OBAJE V. N.A.M.A. (2024) 6 NWLR (PT. 1933) 119
ON HOW EMPLOYMENT WITH STATUTORY FLAVOUR IS TERMINATED
Employments with statutory flavour enjoy the protection of the statute creating them as enacted by the National Assembly. Such an employment can only be terminated by the very statute that created it. [Adedeji v. C.B.N. (2023) 5 NWLR (Pt.1878) 531; Compt.-Gen., Customs v. Gusau (2017)18 NWLR (Pt. 1598) 353; Bamgboye v. University of Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290 referred to.](P. 150, paras. B-D).
OBAJE V. N.A.M.A. (2024) 6 NWLR (PT. 1933) 119
ON RIGHT OF EMPLOYER TO TERMINATE EMPLOYMENT OF ERRING EMPLOYEE
There is no law which prevents an employer from terminating the contract of an erring employee where there is reasonable cause to so do. (P. 150, para. D).
DANGOTE CEMENT PLC V. AGER [2024]10 NWLR (PT. 1945) 1 SC
ON PROPER REMEDY FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT NOT HAVING STATUTORY FLAVOR
In employment that does not enjoy the benefit of statutory flavour, but is of the nature of pure master and servant relationship, an employee cannot be imposed on an unwilling employer who rightfully exercises the power and authority to end the employment relationship, even if wrongfully. And the remedy opened to the employee in cases of such wrongful termination of employment by his employer, and recognized by the law, is a claim for damages.
DANGOTE CEMENT PLC V. AGER [2024]10 NWLR (PT. 1945) 1 SC
ON MEASURE OF DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT
The measure of damages an employee is entitled to in a claim for wrongful termination of employment on ground of failure to give the requisite notice or payment in lieu of the notice is, by law, the salary the employee would have earned had the employment been rightly and properly terminated by giving the requisite notice or payment in lieu thereof by the employer.
OSHO V. ADELEYE [2024] 8 NWLR (1941) 431 SC
ON WAYS OF RESIGNATION FROM EMPLOYMENT AND WHETHER EMPLOYER HAS POWER TO REJECT NOTICE OF RESIGNATION
Resignation from employment is by giving the required length of notice or payment in lieu of notice. Resignation dates back from the date the notice is received. There is absolute power to resign and no discretion to refuse to accept the notice of resignation. It must be emphasized that where a person has taken steps he is required by law to take, in this case, submit his letter of resignation, the refusal, failure, neglect of the relevant officials to do their part, in this case, stop the payment of his salary, cannot be visited on the person.
RECTOR KWARA POLY V. ADEFILA [2024] 9 NWLR (PT. 1944) 529 SC
ON MEANING AND NATURE OF CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT WITH STATUTORY FLAVOR
A contract of employment with statutory flavour is one in which the employer is created by an enabling statute. Where the employment enjoys statutory flavour, the terms and conditions of the contract are as provided for by the statute creating the employer. As such, the procedure for employment and discipline, including termination, having been spelt out as provided, must be complied with. The employment must be terminated in the way and manner prescribed by the statute creating and so empowering the employer. Any other manner of termination inconsistent with the relevant statute is of no effect. In the instant case, the 1st – 3rdrespondents’ employment with the appellants is a contract that has statutory flavour. [Olaniyan v. University of Lagos (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599; Oforishe v. Nigeria Gas Company (2018) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1602) 35; Ibama v. S.P.D.C.N. (2005)17 NWLR (Pt. 954) 364; U.B.N. Ltd. v. Ogboh (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 380) 647; Comptroller General of Customs v. Gusau (2017) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1598) 353 referred to.]
SKYE BANK PLC V. ADEGUN (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1960) 1
ON QUANTUM OF DAMAGES AWARDABLE WHERE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT IS TERMINATED BY EMPLOYER CONTRARY TO THE TERMS AGREED
Where a contract of employment is brought to an end by the employer contrary to the terms agreed, the quantum of damages awardable cannot be based on the remuneration of the employee during the period of notice prescribed in the agreement for either party to terminate the agreement. The quantum of damages awardable to the employee in such a situation should be in accordance with the general law on contract on award of damages for breach of contract, which would involve a consideration of the consequential loss that has arisen or would arise from the breach of the contract of employment having regard to the monthly wage, current age of the employee and the due date of retirement. In the instant case, since the appellant breached the terms of agreement, the damages payable to the respondent could not be restricted to one month salary in lieu of notice. (Pp. 29-30, paras.G-E).
SKYE BANK PLC V. ADEGUN (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1960) 1
ON QUANTUM OF DAMAGES AWARDABLE TO AN EMPLOYEE WHOSE WRONGFUL DISMISSAL STIGMATIZES THE CHARACTER OF THE EMPLOYEE
Per OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C. at page 48, paras. D-F:
“I subscribe to the view that in awarding damages in this type of cases, it cannot be limited to one month salary in lieu of notice which would be applicable where the wrongful termination of employment is as a result of summary dismissal without one month’s notice or salary in lieu of notice. In this case, as stated earlier, the termination carries with it the toga of dishonorable and fraudulent practices attached to the respondent. That stigma on the character of the respondent is completely unproved and thus unwarranted in the circumstances of this case. The evidence led by the respondent at trial show that no one would employ him with that type of letter of dismissal. It is safe to say that even if he wanted to go into private work with anybody, he would be rejected out of hand because of the wordings of the letter of dismissal.”
SKYE BANK PLC V. ADEGUN (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1960) 1
ON QUANTUM OF DAMAGES AWARDABLE TO AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS WRONGFULLY DISMISSED
The measure of damages to be awarded to an employee who is wrongfully dismissed is prima facie the amount the employee would have earned had he continued with the employment. Where the employer has a right to terminate the contract before the end of the term, damages will only be awarded to the end of the earliest period at which the employer could have terminated the contract. [Nigerian Produce Marketing Board v. Adewunmi (1972) 11 SC 111 referred to.] (P. 44, paras. E-H).
SKYE BANK PLC V. ADEGUN (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1960) 1
NOTABLE PRONOUNCEMENT ON DUTY ON COURT TO APPLY INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICES IN LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATION MATTERS AND BASIS OF
Per OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C. at page 48-49, paras G-E:
“The new labour jurisprudence with the 3rd Alteration to the 1999 Constitution and the provisions of the law in that regard, particularly section 7(6) of the National Industrial Court Act mandates that every court in the land shall have recourse to good or international best practices in labour or industrial relations. I do not think the courts should continue to use the former settled position of the law which is that no matter how hurtful, unreasonable or wrongful the termination of appointment is, the employee is only entitled to one month’s salary in lieu of notice to determine the quantum of damages. Every case must be determined on its facts. In British Airways v. Makanjuola (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 311) Pg. 276 at 288 per Ubaezonu JCA, the court awarded the equivalent of two years salary to the employee whose employment was wrongfully terminated after unfounded allegations of malpractice which carried a stigma on the character of the employee and made it difficult for him to get another job. The facts of that case are very similar to the facts of this case. There is no doubt that the policy of the legislature to introduce new labour relations principles and international best practices into the adjudication of the law in employment and labour relations in yet a fluid policy, merely pointing the judex to the new road to follow, there must not be confusion. The award of general damages to compensate the employee whose character has been besmirched and whose ability to work upon wrongful dismissal has been greatly diminished cannot be by rule of thumb, but must be based on sound legal principles. The employee claimant must plead and prove the entitlement to the quantum of the general damages claimed apart from the failure to pay salary in lieu of notice. The claimant must prove that he suffered damages much more than the ordinary. In this case, the respondent has adequately pleaded and proved that he suffered much more than the ordinary as a result of the wrongful dismissal by the appellant who had destroyed his reputation in the unreasonable, unwarranted dismissal and the letter of summary dismissal.”
SKYE BANK PLC V. ADEGUN (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1960) 1
ON ONUS ON EMPLOYEE WHOSE EMPLOYMENT HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY TERMINATED
The employee who complains that his employment has been wrongfully terminated has the onus to place before the court the terms of employment and to prove in what manner the said terms were breached by the employer. It is not the duty of the employer as a defendant in an action brought by the employee to prove any of those facts. [Okomu Oil Palm Co. Ltd. v. Iserhienrhien (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt. 710) 660 referred to.] (Pp. 35-36, paras. G-A).
SKYE BANK PLC V. ADEGUN (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1960) 1
ON RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A DISMISSAL IS PROPER OR WRONGFUL
Despite the fact that an employer has a right to dismiss an employee, the dismissal should not be wrongful. The courts will consider the following in determining whether a dismissal is proper or wrongful:
- Was the dismissal carried out in line with the procedure laid down in the Employee Handbook or any document governing the(a)employment relationship?
- Was the issuer of the letter of dismissal competent to do so? Or was the dismissal process carried out by a competent authority?
- Was the employee afforded fair hearing during the dismissal process?
SKYE BANK PLC V. ADEGUN (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1960) 1
ON OPERATION OF DOCTRINE OF FAIR HEARING IN EMPLOYMENT MATTERS
The doctrine of fair hearing stipulates that the employee must be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him/her and must have the opportunity to face his/her accusers. Also, the persons sitting in the investigative panel should not be the same persons as his or her accusers. Where these have not been observed, the employee cannot be said to have been afforded fair hearing before the dismissal, therefore rendering the dismissal wrongful. In the instant case, the respondent was not afforded fair hearing by the appellant who reviewed the case and reviewed the punishment upward by dismissing the respondent summarily. The failure of the appellant to invite and hear the respondent when his case was being reviewed was a violation of his rights to fair hearing. Hence his dismissal amounted to wrongful dismissal. (Pp. 36-37, paras. G-F).
SKYE BANK PLC V. ADEGUN (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1960) 1
ON WHETHER EMPLOYER BOUND TO GIVE REASON FOR TERMINATING OR DISMISSING AN EMPLOYEE
An employer is not obliged to give any reason for terminating or dismissing an employee but once the employer gives any reason, the burden lies on him to satisfactorily prove same. In the instant case, the appellant did not satisfactorily justify the reason for the summary dismissal of the respondent. [I.H.A.B.U.H.M.B. v. Anyip (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1260) 1 referred to.] (Pp. 39-40, paras. F-C)
SKYE BANK PLC V. ADEGUN (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1960) 1
ON WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE WHO WAS WRONGFULLY DISMISSED CAN SEEK REINSTATEMENT
An employee who was wrongfully dismissed from employment cannot ask the court for reinstatement because the court cannot force an unwilling employer to retain an employee. The only exception is in respect of employments with statutory flavor. In this case, the employment did not enjoy statutory flavor. In this case, it was a master-servant relationship. The finding by the Court of Appeal of illegality or unlawfulness or nullity did not arise. The action of the appellant was unreasonable and wrongful but not illegal; null and void. Depending on the nature of the employment, whether it is one of master/servant at common law or one with statutory flavour, the court in the first instance cannot set aside a wrongful act by the employer. However, in the instance of an employment with statutory flavour, it can set aside an illegal act of the employer and declare same null and void. As stated earlier, in this case, the court could only declare the action of the appellant unreasonable and wrongful but not illegal or one that could be set aside. [Obanye v. U.B.A. Plc (2018) 17 NWLR (Pt.1648) 375; Longe v. F.B.N. (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1189)1; Banke v. Akure North LG (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt.1455) 400; Agwu v. Julius Berger (Nig.) Plc (2019)11 NWLR (Pt. 1682) 165; Nwoye v. FAAN (2019) 5NWLR (Pt. 1665) 193; Okoh v. Unilag (2011) NWLR(Pt. 1268) 563; Ekumola v. C.B.N. (2013) All FWLR(Pt. 703) 1861; F.M.C., Ido-Ekiti v. Alabi (2012) 2NWLR (Pt. 1285) 411; Onumiya v. Access Bank Plc(2015) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1463) 159 referred to.] (Pp. 42, paras. C-F; 47-48, paras. H-B).
SKYE BANK PLC V. ADEGUN (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1960) 1
ON WHAT GOVERNS CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
The terms of an employment relationship are generally contained in the service agreement, letter of employment, employee handbook or any other document that may be introduced from time to time during the subsistence of the employer/employee relationship. Where parties have entered into agreement voluntarily and there is nothing to show that such agreement was obtained by fraud, mistake, deception or misrepresentation, they are bound by the terms of the agreement. An employment contract is premised on an agreement between a person or body, “employer” who seeks to retain the services of another, “employee” effectively putting the employee under their payroll. (BFI Group Corp. v. B.P.E. (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1332) 209 referred to.] (Pp. 42-43, paras. G-B).
OKOH V. FEDPOLY, BAUCHI (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1961) 261
ON EFFECT WHERE EMPLOYMENT IS PROTECTED BY STATUTE
In an employment protected by statute, an employee under such statutory protection enjoys special status over and above the general master/servant relationship. Thus, in the event of effecting disciplinary measures, the procedures laid down in the relevant statute or regulation must be strictly complied with. (Pp. 286-287, paras. G-A).
OKOH V. FEDPOLY, BAUCHI (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1961) 261
ON WHETHER AN EMPLOYER IS ENTITLED TO TERMINATE EMPLOYMENT OF HIS EMPLOYEE WITHOUT GIVING REASON
Where the reason for termination of employment protected by statute is not captured in the relevant statute or regulation, an employer is entitled to terminate the appointment of his employee for any reason or no reason at all. So long as he acts within the terms of the employment, his motive for doing so is irrelevant. In the instant case, the respondents in their letter of termination dated 6th December 2006 gave no reason whatsoever for terminating the appellant’s contract of service. The Court was, therefore, bereft of the vires to probe into the reason for the termination. (P. 287, paras. B-E).
OKOH V. FEDPOLY, BAUCHI (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1961) 261
ON WHETHER MOTIVE FOR TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT IS RELEVANT
The motive that led an employer to lawfully terminate his servant’s employment is of no moment. In the instant case, the fact that the disengagement of the appellant was precipitated by disciplinary reasons was irrelevant. It did not change the reason given for his termination. The termination was proper as held by the trial court and the Court of Appeal. [Ovivie v. Delta Steel Co. Ltd. (2023) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1904) 203 referred to.] (P.294, paras. A-B).