Court Orders Union Bank Of Nigeria (UBN) To Pay Mr.  John A. Ochigbo, Irmiya D. Asa And Ibrahim Bello, Their Half Salary Arrears, Release Their Cars

0 10
Subscribe to our newsletter

Yakubu Busari

The National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), Abuja Division, has ordered the Union Bank of Nigeria (UBN) to pay Mr. John Anebi Ochigbo, Irmiya Dachet Asa and Ibrahim Bello, who are claimants in suit No. NICN/ABJ/252/2014, their arrears of half salaries up till the 22nd of November, 2017, the day the Judgment was delivered.

The presiding Judge, Hon. Justice E. D. E. Isele, in his enrolled judgment, dated, Wednesday, 23rd November, 2017, made available, also ordered the Bank to allow the three (3) Claimants access to their accounts with the Bank.

The Judge however, declared that the continued suspension from duty of the claimants by the Bank is not wrongful, as the three (3) of them were properly placed on suspension by the Bank and remains so.

Subscribe to our newsletter

“The Law is that: A master is entitled to suspend his or its servant’s employment for good or bad reason or no reason at all.” The Court stated, citing NITEL PLC VS L.D. AWKA 2NWLR PT. 964, 417.

The second Defendant in the suit is, Jafaru Abdulkadir.


“In the second head of the claim, the Defendants having admitted that the Claimants’ accounts were not blocked but merely dormant, the Defendants should in the circumstance, let the Claimants, all 3 of them, have access to their said salary accounts in the 1st Defendant.

“In the 3rd head of claim, it is declared that the seizure and continuous detention of the Claimants’ personal cars, Laptops and ipads phones is wrongful.

“It is ordered that the 1st Defendants should pay the arrears of the Claimants half salaries up till this 22nd of November, 2017, the day of the court’s judgment.

“The Defendants are hereby ordered to release the Claimants cars to them there being no on-going criminal prosecution against them and the 1st Claimant’s personal effects forthwith.

“Having found that the Defendants had the intention of dismissing the 1st Claimant and terminate the 2nd and 3rd Claimants from their appointments and having found that it was not certain that Exhibits DE-DE2 was properly conveyed/served these letters. I cannot in the face of this manifest intention of the Defendant to sack the Claimants make the order sought in the 7thhead of claim, it is hereby refused. The dismissal and the termination of the Claimants will only be effective when they are properly served.

Judgment is entered accordingly.”



Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: