Odu’a Group Ordered To Pay Ex-GM N83m Renumerations | The Legend News

A Ibadan, Oyo State division of the National Industrial Court (NICN) has ordered Odu’a Investment Company Limited, to pay the sum of N38 032, 827. 16 million, to its former General Manager, Mrs. Yinka Tunji-Ojo, who was forcefully retired by the company.

The court presided by Justice Dele Peters, also declared the former general Manager’s compulsory retirement as mala fide, unlawful and a contravention of the company employee’s handbook.

Justice Peters while delivering judgment in the suit filed by the company’s former general manager against the company also held that the retirement of Mrs. Tunji-Ojo was in breach of the contractual terms between the parties and ordered the company to pay Mrs. Tunji-Ojo N83, 032,827.16, being salaries and emoluments for the remaining period of 40 months she would have served the firm to attain the mandatory retirement age of 60 years.

Justice Peters however, ordered Mrs. Tunji-Ojo to pay to the company the sum of N3,165,576.00 million, being the repayment of the outstanding loan she obtained from the Cooperative Society of the firm, and the sum of N649k being 75 percent of the carrying cost as per Company’s Policy on the status of the car assigned to her while in the employment of the firm.

During the trial of the case, the claimant, Mrs. Tunji-Ojo had told that she was engaged into the service of Odu’a Investment on March 15, 2001, as the Manager and rose through the ranks and file to the position of General Manager, Finance and Investment, a position next to the highest in the company’s organogram; adding that contrary to the content, intent and spirit of the employment agreement, her employment was purportedly determined on 2020 while she was just barely 56 years and long after she had crossed the age of 45 years which is the age of voluntary retirement.

Under cross-examination, she stated that she returned the sum of N17 million, sent to her account for entitlement and the sum of N2.7 million credited to her account as 3 months’ basic salary in lieu of notice, urged the court to grant the reliefs sought.

In proving the case against the company, Mrs. Tunji-Ojo further told the court that she was paid her retirement entitlement held on to it for one month before returning same and still maintained that the retirement was wrong and that acceptance of payment of retirement benefits renders the retirement mutual and an estoppels.

The company, while defending it’s action, told the court that the compulsory retirement of Mrs. Tunji-Ojo was done in accordance with the provisions of its Employee’s Handbook and the Claimant was paid her three months’ salary in lieu of notice.

The company maintained that once an employee clocks the age of 45 years, such an employee may retire voluntarily or be retired. Adding that there is no ambiguity in the clause that was activated to retire Mrs. Tunji-Ojo as she could have been the party to activate the same clause.

Odu’a Investment in its counter-claimed for the sum of N3,814,794.75 nillion, being the total indebtedness of Mrs. Tunji-Ojo to the company on the cooperative loan.

Delivering the judgment in the matter, the Presiding Judge, Justice Peters held that “a party is never allowed by the court to benefit from his own wrong or error, that where a document drafted by an employer is susceptible to more than one interpretation, equity dictates that the interpretation that best protects and to the advantage of the employee be adopted.

“The proper interpretation of Clause 6.4 of the Handbook is that Odu’a Investment could only activate the retirement clause upon Mrs. Tunji-Ojo reaching the age of 45 years and neither before nor after that age, and further held that Odu’a Investment failed to comply with the applicable rules of engagement in retiring Mrs. Tunji-Ojo.

“The compulsory retirement of Mrs. Tunji-Ojo must be approved by the Board of Odu’a Investment, as there is no evidence before the Court to show that the Board of the company approved or was even aware of the cessation of employment of Mrs. Tunji-Ojo by retirement as mandated by the employee’s handbook.

“In the absence of economic downturn calling for Odu’a Investment to reduce its workforce, Odu’a Investment owes a duty to provide justifiable reason for suddenly compulsorily retiring Mrs. Tunji-Ojo, as it is against the international best practice as well as international labour standard to lay off a performing staff without justifiable reasons.”