- Home
- Economic Crime
- Former Manager Claims N100m Damages against Seismic Firm
Former Manager Claims N100m Damages against Seismic Firm
- By Onyewuchi Ojinnaka
- Published July 6th, 2009
- Economic Crime
- Unrated
ABISOLA Akinsete, a female and former employee of Westerngeco Seismic Nigeria Limited, Victoria Island, Lagos has instituted an action before Justice Opeyemi Oke of Lagos High Court against her former employer, claiming the sum of N100 million as damages for the alleged disgrace, abuses, loss of face and integrity, deprivation, mental, physical and psychological suffering and financial losses she incurred as a result of wrongful termination of her appointment.
Alternatively, Akinsete(claimant) who was employed as marketing/admin. administrator by her employer prays for a declaration of the court that the purported oral termination of her employment by her employer (defendant) through its agents is in breach of the contract of employment and therefore void.
She further prays for a declaration of the court that the purported letter of termination of her employment dated December 5, 2008 is arbitrary and pretence to justify the oral termination of October 9, 2008 and therefore null and void.
She urged the court to declare that the employment of her services with the defendant is extant and subsisting, as it has not been terminated in accordance with the contract of employment. Consequent upon the relief sought, the claimant
is asking for an order of the court directing the defendant to pay her salary and entitlements from December 5, 2008 until her employment is validly terminated in accordance with the contract of employment as contained in her letter of employment dated April 27, 2007.
Besides, she is asking for N20 million as special damages against the defendants jointly and severally for deliberate and concerted campaign of bullying and breach of contract and another sum of N5 million as general damages. Moreover, the claimant sought for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, whether acting jointly or individually, their servants, agents or privies from further harassing, molesting or assaulting her person or in any way molesting, bullying or infringing on her right to dignity.
She stated in her statement of claim that on October 8, 2008, three expatriate employees of the defendant suddenly and without prior incident, summoned her into the office of the defendant company and clandestinely and strangely made an oral pronouncement that her contract of employment has been terminated. She states that the pronouncement was followed by a stream of abuses and unlawful statements against her by the expatriate employees of the defendant company.
She further states that after the oral termination and unlawful dismissal by the agents of the defendant company, she was not allowed to enter the premises of the defendant, stressing that the defendant’s agents launched a fierce and threatening statements against her and forcefully confiscated her working tools, including her identity card.
It was stated that the claimant protested by reporting the matter to the personnel manager of the company, one Iyaye Iworima and in reacting to the protest, she was invited by the personnel manager at the office of the company during which she was subjected to a second round of bullying and abuses. It was further stated that the hostile acts of the defendant’s servants and or officers caused the claimant serious stress related illness and mental breakdown.
The claimant posits that the strange and unusual oral termination and dismissal of her employment by the defendant’s agents is an anti-climax and totally at variance with the terms and conditions of employment as contained in her letter of offer of employment as well as the robust master-servant relationship that had hitherto existed between the defendant and herself. She contends that the purported oral termination and dismissal from the employment of the company is contrary to the contract between her and the defendant. The action is wrongful, unfair, loaded with malice and therefore void and of no legal effect whatsoever.
However, in its statement of defence, Westerngeco Seismic Nigeria Limited denied most of the averments as contained in the statement of claim but stated that its expatriate employees had discussions with the claimant in the company’s office with regard to an ongoing inquiry by the company, adding that contrary to the claimant’s allegation, she was not subjected to any form of racial abuse or exposed to any other kind of abusive language by any of its agents, servants or privies, positing that such action would be contrary to the company’s policy.
In reference to paragraph 8 of the statement of claim, the defendant states that it was and is not its policy or practice to enter into or terminate contracts of employment orally, pointing out that it has well established processes for such issues.
It was further said that notwithstanding the refusal of the claimant to return to work as directed, the company continued to pay her full salary and entitlements for the months of October and November 2008 until her employment was validly terminated in writing by a letter date December 5, 2008.
Furthermore, Westerngeco Seismic Nigeria Limited states that the claimant was not prevented from entering the company’s premises at any time during the period of her employment with the company but her identity card and laptop, which are assets of the defendant, were withdrawn from her without any force. The company emphasized that the claimant’s employment was terminated because her services were no longer required by the company, insisting that her termination was in accordance with the terms of the contract between the parties to the suit and in line with the provisions of the relevant laws and the company’s internal processes.
It was stressed that the termination of the claimant was after her failure to return to work and a query issued to her at her residence in respect of an on-going issue. The company states that it paid one-month salary in lieu of notice in the sum of N177, 000 into the claimant’s account with Adeola Odeku branch of United Bank for Africa. Besides, the company states that as a law abiding and responsible corporate citizen, it would never adopt any extra legal measures to terminate the contract of any of its employees, including the claimant.
Consequently, the company urges the court to dismiss the suit with substantial cost against the claimant, contending that the suit is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived and discloses no cause of action. The matter is adjourned till July 8, 2009 for mention.
Alternatively, Akinsete(claimant) who was employed as marketing/admin. administrator by her employer prays for a declaration of the court that the purported oral termination of her employment by her employer (defendant) through its agents is in breach of the contract of employment and therefore void.
She further prays for a declaration of the court that the purported letter of termination of her employment dated December 5, 2008 is arbitrary and pretence to justify the oral termination of October 9, 2008 and therefore null and void.
She urged the court to declare that the employment of her services with the defendant is extant and subsisting, as it has not been terminated in accordance with the contract of employment. Consequent upon the relief sought, the claimant
is asking for an order of the court directing the defendant to pay her salary and entitlements from December 5, 2008 until her employment is validly terminated in accordance with the contract of employment as contained in her letter of employment dated April 27, 2007.
Besides, she is asking for N20 million as special damages against the defendants jointly and severally for deliberate and concerted campaign of bullying and breach of contract and another sum of N5 million as general damages. Moreover, the claimant sought for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, whether acting jointly or individually, their servants, agents or privies from further harassing, molesting or assaulting her person or in any way molesting, bullying or infringing on her right to dignity.
She stated in her statement of claim that on October 8, 2008, three expatriate employees of the defendant suddenly and without prior incident, summoned her into the office of the defendant company and clandestinely and strangely made an oral pronouncement that her contract of employment has been terminated. She states that the pronouncement was followed by a stream of abuses and unlawful statements against her by the expatriate employees of the defendant company.
She further states that after the oral termination and unlawful dismissal by the agents of the defendant company, she was not allowed to enter the premises of the defendant, stressing that the defendant’s agents launched a fierce and threatening statements against her and forcefully confiscated her working tools, including her identity card.
It was stated that the claimant protested by reporting the matter to the personnel manager of the company, one Iyaye Iworima and in reacting to the protest, she was invited by the personnel manager at the office of the company during which she was subjected to a second round of bullying and abuses. It was further stated that the hostile acts of the defendant’s servants and or officers caused the claimant serious stress related illness and mental breakdown.
The claimant posits that the strange and unusual oral termination and dismissal of her employment by the defendant’s agents is an anti-climax and totally at variance with the terms and conditions of employment as contained in her letter of offer of employment as well as the robust master-servant relationship that had hitherto existed between the defendant and herself. She contends that the purported oral termination and dismissal from the employment of the company is contrary to the contract between her and the defendant. The action is wrongful, unfair, loaded with malice and therefore void and of no legal effect whatsoever.
However, in its statement of defence, Westerngeco Seismic Nigeria Limited denied most of the averments as contained in the statement of claim but stated that its expatriate employees had discussions with the claimant in the company’s office with regard to an ongoing inquiry by the company, adding that contrary to the claimant’s allegation, she was not subjected to any form of racial abuse or exposed to any other kind of abusive language by any of its agents, servants or privies, positing that such action would be contrary to the company’s policy.
In reference to paragraph 8 of the statement of claim, the defendant states that it was and is not its policy or practice to enter into or terminate contracts of employment orally, pointing out that it has well established processes for such issues.
It was further said that notwithstanding the refusal of the claimant to return to work as directed, the company continued to pay her full salary and entitlements for the months of October and November 2008 until her employment was validly terminated in writing by a letter date December 5, 2008.
Furthermore, Westerngeco Seismic Nigeria Limited states that the claimant was not prevented from entering the company’s premises at any time during the period of her employment with the company but her identity card and laptop, which are assets of the defendant, were withdrawn from her without any force. The company emphasized that the claimant’s employment was terminated because her services were no longer required by the company, insisting that her termination was in accordance with the terms of the contract between the parties to the suit and in line with the provisions of the relevant laws and the company’s internal processes.
It was stressed that the termination of the claimant was after her failure to return to work and a query issued to her at her residence in respect of an on-going issue. The company states that it paid one-month salary in lieu of notice in the sum of N177, 000 into the claimant’s account with Adeola Odeku branch of United Bank for Africa. Besides, the company states that as a law abiding and responsible corporate citizen, it would never adopt any extra legal measures to terminate the contract of any of its employees, including the claimant.
Consequently, the company urges the court to dismiss the suit with substantial cost against the claimant, contending that the suit is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived and discloses no cause of action. The matter is adjourned till July 8, 2009 for mention.
