The National Industrial Court sitting in Lagos has declared the dismissal of Mrs. Emelda Azuka Okereke by United Bank for Africa unlawful, wrongful, and illegal, ruling that the bank’s actions amounted to constructive dismissal and unfair labour practice.
Delivering judgment at the Lagos Judicial Division of the court, Justice Sanda Yelwa held that UBA forced Okereke out of her employment through a series of actions, including blocking her access to the bank’s work system, issuing a backdated resignation advisory letter, and reversing previously paid terminal benefits. The court subsequently ordered the bank to pay several entitlements and damages totalling more than ₦9 million.
Justice Yelwa further ruled that the internal dispute resolution procedure contained in the UBA Employee Handbook could not prevent Okereke from approaching the court, stressing that such provisions could not override the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court under Section 254C of the Constitution.
The court ordered UBA to reverse all deductions, debits, and interest charges made on Okereke’s account in relation to an insured consumer loan. The bank was also directed to pay her ₦179,277 as salary in lieu of notice, ₦78,343 as January 2020 salary, ₦3.3 million as leave encashment for 64 days, ₦24,983 as leave allowance, ₦17,349 as a 13th-month bonus, ₦5 million in general damages, and ₦500,000 as the cost of the action, in addition to pre- and post-judgment interest at 10 per cent annually.
According to court proceedings, Okereke told the court that upon resuming from leave in January 2020, she discovered that her access to the bank’s work system had been blocked and that her salary account had already been credited with terminal benefits before any formal notice of termination was issued.
She further stated that UBA later issued her a backdated “Advise to Resign” letter, which was delivered after the stated date, effectively compelling her to resign under pressure allegedly created by the bank’s conduct.
Okereke also alleged that the bank subsequently reversed the terminal benefits paid into her account, blocked the account, issued conflicting disengagement letters containing different dates and figures, and deducted her insured consumer loan from her entitlements without activating the insurance policy attached to the facility.
In its defence, UBA argued that Okereke’s employment was terminated in accordance with the terms of her employment contract and the provisions of the bank’s Employee Handbook.
The bank maintained that it lawfully paid her terminal benefits, including payment in lieu of notice, before deducting her outstanding loan obligations in line with the loan agreement and handbook provisions.
UBA also contended that Okereke failed to exhaust the internal grievance and mediation procedures outlined in the Employee Handbook before instituting legal proceedings. The bank further submitted that an employer reserves the right to terminate employment once contractual conditions have been satisfied.
Counsel to Okereke, Olabamiji Adeyeye, Esq., however, argued that the bank had already resolved to remove his client before complying with any lawful termination procedure.
Adeyeye told the court that the blocking of Okereke’s work access, reversal of paid benefits, contradictory disengagement letters, and deductions from her account demonstrated bad faith, financial intimidation, and procedural irregularities on the part of the bank.
In the judgment, Justice Yelwa held that access to the court is a constitutional right and that any provision seeking to limit or restrict such access must be interpreted strictly by the courts.
The judge further held that the evidence before the court showed that UBA had concluded plans to disengage Okereke before carrying out lawful termination procedures.
The court also ruled that Okereke’s resignation was not voluntary, but was induced by the conduct of the bank, thereby constituting constructive dismissal and unfair labour practice.
Justice Yelwa added that termination of employment only becomes effective upon proper communication to the employee, noting that the failure to validly communicate the termination rendered the process defective.
