Mrs. Olawunmi Oyebola v Sahara Energy Resources Ltd
Judge | Hon. Justice J. D. Peters |
Judgment Date | 14 July 2016 |
Respondent | Sahara Energy Resources Ltd |
Appellant | Mrs. Olawunmi Oyebola |
Docket Number | NICN/LA/191/2014 |
Counsel | <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Roland |
Court | National Industrial Court (Nigeria) |
By
its General Form of Complaint dated 23/4/14, the Claimant approached this Court
for judicial intervention against the Defendant and by her amended statement of
facts dated 22/9/14 sought the following reliefs against the Defendant -
1. A declaration that the summary
dismissal by the Defendant of the Claimant’s employment
vide the Defendant’s letter dated 10/4/14 is null, void, unconstitutional and of no effect for failure
to accord the Claimant her right to
fair hearing as guaranteed under section
36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
2. A declaration that the purported letter
of dismissal dated 10/4/14 by the Defendant
issued against the Claimant based on a feedback from customers of alleged incidence of dishonesty and bribery
constituted a violation of the Claimant’s
fundamental Human Rights to fair hearing as guaranteed under Section 36(1) of the Constitution of Federal Republic
of Nigeria (as amended) and a fortiori
unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. A declaration that the dismissal of the
Claimant’s employment by the Defendant is a
flagrant breach of the conditions of service and code of conduct of the
Defendant which is binding on
the Defendant.
4. An Order setting aside the Defendant’s
letter of summary dismissal dated 10/4/14 wherein
the Claimant’s employment was determined.
5. An Order of payment of the Claimant’s
salaries, emoluments and benefit from April,
2014, when the Claimant’s
employment was unlawfully determined by the Defendant
until judgment is given in this case.
6. A sum of N10 Million as general damages
for the unlawful dismissal of the Claimant’s
employment by the Defendant, breach of Claimant’s contract of employment and
7. Cost of this suit.
8. And any other Order(s) that this
Honourable Court may deem fit to make in these circumstances
of this case.
The
Defendant filed its statement of defence on 10/7/14 and amended same on 10/3/15
and denied the claims of the Claimant in their entirety praying this Honorable
Court to dismiss the Claimant’s suit and counter-claims as follows -
1. A declaration that the Claimant’s
contract of employment was properly and effectively
terminated upon delivery of the letter of summary dismissal on 10th April, 2014.
2. The cost of prosecuting the instant
action on a full indemnity basis.
The Claimant
subsequently filed a Reply to the statement of defence and counter claim in
reply to Defendant’s processes.
The
hearing of this case commenced on 17/3 15 when the Claimant testified as CW1.
Claimant adopted her written witness deposition dated 22/9/14 as her evidence
in chief as well as her deposition of 22/9/14 as her further evidence in this
case and tendered 8 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted and
marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C8. The
Claimant as made apparent from her pleadings alleged that she was an employee
of the Defendant holding the position of the Business Development Supervisor of
the Defendant until she was summarily dismissed by the Defendant on 10th
April 2014; that she was never issued any letter of query as required in the
Defendant’s Disciplinary Procedure and Code of Conduct prior to being issued
with the notice of summary dismissal; that disciplinary hearing conducted by
the Defendant on 10th April 2014 was conducted without due process
and in violation of her constitutionally guaranteed right to fair hearing and
that she was not guilty of the allegations made against her.
Under
cross examination, the Claimant stated that the contents of her Witness
Statement are true and correct; that she was never reprimanded by the Defendant;
that she is nott aware of any verbal warning put in her file; that she was
never summoned by the Managing Director of Defendant on any transactions; that
she discussed daily briefings and gave reports as required to the Managing
Director as she performed her duty; that she received money from a customer for
onward disbursement to a 3rd party; that the customer is Mrs. Ijeoma
of Platinum Energy; that the money
was to be paid to one Mrs. Mopelola Adeleke who was a Marketer; that Mrs.
Mopelola Adeleke helped Platinum Energy
to sell her product and that she did not act as an agent between the parties.
Witness added that her scope of duties included sourcing for Cargoes and
allocation for the Defendant, helping to sell Cargoes and allocation of the
Company and business development activities for the Defendant; that she performed
her duties and did everything necessary for the company to achieve its set
objectives; that she is not currently employed; that interfacing with the Union
was not part of her initial duties; that it became part of her duties when she
was transferred to Defendant in September, 2012; that the Defendant may inform
staff of new schedules through performance objectives which will be in writing,
daily briefings, via e-mail; that staff don’t act as agent of customers; that there
is no rule or policy of the Company against a staff helping a customer; that once
a customer pays for product and is issued the Release Order, he liaises with
Depot Representative for loading operation; that she still checks on the
customers even after loading and that once the entire product is evacuated her
role in the transaction comes to an end.
According
to the witness, with regard to AGO, Sahara
pays the Union dues but with regard to Petrol, the customers pay, though there
are exceptions where the Sahara pays
for the Customer; that Platinum Energy did not fall into the category of the exceptions because it
did not ask Sahara to pay for it;
that she is involved in the payment of Union dues on PMS; that the company
often authorized her to pay on its behalf; that if Sahara is paying, the Union will come up with request papers and
she would process it; that sometimes the Company pays directly and when
Managing Director is not around she pays on behalf of the Company and when
Managing Director returns she got
reimbursed and that the Account Department will normally issue Cheques to
be cashed and the cash given to her. The Defendant opened its case on 12/1/16
and called one Adekanmi Adesola as its DW1.
Witness adopted his written statement on oath dated 11/7/14 as his evidence in
chief. The documents sought tendered to be admitted as exhibits were
successfully objected to. Witness prayed the Court to dismiss the case of the
Claimant and grant the counter claims of the Defendant.
On
12/1/16, the Defendant opened its defence and called one Adekanmi Adesola as
its DW1. DW1 adopted her deposition
dated 11/7/14 as her evidence in chief. Witness also adopted her 2nd witness
deposition dated 13/11/15 as her further evidence. The admissibility of the 5
documents sought to be tendered through this witness were successfully objected
to. They were thus rejected and so marked. The
case for the Defendant as contained in its 2nd amended statement of
defence dated 23/11/15 was that the Claimant prior to her summary dismissal was
notified of the allegations made against her and was subjected to the
Disciplinary Committee Hearing on 10/4/14, consisting of Claimant and the
following persons - Moroti Adedoyin-Adeyinka - Managing Director of the
Defendant; Oladepe Funmi-Adeshina - Business Development Manager/Line Manager;
Adekanmi Adesola - HR Business Partner and Foluso Sobanjo -Trade/Operations
Manager; that at the said disciplinary hearing, the Claimant admitted the
allegations of bribery and dishonesty leveled against her after which the
Claimant was summarily dismissed from her employment on 10/4/14.
Under
cross examination, DW1 stated that she
has been with Defendant for over 2 years; that Defendant received feedback from
Platinum Energy and Moving Wheels Ltd against the Claimant; that she was present at the Disciplinary Hearing on 10/4/14 the same date the letter of dismissal was
issued; that also present at the Hearing
were the Managing Director of the Defendant the Chair, Line Manager of the
Claimant Mrs. Funmi Adesina Oladepe, Mr. Folusho Shobayo - who was Trade and
Operations Manager at the time; that she was also there as Representative of
Human Resources and that Representative of Platinum
Energy and Moving Wheels Ltd were
not present.
According
to the witness, Defendant’s Disciplinary procedure Exh. C7 was not issued by Defendant for fun; that written notice
was not served on the Claimant to attend the Disciplinary Hearing; that the
allegation against the complainant was that she received gratification from Platinum Energy; that the product which Platinum
Energy Ltd bought from Defendant was fully paid for; that the Group Head of
Defendant Human Resources at the time was Mrs. Ibiene Okeleke; that no
representative of Human Resources was at the Disciplinary Hearing except himself;
that in the instant allegations against the Claimant there was no need for
Query to be issued and served on her; that there were formal charges against
the Claimant and Claimant actively participated at the hearing and accepted the
accusations; that the charges were read to the Claimant at the hearing; that
the Claimant was not served any notice containing the charges against her; that
there were several reports and complaints against the Claimant spanning over
time and hence the matter had to be dealt with immediately; that the Claimant
was given verbal warning and later reduced to writing; that the Disciplinary Hearing started at about past 5p.m. and ended at about 6.30p.m.
same day and that Exh. C8 letter of
Dismissal was issued after the proceeding ended at about 6.30p.m.
One
Oladepe Amuka-Pemu was called as DW2. Witness
simply adopted her witness deposition made on 29/1/16 as her evidence in chief.
Again, two documents tendered for admission as exhibits through this witness
was successfully objected to. They were therefore rejected and so marked.
Under
cross examination the witness stated that she was in her office on 19/3/14 at
Defendant premises; that she at the Disciplinary Hearing of 10/4/14; that the
hearing was in the evening; that she could not remember the time; that the
allegation against Claimant...
To continue reading
Request your trial