Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Termination of Employment in Nigeria
Termination of Employment in Nigeria
1
http://ilo.org
2
See also: Nigerian Ports Plc V. Osinuga (2001) FWLR (PT 55) 514 C.A.
"any person who has entered into a contract of employment to
employ any other person as a worker either for himself or for the
service of any other person and includes the agent, manager or
factory of the first mentioned person and the personnel
representative of a deceased employer".
Lastly the act ascribes the following definition to a worker;
"any person who has entered into or work under a contract with an
employer, whether is for manual labour or clerical work or is
expressed or implied or oral or written and whether it is a contract
or service or a contract personally to execute any work or labour..."
.3
According to the International Labour Organisation, its mandate is to
give the widest possible meaning to the definition of worker. On many
occasions, it has been emphasized that, if the subject matter of a given
instrument is not limited only to employed workers, or the instrument
does not provide for any specific exclusion in respect of one or more
categories of workers, then "worker" is understood to cover all workers.4
The Black’s law dictionary defines employment to mean:
“Verbal or scripted, implied or expressed, contract detailing terms
or conditions based on which a worker agrees to perform specific
duties as guided and commanded by the employer, for an accorded
salary or wage. Whether it is mentioned or not in this contract, the
employer and employee can only make lawful, reasonable demands
towards each other and they should have mutual confidence and
trust. Every employee is obliged to perform assigned tasks and
follow the employer”5
The Black’s provides a more concise definition of the concept of
employment when it defines it to mean:
“The relationship between master and servant, the act of
employing, the quality, state or condition of being employed; the
condition of having a paying job, work for which one has been
hired and is being paid by an employer.”6
In Nigeria, a plethora of cases have taken the liberty to define the
meaning of employment and thus in the case of Nigeria Airways V.
Gbajumo7 the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, while dismissing the
3
Labour Act cap L1, LFN, 2010
4
See the examples in the ILO Memorandum addressed to the German Ministry of Labour and
Social Affairs concerning C96,
reproduced in OB, Vol. XLIX, No. 3, 1966, pp. 389-390.
5
Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition
6
Black’s Law Dictionary 10th Edition
7
(1992) 5 NWLR Pt 2164 at 735
appeal held that the relationship of master and servant is characterised
by:
a) A contract of service made under seal, oral or inferred from
the conduct of the parties.
8
(1991) 4 NWLR, Pt 183, pg 43 at 46
9
see Olaniyan v. University of Lagos (1985) 2 NWLR Pt 9, pg 5, UNTHMB v. Nnoli [1992] 8
NWLR (Pt 363) 576,
10
See Shitta-Bey v. Federal Public Service Commission (1981) 1.S.C pg 40
provide that either party may terminate it by giving a specified period of
notice or payment of salary in lieu of notice. The employer would, in most
cases, exercise the option of giving salary in lieu of notice where the
termination is at his own instance.
1.2 Dismissal
The Supreme Court has also confirmed the existence of a general power
to dismiss for misconduct of any kind that can justify a dismissal. 12 It
should be noted that where the misconduct is committed outside working
hours, it will justify dismissal only where it can be shown to be harmful to
the employer’s business integrity, or refer adversely on the capacity of
the employee to perform his duty.
Dismissals are very much a last resort for an employer to take. In the
event of an employer deciding that dismissal is the only option, it must be
conducted fairly and without prejudice. Before a situation reaches
dismissal, employers will need to have followed their disciplinary policies
and demonstrated that they have reasonably tried all other methods to
solve the problem before resorting to dismissal. A brief overview about
the various types of dismissal will suffice at this stage.
Fair dismissal is when an employer has sound and justifiable reasons for
carrying out a dismissal. Redundancy will also fall under this category,
although of course the reasons why an employee is selected for
redundancy must be fair.
This are situations where an employee has not been informed of any
reason for their dismissal, or the employer has not followed their own
policy regarding dismissals or discipline. As mentioned, dismissal is a last
resort and there needs to be a lengthy process that proves the problem
hasn’t been resolved by other means before dismissal is considered.
2.1.1 Retaliation
The common law rule here is that ‘’he who hires can fire’’. In Maiduguri
Flour Mills v Abba,16 it was held that at common law a master may
terminate a contract of employment with or without notice and without
ascribing any reason for the termination. See also the case of Imoloame
v. WAEC17 and Olaniyan v. University of Lagos.18 According to these
authorities even if a termination was wrongful, all that an employee is
entitled to is damages.19
The pivot of maintaining equilibrium between both the employer and the
employee when terminating the relationship is the terms of the
agreement. It has been held that the courts may not look outside the
terms of the agreement when deciding on matters that are central to the
terms of the agreement or contract of employment especially master and
servant relationship. It must be noted that employment can be
terminated at any time including during probation.
16
1996 9 NWLR (Pt 473) 506
17
1992 NWLR (Pt. 265) 303 at 318E
18
1985 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599 at 612C
19
See also; Obanye v. Union Bank (2018) LPELR-44702 (SC)
20
1998 4 NWLR (Pt 547) 608
the contract. In Swiss Nigeria Wood Industries Ltd v Bogo,21 the
respondent was engaged for a fixed period of two years, but had his
contract terminated after 6 months. The Supreme Court held that the
company is liable to pay the respondent the full salary he would have
earned for the unexpired period of 14 months. The position of the law on
this issue has not changed as evident in the recent Court of Appeal
judgment in the case of; Snow Eniola Ogunjimi v. The Incorporated
Trustees TY Danjuma Foundation & Anor.22
In the absence of notice, section 11(2) of the Act provides that the notice
to be given shall be:
(a) One day, where the contract has continued for a period of
three months or more or less
(b) One week, where the contract has continued for more than
three months but less than two weeks
(c) Two weeks, where the contract has continued for a period of
two years, but less than five years
(d) One month, where the contract has continued for five years
or more.
This was reiterated by Uwaifo JCA (as he then was) in the case of Shell
Petroleum Dev. Co., (Nig.) Ltd. V. Lawson Jack where he held thus:
‘’if there is any written contract, the court must confine itself to it
to interpret and understand the circumstances that regulate the
21
1970 NCLR 423
22
(2018) LPELR-45274(CA)
right and obligations of the parties. That is to say the contract as a
whole including any other document incorporated into it be
reference or any other method that govern the relationship of the
parties to the contract.” 23
‘’…..but for the fact that exhibit 1, the condition of service, theft is
listed as one of the offences which punishment is summary
dismissal. I refer to Article 22 (2) of Exh. 3 thereof….According to
the terms of the condition of service which applied to both
whenever there is incident of theft against any of the
employees…….the offender is liable to a summary dismissal for an
act of gross misconduct. Both the Respondent and the Appellants
are bound by their condition of service and the court should not go
out of the terms of the contract of service.’’ 26
In the case of Vine V. National Dock Labour 27, Jenkins J. was emphatic
on the available remedy for an aggrieved employee:
Before now, the above principle was also applied in a plethora of cases in
Nigeria. For instance, in the case of Idoniboye – Obu v. NNPC 28,
Uwaifo JSC stated thus:
23
1998 4 NWLR Pt. (454) at 249
24
Amodu v. Amodu 1990 5 NWLR (Pt. 150) 35, see also: Katto V. CBN (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 607)
390, Idoniboye – Obu v. NNPC
(2003) 2 NWLR (Pt 805) 589
25
2005 8 NWLR (Pt 928) 650
26
See also Ajayi v. Texaco (1987) 3 NWLR 577, Commissioner for Works Benue State v. Devcom
Ltd (1988) 3 NWLR (PT 83)
407.
27
1956 3 All ER 939
28
2003 2 NWLR Pt (805) 589
‘’it is all well settled that in this type of employment, that is in the
case of ordinary servant and master where there is repudiation or
breach of contract, the remedies of the parties is in damages’’
The ILO is the only tripartite U.N. agency, since 1919 the ILO brings
together governments, employers and workers of 187 member states, to
set labour standards, develop policies and devise programmes promoting
decent work for all women and men.
The ILO had, since 1963 realised that the English common law
perspective of the rights of labour and employers of labour does not suit
current trends and awareness in the workplace. In its efforts to set global
standards and direct labour developments amongst member countries,
the first step taken by the ILO was its formulation of a set of
recommendations, aptly called ILO Recommendation on Termination of
Employment or Recommendation 111. Recommendation 111 provides
that:
The Recommendation further states that a worker who feels that his
employment has been unjustifiably terminated should be entitled to
appeal the termination to ‘a body established under a collective
agreement or to a neutral body such as a court, an arbitrator, an
arbitration committee or a similar body.’ If the termination is found to be
unjustified, the tribunal should be entitled to order that the worker be
reinstated or be paid ‘adequate compensation’ or other appropriate
relief.
29
It was adopted by the International Labour Organization on June 26, 1963, by a vote of 196 to
74 and 10 abstentions. It has
currently been superseded by Recommendation No. 166 of 1982.
30
See J. R. Bellace, ‘A Right of Fair Dismissal: Enforcing A Statutory Guarantee’, at 213
The Convention (No. 158) supports the notion that discharged workers
should have a right to defend themselves before punishment is imposed.
Article 7 states that a dismissal based on the employee’s conduct or
performance should not take effect until the employee has had an
opportunity to respond to the allegations, ‘unless the employer cannot
reasonably be expected to provide this opportunity’. This can be seen as
merely good personnel management practice. Yet, at present, there is no
right to a pre-discharge disciplinary interview in Nigeria. This convention
has not been adopted in Nigeria either by law, custom or executive
action.31
“The following, inter alia, shall not constitute valid reasons for
termination:
(b) seeking office as, or acting or having acted in the capacity of, a
workers' representative;
31
Even though Article 1 of the Recommendation provides that effect may be given to the
Recommendation through national laws or regulations, collective agreements, works rules,
arbitration awards, or court decisions or in such other manner consistent with national practice
as may be appropriate under national conditions.
(e) absence from work during maternity leave.”
By Article 9, the worker may not bear the burden of proof that his
termination was not justified. The ratifying nation may either place the
burden on the employer to come forward with a valid reason for the
discharge or require that the impartial body reach a conclusion based on
the evidence, thereby placing the burden of proof on neither party. Far
from being a matter of mere procedure, this requirement amounts to an
important substantive protection in itself: employees are no longer
placed in the difficult position of proving that the employer’s reason for
discharge was invalid, a task usually requiring employees to prove that
their work record was spotless. Article 9 thus creates further support for
the fundamental guarantee. Employers should have a valid reason for
dismissal; therefore, it is not unduly onerous to require employers to
specify that reason.
This may however raise the issue of the constitutionality of section 7(6)
of the NIC Act as the 1999 Constitution has clearly provided for the only
33
Section 7 (6) National Industrial Court Act
condition upon which international conventions and treaties can attain
the force of law in Nigeria. This question is yet to be answered by the
courts in Nigeria but if section 7(6) is to be given its full weight, the NIC
ought to be able to adopt such practices. This position is further
substantiated by the clear provisions of the constitution34, which confers
on the NIC jurisdiction over international best practices in labour,
employment and industrial relation matters.
4.0 Conclusion
As things stand the Nigerian laws seem to continue with the age-old
common-law position which is to the effect that an employer can hire and
fire for good, bad or no reason at all. At least with dismissal the reasons
are readily available.
34
Section 254c (1) (f) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended
35
Sections 55 and 56 of the Labour Act
36
Section 42 (1) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended