misconduct as outlined in the Termination Letter (supra) by the Respondent are listed thus: • That the Applicant had an extended probationary period because he misconducted himself and spoke directly to a third party. That he made comments about decision taken by management which were abusive to wit: “it is annoying to hear this”, “it is disappointing and time wasting;” • That he was queried for his conduct and his response was unsatisfactory to his superior who submitted the issue for disciplinary measure, the outcome of which was a delay in his confirmation; • That his landlord made certain complaints which resulted in him being asked to vacate the premises; • That whilst travelling between Nigeria and Togo with his family he had been detained the border police for misconduct; • That the Applicant had abandoned a mission unceremoniously which resulted in Management writing him a letter of advice to refrain from unprofessional and disrespectful conduct; • That he had sent a letter complaining of irregularities in the recruitment exercise and that he had attacked Management’s credibility in the said letter by using unprintable words like “manipulation” and “change of scores in favor of Management.” The conclusion made by the Respondent from the alleged infractions cited was that the Applicant was a very intolerable and ungovernable staff. The Court notes that the above outlined misconducts of the Applicant have been dealt with by management and disciplinary action have been taken against the Applicant and therefore it cannot be relied on by management 19 | P a g e