Not exact matches
The charges in part read: «That you Col. Mohammed Sambo Dasuki
whilst being National Security Adviser and Shaibu Salisu,
whilst being the Director of Finance and Administration in the Office of the National Security Adviser and Hon. Waripamowei Dudafa (now at large)
whilst bring Senior Special Assistant, Domestic Affairs to the President on or about 27th November within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court entrusted with dominion over certain properties to wit: the sum of N10billion
being part of the funds in the account of the National Security Adviser with the CBN, the equivalent of which sum you received from the CBN in foreign currencies to wit: $ 47million and $ 5.6 million Euros committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the said property when you
claimed to have distributed same to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Presidential Primary Election delegates and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 315 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 532, Vol.4, LFN 2004.
The review concludes that,
whilst many people have chosen not to
bring claims in the employment tribunal, there
is no conclusive evidence to suggest that they
been prevented from doing so.
Whilst a collective agreement
was ultimately reached, 57 employees
brought claims alleging a breach of section 145B (relying on both letters as offers).
The reason for this
is that there
are factors affecting a claimant's employment prospects following a discriminatory dismissal including: (i) the stigma of having
brought a discrimination
claim; (ii) the fact that it
is easier to find a new role
whilst remaining in employment; and (iii) a period of unemployment following a dismissal can detrimentally affect an individual's career prospects.
Charles Urquart, partner at Clyde & Co, says: «
Whilst this decision
is good news for employers, as the fee related barrier to entry to
bring employment tribunal
claims remains in place, it will not
be welcomed by low paid employees who feel obligated to
bring a
claim but who may
be priced out of doing so.»
Whilst the Court of Justice alone has jurisdiction to declare an EU act invalid, where a
claim is lodged with the national supervisory authorities they may, even where the Commission has adopted a decision finding that a third country affords an adequate level of protection of personal data, examine whether the transfer of a person's data to the third country complies with the requirements of the EU legislation on the protection of that data and, in the same way as the person concerned,
bring the matter before the national courts, in order that the national courts make a reference for a preliminary ruling for the purpose of examination of that decision's validity