The National Industrial Court (NIC), Abuja, on Thursday ordered the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation, to pay a former Deputy General Manager of the defunct Hallmark bank, Eze Okorocha, N27.9 million, being his benefits within 30 days.
The amount was the outstanding balance of his disengagement benefits.
Okorocha had sought redress in court when the defendant said the bank did not compute and credit his account with his disengagement benefits before the bank went into liquidation.
He, therefore, sought an order of the court directing the defendant to pay him the sum of N27.9 million, being the unpaid balance of his benefits following his disengagement from the bank.
In her judgment, Justice Rakiya Haastrup said the evidence of the claimant under cross-examination remained unchallenged by the defendant.
She added that at the time of the claimant’s resignation, the bank was still in operation and that his benefits was due to be paid on December 22, 2005.
Haastrup said there was no sufficient evidence by the defendant that it was shortly after disengagement of the claimant that the bank was liquidated, such that the claimant will not have been entitled to payment of his benefits.
The judge also said the defendant had the obligation to settle debts having taken over all the assets and liabilities of the bank.
Haastrup said the defendant, as appointed liquidator of Hallmark Bank Plc, and having also taken over the assets and liabilities of the bank, should pay the claimant his entitlements in the sum of N27.9 million.
This she said was, “Unpaid balance of the claimant’s benefits following his resignation/disengagement from the bank as Deputy General Manager, on Dec.21, 2005.
“The above judgement sum shall be paid within 30 days from the date of this judgment, after which 10 per cent interest per annum shall thereafter be paid on the judgment sum.”
Counsel to the claimant, Ramat Oguta, said her client served the bank for 10 years and was, therefore, entitled to be paid his retirement benefits as stipulated in the bank’s package.
The counsel further averred that the bank failed to pay the claimant his benefits until it went into liquidation in 2006.
She said the defendant later paid the claimant N10.6 million, and that the balance of N27.9 million was not paid to the claimant because it was not credited to his account before the closure of the bank.
The counsel further said the defendant informed the claimant that he could not be treated as a depositor but a creditor whose claims would be treated at the appropriate time.
The defence counsel, T. Aondo, said the claimant was a creditor and not a depositor because at the time the defendant took over the bank, the claimant’s benefits had not been computed neither was his account credited.
Aondo added that the sum of N10.6 million earlier paid to the claimant as part of his benefits was from the realised assets of the bank.
He further submitted that the defendant was not disputing the claimant’s unpaid balance.
The counsel, however, said further payment would be made from realised assets of the bank, which was an ongoing exercise.
He closed his argument by saying further payments must be in accordance with the provisions of the law following priority list and since the claimant was not a depositor.
In this article:
The amount was the outstanding balance of his disengagement benefits.
Okorocha had sought redress in court when the defendant said the bank did not compute and credit his account with his disengagement benefits before the bank went into liquidation.
He, therefore, sought an order of the court directing the defendant to pay him the sum of N27.9 million, being the unpaid balance of his benefits following his disengagement from the bank.
In her judgment, Justice Rakiya Haastrup said the evidence of the claimant under cross-examination remained unchallenged by the defendant.
She added that at the time of the claimant’s resignation, the bank was still in operation and that his benefits was due to be paid on December 22, 2005.
Haastrup said there was no sufficient evidence by the defendant that it was shortly after disengagement of the claimant that the bank was liquidated, such that the claimant will not have been entitled to payment of his benefits.
The judge also said the defendant had the obligation to settle debts having taken over all the assets and liabilities of the bank.
Haastrup said the defendant, as appointed liquidator of Hallmark Bank Plc, and having also taken over the assets and liabilities of the bank, should pay the claimant his entitlements in the sum of N27.9 million.
This she said was, “Unpaid balance of the claimant’s benefits following his resignation/disengagement from the bank as Deputy General Manager, on Dec.21, 2005.
“The above judgement sum shall be paid within 30 days from the date of this judgment, after which 10 per cent interest per annum shall thereafter be paid on the judgment sum.”
Counsel to the claimant, Ramat Oguta, said her client served the bank for 10 years and was, therefore, entitled to be paid his retirement benefits as stipulated in the bank’s package.
The counsel further averred that the bank failed to pay the claimant his benefits until it went into liquidation in 2006.
She said the defendant later paid the claimant N10.6 million, and that the balance of N27.9 million was not paid to the claimant because it was not credited to his account before the closure of the bank.
The counsel further said the defendant informed the claimant that he could not be treated as a depositor but a creditor whose claims would be treated at the appropriate time.
The defence counsel, T. Aondo, said the claimant was a creditor and not a depositor because at the time the defendant took over the bank, the claimant’s benefits had not been computed neither was his account credited.
Aondo added that the sum of N10.6 million earlier paid to the claimant as part of his benefits was from the realised assets of the bank.
He further submitted that the defendant was not disputing the claimant’s unpaid balance.
The counsel, however, said further payment would be made from realised assets of the bank, which was an ongoing exercise.
He closed his argument by saying further payments must be in accordance with the provisions of the law following priority list and since the claimant was not a depositor.
In this article: