The National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Lagos Judicial Division, has ruled that the mass sack of some employees of United Bank for Africa Plc (UBA) amounted to constructive dismissal, ordering the bank to use insurance proceeds attached to their personal loans to offset outstanding balances.
Justice Ikechi Gerald Nweneka delivered the judgment on Thursday, November 13, 2025, in Suit No. NICN/LA/286/2020, instituted by 20 former staff of the bank, including Adeniji Funmilayo Foyekemi, Russel Oiaya Ilueminisen, Nkem Ben-Ofuokwu, Francis Jegede and others, against UBA.
In his ruling, Justice Nweneka held that the claimants were unlawfully forced out of their employment. He said, “I found that the Claimants were constructively dismissed by the Defendant… and hold that this claim has been established and is granted.”
However, the court rejected the allegation that the personal loans granted to the workers between August and December 2019 were exploitative or oppressive. According to the judge, “I found in this judgment that the loans given to the Claimants are not unconscionable or oppressive… and hold that this claim has not been established and is denied.”
On the fate of the loans following the mass sacking, the court ordered UBA to activate the insurance cover tied to the facilities. Justice Nweneka ruled that “since the Claimants involuntarily lost their jobs… the Defendant is ordered to use the insurance proceeds to pay off the outstanding loans.”
The court also dismissed the workers’ request for payment of salaries from the date of dismissal to the time of judgment, noting that “an employee whose employment has been terminated cannot treat the contract as still valid and sue for wages for services that were never rendered.”
Justice Nweneka further declined the N400 million claim for breach of contract and wrongful termination, holding that the claimants had already received their terminal benefits, including salary in lieu of notice. He added that “there is no evidence to support the assertion that the terminal benefits were incorrectly calculated.”
On allegations that UBA failed to remit National Housing Fund deductions, the court acknowledged weaknesses in the bank’s evidence but still dismissed the claim, ruling that it was a special damages claim which “must be specifically pleaded and proved,” adding that “the pleading and evidence of the deductions are lacking.”
However, the court ruled in favour of the claimants on the issue of employment references, holding that “since it has been determined that the outstanding loans are to be settled with insurance proceeds, the Defendant has a responsibility to provide work references for the Claimants.”
The claim for N10 million in damages for defamation was also dismissed, with the judge stating that “the Claimants have not proven defamation.”
While the court declined to award N10 million as cost of action, it awarded N750,000 against UBA, stressing that “costs follow the event in litigation.”
In summary, Justice Nweneka concluded: “Reliefs 1, 3, 7, and 9 are granted, Reliefs 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 are dismissed.”
The judgment follows earlier reports in 2020 when the affected workers approached the court, alleging that UBA “capriciously availed them loans as early as December 2019 to surreptitiously take back what will be due to them as terminal benefits.”
They further told the court that “resignation was a condition precedent to being paid terminal benefits,” adding that they “later discovered that they were already exited from the bank before they were asked to resign.”
The former employees also alleged that UBA “perfected the mass sacking before surreptitiously compelling them to resign to deny many of them their terminal benefits through loans availed them a few weeks before the sack.”