Reported by: Ijeoma G | Edited by: Oravbiere Osayomore Promise.
The National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Lagos Division, has ordered a bank to withdraw the dismissal of a former employee, Mr. Tajudeen Balogun, and awarded him N5.5 million in damages after finding that the bank wrongfully terminated his employment based on incorrect information supplied by Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Ile‑Ife.
Justice Maureen Esowe, who delivered judgment in Suit No. NICN/LA/471/2022, held that the bank breached its disciplinary procedures and denied the claimant a fair hearing before dismissing him over allegations linked to discrepancies in his academic records. The court also awarded N500,000 as costs of litigation in favour of Mr. Balogun.
“The defendant breached the terms contained in its staff handbook and denied the claimant fair hearing,” Justice Esowe ruled, adding that the dismissal was founded on an allegation of certificate forgery that was never disclosed to the claimant or subjected to any disciplinary process.
Mr. Balogun, through his counsel, Gbenga Paseda & Associates, had asked the court to declare his dismissal unlawful, malicious, null and void, arguing that it was based on a false allegation of certificate forgery traced to an error committed by OAU during a verification exercise conducted by his employer. The dispute began in November 2005 when Oceanic Bank International Limited dismissed Mr. Balogun instead of confirming his appointment. According to court documents, the dismissal letter did not state any reason for the decision, nor was the employee accused of misconduct at the time.
Court records showed that the bank forwarded confidential reference forms to OAU on February 28 and June 1, 2005, requesting verification of Mr. Balogun’s academic credentials and character. In response, the university reportedly informed the bank that the claimant graduated with a Third‑Class degree, contrary to the Second‑Class Lower degree reflected on the certificate he had submitted during his recruitment. The conflicting information allegedly led the bank to conclude that the certificate presented by the employee was forged. He was subsequently dismissed in November 2005.
However, Mr. Balogun maintained that he was never informed of any allegation relating to forgery, nor was he invited to explain the discrepancy before the decision was taken. The reason for his dismissal only became known to him several years later when he visited the Department of Agricultural Engineering at OAU in 2011 while processing documents for postgraduate studies. During that visit, he discovered the correspondence exchanged between the bank and the university regarding his academic records.
The court found that OAU later admitted that the information supplied to the bank was erroneous. Justice Esowe emphasised that academic records are sensitive documents capable of affecting a person’s career, reputation and prospects and should, therefore, be handled with utmost care. In a letter dated October 14, 2011, the Office of the Vice‑Chancellor of OAU reportedly wrote to Ecobank, clarifying that Mr. Balogun had, in fact, graduated with a Second‑Class degree and not a Third‑Class degree as previously communicated by a university official in 2005. Although OAU was initially joined as a defendant in the suit, the university was struck out of the proceedings after the court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the claims against the institution.
In examining Mr. Balogun’s case against Ecobank, the court held that the bank failed to comply with the disciplinary procedure contained in its Staff Handbook. The judge found that the claimant was neither informed of the allegation that his certificate was forged nor allowed to defend himself before the disciplinary action was taken. The court rejected the bank’s argument that the dismissal was based solely on an alleged excess payment and that any compensation should be limited to salary in lieu of notice.
Justice Esowe relied on recent Supreme Court authorities, including the decision in Skye Bank Plc v. Adegun, which expanded the scope of damages available in wrongful termination cases. The Supreme Court has held that damages for wrongful termination should consider the consequential losses suffered by an employee and should not necessarily be restricted to the notice period contained in the contract of employment.
Justice Esowe held that Mr. Balogun suffered not only the loss of his employment but also diminished prospects of securing alternative employment due to the circumstances surrounding his dismissal. “Therefore, in the wrongful dismissal of the claimant resulting not only in his loss of job but loss of hope of getting another job, it is reasonably expected that he should be duly compensated for this wrong,” the judge held.
The court consequently awarded N5 million as general damages against Ecobank. “Accordingly, damages assessed in the sum of N5m is awarded against the Defendant in favour of the Claimant, and I so hold,” Justice Esowe ruled. An additional N500,000 was awarded as costs of litigation, bringing the total to N5.5 million.
The judgment underscores the growing willingness of Nigerian courts to award substantial remedies in wrongful termination cases, particularly where an employee’s reputation and future employment prospects have been damaged. Legal observers have noted that the decision aligns with a broader judicial shift away from the common law position that damages in wrongful dismissal should be limited to the notice period. The ruling also serves as a caution to employers that disciplinary actions must comply with statutory and contractual procedures, including the right of an employee to be heard before any adverse decision is taken.
As of the time of this report, Ecobank has not issued an official statement regarding the judgment or indicated whether it intends to appeal. The bank’s legal team had argued during the proceedings that the dismissal was justified based on the information available at the time, but the court found that the absence of a fair hearing rendered the termination procedurally defective.
For Mr. Balogun, the judgment brings closure to a two‑decade legal battle. He was dismissed in 2005, just as Oceanic Bank was set to confirm his appointment. The error that cost him his job was not his own, but that of a university official. Eighteen years later, a court has declared that the bank acted unlawfully. The order to withdraw his dismissal and the award of N5.5 million damages cannot restore the years of lost income and career setbacks, but the judgment is a vindication of a principle that transcends any single case: no employee should be condemned without a hearing, and no institution should be allowed to destroy a career based on an allegation the accused was never given a chance to answer.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com ✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments