National Wire About Nigerians, Nigerian Business and Other Stories
A Cameroonian Procurement expert EITHEL EFFIANG CHU YEH MBUNKUR, whose employment was abruptly terminated by British America Tobaco Marketing Nigeria Limited company has slammed N350 million suit on the company.
According to statement of fact accompanied with sworn affidavit sworn to by the claimant and filed before the court by a Lagos lawyer,Barrister Oluwole Kehinde,the deponent averred that he is a Procurement expert of 11, Rue de la Mosquée, Cite des Palmiers, Douala, in Cameroon,Central Africa, hereby make oath and state as follows:
Sometime in November 2018, he applied for the British America Tobacco company’s position for the role of Associate Manager for Procurement.
Upon successful Interview the Defendant’s confirmation on telephone on or about 21st March 2019 that he would be engaged,he resigned from his former employment.
It was agreed that he would resume on 1st of April 2019, but the company did not give him any offer letter to that effect.
On 10 April 2019, he received the offer of employment by an email.
This email was followed by a series of email exchanges between him and the company,eventually on 24 April 2019,gave him letter of employment he was surprised that the role in the offer letter was different from that on the Offer of employment assigned earlier.Accordingly, he sought clarification of this change.
The company stated that the reason for the change of role was for the purpose of applying for the STR visa. The Parties had a telephone discussion on 25 April 2019, after which he sent the acceptance letter as requested and the Defendant confirmed receipt immediately by email of the same day for the purpose of processing his STR visa. he enquired by email whether he would pay for the Visa processing, and on 29h of April 2019 the Defendant by e-mail informed him to pay for all expenses related to the STR visa process, as he would be reimbursed once he landed in Nigeria.
The company subsequently requested for copies of his educational/professional certificates,which he sent the same day. The Defendant received them and supplied him with documents required for a work permit. In the STR visa application, the company clearly stated that:“We believe Mr. Chuyeh Mbunkur experience and background check qualify him for this appointment.”
Later, he attended the Nigerian Embassy to submit the application and confirmed to the company that he intended to arrive Nigeria on 7th May 2019. His visa was issued on 2nd May 2019.
However,on 6 May 2019,the company emailed him that the company had just been contacted by the company background check consultants and the said consultant required his previous employer. He immediately provided the said address.
He received his visa on 7 May 2019 and requested that his flight be re-scheduled for revert to him once the ticket had been issued.
On 16th lol May 2019,the Company by way of email and attachment wrote that the result of background check on him gave sufficient cause for concern and was unsatisfactory, that in view of the negative outcome of the background check,the company was unable to proceed with the offer or allow him to assume his job with the company and thereby revoked the offer of employment made pursuant to the Offer Letter of 10th of April 2019.
He assert that what the letter referred to as “negative outcome to background checks” was not disclosed to him or his representatives, despite several requests to do so the matter of disclosure of the alleged negative background checks upon which the Defendant based its decision to revoke the offer of employment is very fundamental as he was not given the opportunity to validate or challenge the background checks and by relying on a report before its accuracy was verified and validated, the company prejudiced its own decision.
The preparation leading up to the offer of employment letter were significant and provided assurance of relocation to Nigeria. In view of the notice period required he relied on this and resigned in preparations so as to focus his entire attention on the new position with the company.
Further to the above,he was misled by the company to:
(a)disengage from his former employment in preparation to taking the company’s offer;
(b)incur monumental expenses preparing to travel to Nigeria to take up the company’s offer;
(c)engage in numerous mental and emotional activities in preparations for taking-up the company’s offer.
The refusal of the Defendant to disclose the content and or result of the alleged background check to him is inimical, unfair, and reprehensible, and therefore renders the aid report invalid and a nullity.
By the international labour standards established by the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the Defendant has a duty to prove the reason given for terminating his appointment,
As a result of the wrongful termination of his employment by the company, he was rendered unemployed for several years after losing his juicy job for the offer received from the company. His circumstances and situation was worsened by reason of the fact that he was to relocate from Cameroon and assume duty at the company’s office in Nigeria.
He was a complete stranger to Nigeria and thus had to make advanced and rigorous preparations towards assuming duty in Nigeria.
.As a result of the unwarranted and wrongful termination of his employment,he was made to incur monumental costs and damages.
Consequently Claimant’s claim is for:
Declaration that the termination of the employment of the Claimant by the
defendant based on the alleged background check conducted on the Claimant by the defendant is wrongful as the said background check and termination of the employment of the Claimant are against best labour and employment traditions, conventions,and best practices.
The sum of N350, 000,000 THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION NAIRA ONLY) being compensation for the wrongful and unlawful termination of his employment by the company.
Interest on the said sum of N350, 000, 000 THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION NAIRA ONLY) from the date of judgment until the final liquidation of the judgment sum.
