Authored By: Marvelous Idisi
University of Abuja
CASE TITLE: NWABUEZE OKAFOR v. NIGERIA BREWERIES PLC (2025).
NAME OF COURT: THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA, IN THE KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION, HOLDEN AT KADUNA.
JUDGE: BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE BASHAR A. ALKALI.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: TUESDAY 24TH JUNE, 2025
SUIT NO: NICN/KD/18/2023
CITATION: UNEPORTED (A RECENT DECISION)
PARTIES: NWABUEZE OKAFOR v. NIGERIA BREWERIES PLC.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The Claimant, Mr. Nwabueze Okafor was employed by the defendant Company on 29th August 2008 as a Craft Trainee with a basic salary of ₦322,093, and that his employment was terminated by letter dated 5th April 2022, effective 7th April 2022. He contended that the termination was malicious, intended to intimidate him and other staff, and that he had not received any query, warning, or disciplinary communication prior to his dismissal. The Claimant alleged that he did not commit any offence, and that his union activities advocating for fair treatment of contract staff motivated his dismissal. He also stated that his brewery location was adjudged second-best nationally in 2022, that employees who received “partially met” ratings in 2021 were predominantly of Igbo extraction, and that his team leader was rewarded while he was dismissed., The Claimant commenced this action on 10th October 2023 under Order 3 Rule 2 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, claiming wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, and general damages of ₦50,000,000.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court observed that both parties formulated similar issues, and it adopted the Defendant’s version for determination:
- Whether the Claimant’s employment was wrongfully terminated.
- Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
LEGAL ARGUMENT OF THE CLAIMANT.
The Claimant submitted that Articles 22(a) and 38(a)–(d)(i)–(ii) of the Employee Handbook (Exhibit CW003) were breached, and that the Defendant acted maliciously. He argued that receiving queries alone was insufficient as a disciplinary step, that the Defendant’s witness gave hearsay evidence, and that Exhibits NB005–NB007 did not demonstrate gross misconduct.
The Claimant contended that the principles of natural justice; audi alteram partem and nemo judex in causa sua were violated, citing Nyeson V Peterside (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt 1412) 452, Board Of Management, F.M.C. Makurdi v Abakume (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt 1521) 536, and Ziideeh V Rivers State Civil Service Commission (2007) LPELR (SC) stating that he was not given the right to fair hearing, stating that no letter of warning or compliant was afforded him and the termination was out of malicious intent.
LEGAL ARGUMENT OF THE DEFENDANT.
The Defendant stated that Claimant’s continued employment was viewed by the Defendant’s management as inimical to the interest of the Defendant and his service was terminated for incompetence and repeated poor performance. He was causing embarrassments and losses to the Defendant by his failures to do his duties, despite being issued with several queries. He was also disrespectful to constituted authority as can be gleaned from the way and manner he responded to, when he chose to respond to the series of queries issued to him. This is insubordination, added to other infractions. The Defendant was left with no choice than to adopt the most appropriate procedures in the circumstance, in line with articles 22 of the Employees’ handbook to deal with the situation. It is evidently shown that the Claimant was clearly in violation of the said employee’s handbook, his rules of engagement, which evidently led to the termination of his employment. The defendant further submitted that they had submitted their pleadings and the Claimant filed a Reply, he did not testify to it, leaving the Defendant’s evidence unchallenged, citing Waec V Murtala Oyewusi Obisesan (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt 547) 666.
The defendant also argued that that under cross-examination, the Claimant admitted receiving several queries, although not written in a document form, contradicting his deposition and corroborating unchallenged paragraphs of DW1’s testimony. The Defendant contended that management discretion allowed Articles 22(a), 23, and 38 of the Employee Handbook to be applied depending on circumstances, and that Article 22(a) was properly invoked because the Claimant’s continued employment was inimical to the company’s interest.
The Court recorded that the Defendant demonstrated the Claimant failed to respond adequately or timely to several queries (Exhibits NB001–NB004), performed duties poorly, and committed acts of insubordination. The Defendant relied on Nnaemeka Okoye & 6 Ors V. Ogugua Nwankwo (2014) 6 SCNJ Pt. 11 Pg. 395.
JUDGEMENT
The Court dismissed the claim of the defendant, stating that the termination of employment was in line with due process and further dismissed the claims for damages for wrongful termination.
RATIO DECIDENDI
The Court held on the first issue; Whether the Claimant’s employment was wrongfully terminated? That under common law, an employee accused of gross misconduct must be afforded a fair hearing before dismissal. The Court emphasized that adequate notice of allegations and the opportunity to respond satisfy the principles of natural justice and fair hearing, citing Olatunbosun v. NISER Council (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 25 at 56–57 and 59, Yusuf v. UBN (supra) and the views of Oputa and Coker JSC.
The Court observed that in cases of misconduct, formal charges are not required; it is sufficient that the employee is made aware of the nature of the allegations and given a chance to respond. Applying these principles, the Court found that the Claimant, having been issued queries and having responded, cannot claim denial of fair hearing. It cited Julius Ukah V Chellco Industries Ltd (unreported) NICN/KD/19/2023, delivered 18th July 2024, and Ansambe V B.O.N. Ltd. (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 928) 650, holding that the opportunity to respond satisfies the requirement of fair hearing, even if the explanation is not accepted.
The Court noted that Exhibits NB001 and NB003 (queries issued) and NB002 and NB004 (Claimant’s replies) clearly demonstrated that the Claimant was afforded a fair hearing before termination. It further held that the Claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof to justify his claims, rendering the suit futile.
The Claimant pleaded and led evidence to state that the termination of his employment was wrong, malicious, and meant to intimidate him and other staff of the company against the oppressive conduct of the company. The court stated that it is worth noting that two issues arise from this claim of the Claimant. Firstly, the issue of motive. The law is that motive or malice, no matter how captivating and touching it may be, cannot be a reason to set aside the termination of the employment unless and if there is a non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the employment. see the case of Agbo V. C.B.N (1996) 10 NWLR (Pt. 478) 370 On issue two; Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought? From the determination of issue one, the court dismissed issue two.
Accordingly, the Court resolved the issue in favor of the Defendant, dismissed the suit and declined to award any cost. Judgment was entered accordingly.
CONCLUSION:
The Trial Cout upheld that the principle of fair hearing as enshrined in the constitution as an intricate determinant for justice. However, every party cannot interpret fair hearing based on their Whims and Caprices, especially in labor or employment law. Thus, the court is saddled with the responsibility of interpretation. Secondly, the court emphasized the common law principle that drives the major legal issue, no matter the reason for the termination, the court cannot force an employee on an employer.
Reference(S):
- Order 3 Rule 2 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017.
- National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Judgements; https://www.nicnadr.gov.ng/nicnweb/details.php?id=10052&p=MR.%20NWABUEZE%20OKAFOR%20-VS-%20NIGERIA%20BREWERIES%20PLC
- Nyeson V Peterside (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt 1412) 452.
- Board Of Management, F.M.C. Makurdi v Abakume (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt 1521) 536.
- Ziideeh V Rivers State Civil Service Commission (2007) LPELR (SC).
- Waec V Murtala Oyewusi Obisesan (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt 547) 666.
- Nnaemeka Okoye & 6 Ors V. Ogugua Nwankwo (2014) 6 SCNJ Pt. 11 Pg. 395.
- Olatunbosun v. NISER Council (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 25 at 56–57 and 59,
- Yusuf v. UBN (1996) 39 LRCN 1139 at 1154
- Julius Ukah V Chellco Industries Ltd (unreported) NICN/KD/19/2023, delivered 18th July 2024.
- Ansambe V B.O.N. Ltd. (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 928) 650
- Agbo V. C.B.N (1996) 10 NWLR (Pt. 478) 370
- The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999( as amended)
