Lagos Building Investment Company Plc, has been ordered by the Lagos division of the National Industrial Court (NICN) to reinstate Mrs. Ikeade Aribaba, its erstwhile Secretary, who was unlawfully removed from office in 2020.

The court also ordered the Lagos State-owned building firm, to pay Mrs. Aribaba salaries from August, 2020, being the time she was dismissal from the service till judgment is entered by the court, on July 4, 2023.

Justice (Dr) Elizabeth A. OJI, the presiding judge of the court made the above orders in a judgment delivered on July 4, 2023, in a suit marked NICN/LA/478/2020, filed by Mrs. Aribaba against LBIC and it’s MD/CEO Tobiloba Lawal, listed as first and second defendants.

Further decisions taken by the judge include: “a declaration that the several acts of harassment, discrimination, scapegoating, mental molestation, bullying, consistent pseudo accusations, unwarranted insults and constant emotional abuse against the Mrs. Aribaba, by the second defendant since his resumption of office at LBIC on Monday, October 14, 2019 till the claimant submitted her letter of resignation amount to, and actually constitute unfair labour practices against the Claimant.

“A declaration that the act of the defendants in deploying the Claimant to a marketing job function with impossible sales target of N594 million  between July to December, 2020, amounts to unfair labour practice and contrary to International Labour Organisation (ILO) Decent Work Agenda.

“A declaration that the redeployment of the Claimant from the statutorily protected office of the Company Secretary to marketing job functions with unrealistic and impossible sales target, a situation which constrained the Claimant to tender her resignation from the Services of the first defendant amounted to Constructive Dismissal.

“A declaration that the purported constructive removal/dismissal of the Claimant as the first defendant’s Company Secretary is unlawful, being in violation of the extant provisions of the Companies and Allied Matters Act.

“A declaration that the employment and the office of the Claimant as the Company Secretary of the 1st Defendant has a statutory flavor, and as such the Claimant may only be removed in accordance with the statutory provisions in that regard.

“An order that the the first defendant is ordered to refund the sum of N347, 465. 52 being the total amount charged to the Claimant’s LBIC salary account with account number 0001178435 as payment of one month’s basic salary by the Claimant to the first defendant in lieu of Notice.

The judge also ordered the defendants to pay the sum of N1 million to the claimant being the costs of prosecuting the suit. And that the terms of this judgment are to be complied with, not later than 30 days, failure at which interest will accrue at the rate of 10 percent per annum.

The claimant had approached the court by a Complaint, a Statement of Facts and other accompanying originating processes filed by her lawyer, Oluwasegun O. Ikuforiji, wherein she asked for the above granted orders and declarations among others.

During the trial of the suit, the claimant told that she was the firm’s Secretary/Legal Adviser from 2017 until when she was constrained by circumstances culminating into her constructive dismissal and tendering a resignation letter on August 6, 2020. Adding that during the pendency of her employment with the firm, as Company Secretary, she served in the position with sterling performances and very high competencies as borne out by her performance appraisal documents which consistently described her as hard working and strongly committed to the firm’s vision.

She stated further that though her competency on and commitment to her job never waned, the tranquil working environment she enjoyed came to an abrupt end upon the resumption of the second defendant as the company’s MD/CEO. And that the second defendant for reasons yet unknown to her, from his first day in office started to treat her with unexplainable discrimination which later graduated to mental and emotional harassment, unreasonable suspicion, pseudo-accusations, frequent issuance of frivolous queries etc. with an apparent goal of frustrating her out of her employment with the company.

She stated further that the situations continued until the Covid-19 lockdown brought her some reprieve. But, as soon as the lockdown was partially eased in May, she was served by the second defendant with a query via Email on May 4, 2020, that she failed to remind the company to send congratulatory message to the then Board Chairman (Arc. Adeshina Soyebo). But she gave an appropriate answer to the query in her reply mail of the same date where she stated that there was no extant policy by the company on birthday celebration and that this was during a lockdown.

The claimant stated that on July 27, 2020, the second defendant sent her another query in respect of issues discussed at a virtual Leadership Meeting. And that she gave an appropriate response to the query. And that on the following day, Tuesday, July 28, 2020, her earlier submitted appraisal form (January–June 2020) was sent by the second defendant through the Human Capital Officer (HCO) (Olaite Osifeso) back to her and when she reviewed the appraisal, she discovered that the second defendant had graded her work for the period under review as ‘Attention needed’. But she however in her own comments rejected the grading and requested for a peer review of her contributions in the period of appraisal.

She stated that the second defendant’s appraisal was a complete departure from previous appraisals and it was clearly borne out of spite and malice. Adding that on July 29, 2020 at about 3.00pm, the HCO approached her  office and served her with a memorandum redeploying her to the marketing (Business Development) department with a target of N594 million, the letter was backdated to Wednesday, July 1, 2020. And that upon the receipt of the letter, she called the attention of the HCO to the retroactive effect of the letter but the HCO insisted that July 1, 2020 was the effective date.

The Claimant further averred that when she considered the retroactive effect of the letter of redeployment, it immediately dawned on her that she could be thrown out of her office at any time, so she packed all her books and exited the office.

But In response, the Defendants through their lawyer, Olalekan Yusuf (SAN), filed their Statement of defence dated December 22, 2020 and other processes.

The defendants in the defence told the court that the claimant’s employment with the first defendant is governed and/or regulated by the Contract of Employment jointly executed by both the parties. Adding that due to various economic challenges and the company’s inability to meet its financial obligations which is clear from its Financial Statement of 2018, and the abridged Financial Statement of 2019, the company carried out internal reshuffling of its senior staff and importantly re-deployed a number of its staff towards the fulfillment of its vision and financial obligations. The situations they claimed led to the exit of the claimant from the company was all by her voluntary action and calculated mischief against the Management of the first defendant.

The defendants also told the court that the claimant’s transfer was not a demotion or punishment and did not affect her salary, emolument and other packages remained the same.

They also told the court that the claimant on being served with a letter of redeployment by the company’s management, immediately abandoned her work and stopped coming to the office. And that she started acting mala fide without any consideration and or regard for the internal dispute resolution mechanism of the Company upon receipt of her redeployment letter caused her Solicitor B. A. M Fashanu (SAN) to write a letter to the first defendant, without exploring any of the outlined internal mechanism to make her grievance known to the Company and also advise the Company as its Legal Adviser.

They also stated that the Claimant without waiting for response from the company’s Management team and also in a bid to carry out her calculated mischief and ill feelings against the defendants, tendered her resignation letter on August 6, 2020 and subsequently instituted this action.

The defendants also stated that the claimant was never harassed, intimidated or discriminated against by the second defendant while still in the company’s employment, as same is against the company’s policy and carries a grievous punishment against any officer found wanting.

They stated that the claimant’s claims are unfounded and a ploy to cover up her lack of interest in the company development upon the replacement of the previous management team.

Consequently, the defendants while urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s suit, described the claimant’s allegations as baseless and aimed at justifying her abandonment of her duty as a staff of the first defendant.

Making decision on the suit, Justice (Dr.) Orji, after going through all the submissions of parties, all exhibits tendered and citing plethoras of legal authorites, made above orders and declarations in favour of the claimant.

The judge held that: “I have considered the processes filed in this matter, the evidence led, the exhibits admitted and the arguments of Counsel. The crux of the claimant’s claim is that she was constructively dismissed from her employment with the Defendant…..

“I hold therefore, in view of the above findings, that the claimant’s resignation amounted to constructive termination. I hold that the termination was unlawful being a statutory appointment. I agree that the conduct of the Defendants constitute unfair labour practice. While there is no statutory definition of the concept of unfair labour practice in Nigeria; the term “unfair labour practice” however, has been generally defined to mean practices that do not conform to best practice in labour circles as may be enjoined by local and international.

The judge however, declined the following reliefs against the defendants, on the ground that the claimant did not lead evidence to prove what her expectation interests were, and how they were affected by the Defendants’ actions.

Parts of the claimant’s reliefs against the defendants but declined by the court includes: a total sum of N80 million, as damages for the breach of her legitimate expectation interest in her employment and office as company Secretary/Legal Counsel of the first defendant and for her Constructive dismissal from the Service of the first defendant, and pre-judgment interest.