Featured Posts General posts News

Guinness Nigeria Ordered to Pay Former Employee ₦52.5 Million Over Wrongful Termination

The National Industrial Court in Port Harcourt has ruled that Guinness Nigeria Plc and three other entities must compensate an aggrieved former employee, Bright Nwosu, with the sum of ₦52,456,000 for wrongful termination of employment.

Bright Nwosu, who had worked as a Sales Executive at Guinness Nigeria Plc since 2004, initiated legal action against the company on September 18, 2019, following his unjust dismissal.

In a judgment delivered in the case with the reference NICN/PHC/108/2019, Justice Nelson Ogbuanya presiding over the court determined that Guinness Nigeria Plc had acted wrongly by terminating Nwosu’s employment without justifiable cause. The court also noted that evidence presented during the proceedings established Nwosu’s diligence in his role prior to his termination.

One significant point highlighted in the judgment was the court’s disapproval of the Guinness employee handbook, which allowed for the dismissal of employees without specifying the reason behind their termination.

WRONGFUL DISMISSAL: Umahi’s Ex-Aide Demands N500m


As a result of this ruling, Guinness Nigeria Plc has been directed to pay Nwosu ₦19 million and ₦886,000 as his terminal benefit and gratuity, considering his 15 years of service before the unjust termination.

Furthermore, the court ordered the company to settle Nwosu’s two months of unpaid salaries in lieu of notice, amounting to ₦570,000.

In addition to the financial compensation, Justice Ogbuanya ruled that Guinness should pay Nwosu ₦30 million as damages for the unfair labor practices he endured. An extra ₦2 million was awarded to Nwosu as the cost of litigation.

The court has stipulated that all awarded amounts must be paid within two months from the date of the judgment. Any delay in payment will incur a 10 percent annual interest penalty until the full sum is settled.

Counsel for the claimant, Cletus Azunku, praised the court’s decision, highlighting its significance as a deterrent to employers who engage in mistreatment of their employees.

The counsel for the defendants, K. C. Eze, declined to comment on the matter, citing a lack of authorization to speak to the press.

Follow us on Facebook




Post Disclaimer

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the author and forum participants on this website do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of Anaedo Online or official policies of the Anaedo Online.

Stories you may like