ABEKHE V. ALPHA MERCHANT BANK PLC (2017)

Background

In the case of Abekhe v. Alpha Merchant Bank Plc, the appellant, Mr. Solomon Abekhe, was formerly employed by the 1st respondent, Alpha Merchant Bank Plc. He resigned from his position on September 20, 1993, and subsequently took up employment with Pinnacle Commercial Bank Limited. On April 7, 1994, despite no longer being employed by Alpha Merchant Bank, he received a query regarding alleged misconduct from the bank. Mr. Abekhe did not respond, asserting that he was exempt from such proceedings as he had resigned.

Issues

The case presented several issues for determination, specifically:

1. Whether the Court should interfere with the trial judge's findings that the allegations against the appellant were uncontroverted, thus justifying the actions of the respondents.
2. Whether the trial judge was correct in determining that the appellant failed to prove inducement by the respondents for his dismissal by Pinnacle Bank.
3. The appropriateness of the trial court's N1,000,000.00 damages award.
4. Whether the trial court rightly dismissed claims based on the dissolution of the respondent banks.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that:

1. The trial judge's finding that the allegations were left unchallenged was supported by evidence and justified.
2. The appellant failed to show that the 2nd and 3rd respondents unlawfully induced Pinnacle Bank to terminate his employment.
3. The N1,000,000.00 damages awarded was not grossly inadequate, given the circumstances.
4. Claims against the dissolved banks could not proceed, as there was no legal entity to hold accountable.

Court Findings

The Court found that:

1. Appellant's resignation effectively ended his employment by December 20, 1993, making any subsequent disciplinary inquiry by Alpha void.
2. There was insufficient proof that the respondents acted unlawfully in their obligations to regulate banking activities.
3. Appellant’s claims for damages were also affected by the evidence hinting such claims had been overtaken by events and thus rendered unenforceable.

Conclusion

In summation, the appellant's appeal was dismissed with all claims denied. The Court upheld the trial court's ruling regarding libel damages and clarified the statutory obligations of the bank regulators.

Significance

This case highlights important aspects of employment law, particularly the rights of a former employee in relation to disciplinary actions taken post-resignation, and the duty of financial regulators in handling allegations against bank employees.