The Presiding Judge, Portharcourt Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court, Hon. Justice Faustina Kola-Olalere has declared that the employment termination of Miss Justina Amadi by Jdi Investment as completed and concluded.
However, the Court held that the said termination was wrongful because it was not done in compliance with the company terms and conditions of the employment, ordered Jdi Investment Company to pay Justina Amadi salary in lieu with N50,000.00 cost of action, declined claims for other entitlements and damages for lacking merit.
From facts, the claimant’s- Miss Amadi had submitted that she has not breached her terms of employment by failing to resign as advised or by refusing to accept the letter terminating her employment, argued that such termination was a flagrant breach of the terms and conditions of service which regulated her employment.
In defence, the firm counsel O.V. Sadua Esq submitted that the termination of the Amadi employment with the firm was done with due process that the claimant attempted to make the termination inconclusive by refusing to accept same, argued that whatever entitlement that accrued to her under the employment was abandoned or waived by her.
In opposition, Counsel also submitted that the purported termination having not been served on the Claimant and also not stating any reason for the summary dismissal in the said letter, argued that the termination is wrongful, unjustified and invalid.
He argued also that there is no evidence from the defendants to the effect that the claimant was informed of the charges before the panel against her urged the Court to hold that the termination of the claimant’s employment is invalid, unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void and wrongful.
Delivering the Judgment, the presiding Judge, Hon. Justice Faustina Kola-Olalere held that the claimant’s employment with the defendants is governed by the contents of her letter of employment, and her conditions of service.
“The defendants did not refer to any of the terms and conditions of this employment in the mentioned Exhibits that the claimant had breached to support their contentions that; by turning down their advice to resign, by refusing to accept the letter of termination of appointment and by leaving the premises of the defendants abruptly; the claimant has breached her terms of employment.
“As I have found in paragraph 36 of this judgment, the claimant was aware by her pleadings that her employment with the defendant would come to an end on March 19, 2013, either voluntarily by her own resignation or involuntarily by termination.
“For either of the parties to insist that the termination of the claimant’s employment will be completed only when she receives her letter of termination will amount to a technical argument, which this Court will not allow.
“I declare and hold that the claimant is not entitled to the sum N25,000,000.00 as general damages because the claimant did not prove any facts upon which the Court will base the judgment of a reasonable man in ordering payment of the general damages on.”