The National Industrial Court of Nigeria has reversed the sack of a former staff of the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria, FMBN, Murtala Aliyu Ibrahim.

In May 2019, Mr Ibrahim, who was a senior member of the FMBN staff, resigned from his employment after the bank refused to grant him a two-month extension of leave of absence he took to complete his doctoral studies.

Despite his resignation, the bank issued him a query before the expiration of his leave of absence and subsequently sacked him via a letter dated September 19, 2019.

Mr Ibrahim, however, filed an action through his counsel, Hussein Hussein, challenging his dismissal while he was still on approved leave of absence.

In the case with Suit No NICN/ABJ/271/2021, Mr Ibrahim also challenged a ‘defamatory “ disclaimer issued by the bank on October 9, 2019, and published in a national newspaper.

He therefore demanded the sum of N500m in damages, the sum of N19.2m being his arrears of salaries between 2019 and 2021, a retraction and apology in three national newspapers, and the sum of N3m as the cost of the litigation.

Delivering judgement on the matter on Tuesday, the presiding judge, Osatohanmwen Obaseki-Osaghae, dismissed both the originating claims and the counterclaims brought by the mortgage bank.

Mrs Obaseki-Osaghae, however, averred that having voluntarily resigned from his appointment on May 9, 2019, all actions taken by Mr Ibrahim and the mortgage bank, including the ministerial committee report, his forwarding of a cheque of N1,164,451.74 being three months’ basic salary in lieu on July 29, 2019, and the letter of dismissal dated September 26, 2019, were null and void and of no effect as “he ceased to be the employee of the defendant.”

“The position of the law is that a notice of resignation takes effect, not from the date of resignation nor the date of acceptance but from the date the letter was received from the employee,” the judge ruled.

“The claimants having effectively resigned his employment with the defendant on 9th May 2019, he was no longer its employee and was therefore not subject to any disciplinary proceedings or control.

“Therefore, the defendant, who no longer has any authority or control over the claimant, could not issue a letter of dismissal on 26th September 2019 in respect to an employment that has ceased to exist.

“The decision of the defendant to write a letter dismissing the claimant after his resignation was therefore a futile exercise”.