Introduction
The National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Lagos Judicial Division per Honourable Justice I.G. Nwenneka on the 16th of May 2024 delivered judgment in favour of the Defendants in an action against Polaris Bank Limited
(“Polaris Bank”) as the 1st Defendant.
The Claimant in this matter had sought to claim against Polaris Bank, a declaration of the court that his dismissal from employment of Skye Bank Plc was unlawful and further claimed against Polaris Bank, the total sum of over N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) as fees for unpaid salaries, salary in lieu of notice and general damages. In its well-delivered judgment, the Honourable Court, on the strength of our arguments, discountenanced and rejected the contentions of the Claimant and dismissed his entire claims against Polaris Bank.
Facts of the Case
The Claimant brought this suit against Polaris Bank on the fact that while in the employment of Skye Bank, he was detained and prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and subsequently dismissed from the employment of Skye Bank without being paid his salaries for that period. Upon the liquidation of Skye Bank Plc, Polars Bank was created and by its agreement with NDIC took over Skye Bank Plc’s assets and liabilities. It is on this premise that the Claimant had requested Polaris Bank to pay him his alleged unpaid salaries and salary in lieu of notice.
In defending Polaris Bank in this suit, The Law Crest LLP (“TLC”) submitted that NDIC took over the assets and liabilities of Skye Bank Plc and assigned only certain specified liabilities to Polaris Bank while excluding others. TLC on this point, further submitted that by the provisions of the Purchase and Assumption Agreement entered by Polaris Bank and NDIC, Polaris Bank is exempted from liabilities arising from contracts of employment and litigations by former employees of Skye Bank Plc. TLC further submitted that Polaris Bank is not a successor of Skye Bank Plc, and neither is it privy to the contract of employment between the Claimant and Skye Bank Plc.
TLC also contended that the Claimant failed to prove the existence of an employment relationship between him and Polaris Bank, hence, Polaris Bank cannot be held liable for the suspension and dismissal of the Claimant by Skye Bank Plc. In essence, Polaris Bank was not a proper party to the suit.
On the issue of lack of fair hearing before the dismissal of the Claimant from Skye Bank’s employment, TLC submitted that the Claimant has the burden of proof to show that he was not accorded fair hearing before his dismissal. TLC also submitted that the requirement of a fair hearing is satisfied once an employee is allowed to respond to the allegations against him and that a conviction is not necessary for the employer to dismiss an employee for gross misconduct.
The Decision of the Court
In determining this suit, the Honourable Court adopted a sole issue , to wit: whether the Claimant was entitled to judgment on his claims or any of themThe court upheld TLC’s submissions on the point of Burden of proof and held that the burden of proof, in this case, was on the Claimant who initiated the suit on a set of facts that he asserts entitles him to judicial relief, and he must establish those facts on a balance of probabilities.
On the issue of lack of fair hearing before the Claimant’s dismissal, the Court agreed with TLC’s submissions that the evidence before the court shows that the Claimant appeared before the disciplinary committee and was questioned by the compliance unit of Skye Bank Plc. Hence, the court on that issue held that the allegation of lack of fair hearing had not been substantiated.
Further, in resolving the suit, the Court held that the provisions of the Purchase and Assumption Agreement are clear and should be given their ordinary meaning. The Court held that by the provisions of the Purchase and Assumption Agreement, Polaris Bank did not succeed Skye Bank neither did it inherit its employment liabilities. The Court further held that the Claimant failed to prove the employment relationship between him and Polaris Bank and further stated that Polaris Bank is a stranger to the contract of employment between the Claimant and Skye Bank Plc. Therefore, the court held that the contract of employment between the Claimant and Skye Bank cannot be enforced against Polaris Bank.
Key Takeaways
- A Claimant who instituted a civil case has the burden of proof resting on him/her to prove the sets of facts he/she asserted.
- A case of lack of fair hearing will fail where it is seen that the Claimant was given the opportunity to defend himself/herself.
- The provisions of an agreement where clear should be given their ordinary meaning.
- Contract of employment is the bedrock of every employment relationship. Thus, where a party seeks to claim that an employment relationship exists, he/she must plead or prove the terms of the contract of employment.
Polaris Bank Limited was defended by The Law Crest LLP’s litigation team led by our Partner and Head of Dispute Resolution Team, Okechukwu Umemuo, FCIArb and Senior Associate, Nnoli Onyinye.
