. On the authorized impact of defence laced with “common traverse”, the Supreme Courtroom held in NDUKWE v OJIAKOR (2013) 8 NWLR (PT. 1356) SC 311 AT 337-339, that the place a Defendant makes a common traverse in his pleadings and fails to offer proof on his case as disclosed in his pleadings or fails to problem the proof of his adversary or opposing celebration, he’s deemed to have accepted the proof of the opposing celebration however the overall traverse. Thus, the court docket believed the assertion of the Claimant relating to the circumstances of his resignation.
Relating to the query of voluntariness of the Claimant’s resignation, the court docket discovered that the stance of the labour legislation is to the impact that tendering of resignation brings the employment relationship to an finish, being a recognised exit pathway in employment relationships, and even acceptance of the resignation by the employer just isn’t a pre-condition for validity of resignation. One other characteristic of legitimate resignation is voluntariness. Resignation should be voluntary and never tainted with any under-current strain of pressure or persuasion. The place a resignation is discovered to be induced by pressure of strain or persuasion or borne out of disclosed extraneous issue unbiased of the worker’s train of his/her free direct will to go away the employment, such interference renders the resignation involuntary, and thus converts it to “Constructive Dismissal” – “Compelled Resignation” anchored on the authority of CBN v ARIBO (2018) NWLR (PT. 1608) 130SC. On the tenet for ascertaining proof of compelled resignation in employment relationship, the court docket held that the primary port of name is the letter of resignation, which should be examined to see whether or not there’s something therein which raises pink flag about its voluntariness. His Lordship discovered that Exhibit C, on this occasion, discharged the burden on the Claimant and established that his resignation was not voluntary. His resignation quantities to constructive dismissal.
Deciding whether or not the Claimant proved the reliefs claimed, reliefs one and two relate to his entitlement to terminal profit, which the events are advert idem on. Nonetheless, whereas the Claimant pleaded and led proof on entitlement to the sum of N225,797.11 as accrued wage and terminal profit, the Defendant arrange a defence of Set-off and counter-claimed to recuperate the sum of N264,854.05 as as a result of it from the Claimant. The court docket examined the computation of the quantity because of the Claimant by the Defendant and located that the wage was computed on the eight days which the Defendant labored for, earlier than accepting his resignation with out reservations. The court docket discovered that this acceptance with out reservation foreclosed elevating any additional controversy or excellent disciplinary concern or unliquidated cash declare for refund from the Claimant. Thus, the one side due for litigation is the restoration of the entitlement, which is to be computed in accordance with authorized rules guiding the subject material. On the problem of calculation of quantity due as accrued wage primarily based on variety of days labored for, the court docket relied on earlier selections of the court docket to carry that professional rata fee of wage just isn’t relevant to employees in periodic employment, however solely relevant to day by day paid employees – ABE ADEWUNMI BABALOLA v EQUINOX INT’L RESOURCES LTD (SUIT NO. NICN/166/2015) judgement delivered on seventeenth June 2020, per Ogbuanya, J. Given the above, the court docket discovered that the resignation quantities to constructive dismissal and recalculated the quantity payable to the Claimant. Apart the sum N225,797.11 calculated by events because the Claimant’s terminal advantages, the court docket additionally awarded the sum of N95,000.00 being the Claimant’s full wage for the exiting month of July 2018, much less the refund of the sum of N20,000.00. being unreceipted money refunded by the cashier as stolen money.
Relating to the declare for pre-judgment and post-judgment pursuits, the court docket discovered that pre-judgment curiosity ranks as particular damages which should be particularly pleaded and proved. The Claimant failed to offer ample proof on this regard. On aid three for prices of litigation, the court docket invoked the provisions of Order 55 guidelines 1, 4 & 5 of the Nationwide Industrial Courtroom of Nigeria (Civil Process) Guidelines, 2017 to carry that value follows occasion, and awarded the sum of N250,000.00 in favour of the Claimant in opposition to the Defendant.
Deciding the Counter-claim, the court docket discovered that premised on the result of the decision of concern one relating to voluntariness of the Claimant’s resignation, the counter-claim lacks the inspiration to be sustained.
Claims allowed partially; Counter-claim dismissed.
Illustration:
U. Oduyemi, Esq., with G.O. Uzowara, Esq. and E. Asak, Esq. for the Claimant.
O.U. Nwanya, Esq. and C. Oguzie, Esq. for the Defendant.
Reported by Optimum Publishers Restricted
Publishers of the Nigerian Month-to-month Legislation Experiences (NMLR)
(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)
