Mrs Olubukola Akinniranye V. Stanbic Ibtc & Ors (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appellant herein who was the Claimant in the lower court was employed by Chartered Bank Plc (now known as Stanbic Ibtc Bank Plc) in January 1992 as a Supervisor. She worked in various departments and held different positions and eventually rose to the position of Operations Manager of the 1st Respondent at its Head Office Branch.

On the 17th day of July, 2003, the Appellant issued a Bank draft (Exhibit DF7) in the sum of N250,950 000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Million, Nine Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) in favour of Messrs Sahara Energy Limited, which threw the account of their customer, Tessijane International Ltd into a debit balance.

The Appellant’s authorization limit as Operations Manager was N100, 000,000.00 only according to the 1st Respondent’s Operations Manual (Exhibit G). Further, it was alleged that she debited the account of Tessijane International Ltd when all the conditions precedents for the draw down of the loan approved for it by the 1st Respondent were not in place.

The Appellant was later suspended and placed on half salary. In response to a query issued to her, she claimed she was instructed orally to issue the Bank draft contrary to the 1st Respondents’ laid down procedure by her superior officers who assured her that all the conditions would be met. She also claimed that she was requested by her superior officers to treat the transaction urgently.

The Appellant was later dismissed and asked to return all the 1st Respondent’s properties in her possession including an official car, a Nissan Saloon Car. She did not return the car but commenced this suit at the High Court of Lagos State in the Lagos Judicial Division. By her 2nd Amended Statement of Claim dated the 18th day of January, 2011 the Appellant claimed against the Respondents as follows:

1. A declaration that the action of the Defendants between the 24th of October, 2004 and the 19th August, 2005 against the Claimant is unfair and in breach of the Contract of Employment existing between the Claimant and the 1st Defendant since January, 1992 till July 2005 and therefore null and void.
2. The sum of N12, 600,000.00 (Twelve Million, Six Hundred Thousand Naira) representing general and special damages for unlawful dismissal/wrongful termination of the employment of the Claimant and consequent breach of contract.
3. The sum of N500, 000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) representing cost of this suit.

The Respondents denied all the allegations of the Appellant and in their statement of defence/counterclaim dated 18/11/05 counterclaimed against the Appellant as follows:

a. A declaration that the issuing of a draft in the sum of N250, 950,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Million, Nine Hundred and Fifty thousand Naira) in favour of Sahara Energy (Resources) Limited by the Claimant which enabled Tessijane International Limited to draw the facility without all the preconditions for disbursement is a breach of the 1st Defendant’s credit and cash operation policies.

b. A declaration that the debiting of Tessijane account by the Claimant in the sum of N250, 950,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Million, Nine Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) an amount over her authorized limit of N100, 000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) without approval, which threw the account into an unauthorized debit balance of N250, 950,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Million, Nine Hundred and Fifty thousand Naira) is a breach of the 1st Defendant’s credit and cash operations policy.

c. An order directing the Claimant to pay to the 1st Defendant the sum of N250, 950,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Million, Nine Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) being the sum lost by the 1st Defendant through the negligence of the Claimant at an interest rate of 10% per annum from the 16th July, 2003 till the date of judgment and at the rate of 5% from the date of judgment till the whole sum is finally liquidated.

d. An order directing the Claimant to hand over the official vehicle a grey color Nissan Super Saloon Car with registration No. DP 189 EKY, Chassis No. JNICFAN160058728 and Engine No. QG16282440 in her possession to the 1st Defendant.

The Appellant filed a reply to the defence/counterclaim and the Respondents also filed a reply to the Appellant’s defence to the counterclaim. At the close of pleadings and after the pre-trial conference, hearing commenced with the appellant testifying for herself and calling no other witness. The Respondents called two witnesses. The parties filed their written addresses which they duly adopted. In its judgment the court below dismissed the Appellant’s claims in its entirety, while allowing in part, the 1st Respondent’s Counter Claim. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant appealed to this court by a notice of appeal containing four grounds of appeal out of which three issues were distilled as follows:

(a). Whether or not the lower court was right in upholding the counter claim after having found that the 1st respondent condoned the action of the appellant, and that the transaction between the 1st respondent and its customers was a business gone bad. (Grounds 1, 2 & 3 of the Notice of Appeal).

(b). Whether or not the trial judge was right in applying the principles applicable in gross negligence cases especially the case of Danusa Vs UBA Plc (2005) 9 NWLR (PT. 931) 526 at 539 etc. to ground her findings against the claimant, after having found that the 1st respondent did condone the actions of the claimant by their own actions. (Grounds 2 & 3 of the Notice of Appeal).