LABOUR LAW

CONRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
Contract of employment as defined under the Workmen Compensation
Act in section 1(1) - a person shall be deemed to be a workman if he
has entered into or is working under a contract of service or
apprenticeship with an employer whether by way of manual labour,
clerical work or otherwise and whether the contract is expressed or
implied, is oral or in writing as seen in the case of Phoenix Motors Ltd.
V. MPFMB (1993) 1NWLR (Part 272) 718.
DISMISSAL AND TERMINATION
In a contract of employment with statutory or constitutional flavour, the
procedure for employment and discipline including termination and
dismissal of an employee are clearly spelt out. The settle position in such
employment is that it must be terminated in a way and manner prescribed
by the relevant statute otherwise the court will declare void any act done
not in accordance with the prescribed procedure. This was the decision in
UBN Ltd v. Ogbo Imoloame v. WAEC(1991)1 NWLR (Pt. 126) 328
and NEPA v. Adesaaji (2002)17 NWLR (Pt. 797) 461.
Other Issues

Wrongful termination of appointment-onus of proof of- on whom liesF.M.C., Ido-Ekiti v. Alabi (2012) 2NWLR (Pt 1285) 411 C.A

Dismissal of employee- need to accord employee fair hearingproper procedure thereof- U.B.A. Plc v. Oranuba (2014) 2NWLR
(Pt. 1390) 1 C.A

Employee of statutory institution- where wrongfully dismissedwhether court can reinstate- U.C.H.B.M v. Morakinyo (2014) 16
NWLR (Pt. 1434) 589 C.A

Relief for re instatement action therefor- whether can be sought

under Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules- F.B.N.
P.L.C. v. A.G. Fed. (2014) 12 NWLR (Pt. N1422) 470 C.A.

WORKING ETHICS (DUTIES OF PARTIES)

Duties of the Employee
1. Personal service.
2. Obedience to orders- Professor Olatunbosun v. Niser, Yusuf v.
Union Bank (1996) 6 SCNJ 203. In Nigeria Arab Bank Ltd v.
Shuiabu (1991) n4 NWLR (Part 186)450 where Shuiabu was a
branch manager of the Appellant Bank. In alleged obedience to the
instruction of his Area Manager but obvious disobedience to a
directive from the Management and banking rules, Shuiabu paid out
money to the Area Manager on the account of a company where the
Area Manager was a director and which company on the same day
had lodged in a cheque for the cash value. The payment was made
based on an internal voucher signed by the Area Manager
authorizing payment. No cheque was drawn. Shuaibu was dismissed
for disobedience amongst others and the Court of Appeal overruling
the trial court held the irregularity in the transaction to be total and
disquieting on the part of Shuiabu , thus deserving dismissal. Also
see Sule v. Nig. Cotton Board (1985) 2NWLR (Part 5) 17 and
U.B.N Plc v. Soares (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1312)550 C.A
3. Duty of Disclosure- British Reinforced Concrete Co. Ltd. V.
Lind (1917)116 L.T. 243 where it was held that at common law,
the employee is not only bound to disclose to the employer, the
employer is even entitled to all benefits of certain discoveries made
in the course of the work.
4. Duty to take care (careful service) - Abomeli v. NRC (1995)1
NWLR (Part 372) 41 at page 467 where it was held that an
employee owes it a duty to his employer to protect its property or
use it in such a way that no preventable loss would occur.
5. Secret profits/ Accounts - CCB Nig. Ltd v. Nwankwo (1993)
4NWLR (Part 286) 159 CA where it was stated that one of the
grounds of misconduct was that the servant carried on private
business while in the employment of the bank.

DUTIES OF THE EMPLOYER

1. Duty to pay wages- Marrison v. Bell (1939) 2KB 187 where it

was stated that under a contract of service, irrespective of the
question of the length of notice provided by the contract, wages
continue through sickness... until the contract is terminated.....
2. Duty to provide work- S.C.C. (Nig.) Ltd. v. Anya (2012) 9
NWLR (Pt. 1305) 213 C.A.
3. Duty to take care of the employees safety- the statutory duties
imposed on the employer for the employees safety are near
absolute and strict unless otherwise expressly stated or where
the servants liability is statute barred, the master is not liable
as held in the case of NEPA v. Mark Obiese (1990) 10 NWLR
(Part 623)478.
4. Duty to insure- under the compulsory motor vehicles third party
insurance policy in Nigeria, it is clearly the statutory duty of the
employer owner of a motor vehicle to insure same against any
liability to third parties who may be affected by negligent acts of
employee-drivers.
PROCEDURE FOR CLAIM
1. NOTICE- Notice of the injury to workman must be given by the
workman or on his behalf to the employer, not more than six
months after the accident and before the workman voluntarily
leaves employment, that is a necessary consequence. If the
workman is dead, notice of the death must be given to an
authorized labour office. It would appear as a failure to give such
notice if due to mistake or other reasonable cause may not be a bar
to proceedings under the rule as seen in the case of Osu v. Cappa
& DAlberto (1964) LLR 138.
2. AGREEMENT BY PARTIES IN WRITING- The Act allows the
employer and workman to agree as to what the compensation would
be. This agreement must however be in writing as seen in Section
16 to be effective. Of course acceptance of the compensation as
agreed here may be a bar to further claim in Court. It has been held
anyway that such acceptance will be a bar only if the workman can
be shown to have known or deemed to know that such acceptance
amounts to waiving his right to damages as seen in the case of
Famuyiwa v. Folawiyo & Ors. (19721)5 SC 112.

3. APPLICATION TO COURT- Where parties fail to agree and in writing

as prescribed in section 16, after 21 days of notice, the workman or

his representative may apply in the prescribed form to the
appropriate court having jurisdiction for the award which is the
National Industrial Court. A claimant intending to claim under the
act must specifically proceed in accordance with this procedure as
the court cannot make the case for the victim suo motu or on just a
mention midway into the action. In the case of I.I.T.A. v. Amrani
(1994) 3NWLR (Pt. 332) 296, the Plaintiff brought his action in
negligence. The trial court in awarding damages alluded to the fact
that it was a case of reparation for industrial injuries suffered from
an occupational risk. The court of Appeal in allowing the appeal
agreed that the Court was grossly in error since the claim was not
founded under the Act and what is more, the procedure under the
Act was different from the one followed in the action.