The master can relieve the employee of his job with or without a reason. Motive for so doing is not relevant, see Geidam v. NEPA (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt. 696) 45. Be that as it may, if the determination is in breach of a term of the contract of employment, the court cannot, by its order, compel the employer to keep in its employment an employee whose service it no longer desires or requires. See Opuo v. NNPC (2000) 14 NWLR (Pt. 734) 552.
– NGWUTA, JCA. Osumah v. EBS (2004)
SHARE ON
In this respect the observation of the Supreme Court per Belgore JSC (as he then was) in Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd v Ogboh (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt.380) 467 at 664 is apt. It merits my respective quotation in extenso. Said the learned justice of the Supreme Court:- “Except in employment governed by statute wherein the procedure for employment and discipline (including dismissal) of an employee are clearly spelt out, any other employment outside the statute is governed by the terms under which the parties agreed to be master and servant. Employment with statutory backing must be terminated in the way and manner prescribed by the statute and any other termination inconsistent with the relevant statute is null and void and of no effect examples are many especially with modern constitutional and statutory trends. (University of Lagos Act, 1962; Section 13 (2), 18 (e) and 61 under cases governed only by agreement of parties and not by statute, removal by way of termination of appointment or dismissal will be in the form agreed to; any other form connotes only wrongful termination or dismissal but not to declare such dismissal null and void. The only remedy is a claim for wrongful dismissal. This is based on the notion that no servant can be imposed by Court on an unwilling master even where the mater’s behaviour is wrong. For his wrongful act, he is only liable in damages and nothing more. Union Beverages Ltd v Owolabi (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt.68) 128.”
Fakuade v. O.A.U.T.H.C.M.B. (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 291) 47 where Karibi-Whyte JSC stated at page 63: “The character of an appointment and status of the employer in respect thereof is determined by the legal character and the contract of the employee. Hence where the contract of appointment is determinable by the agreement of the parties, simpliciter, there is no question of the contract having a statutory flavour. The fact that the other contracting party is the creation of a statute did not make any difference.”
I will hasten to say that it will be a contradiction in terms for a citizen of a Republic, such as Nigeria, to hold his office at the pleasure of the Crown. Which Crown We have no Crown here and public Servants in the established and pensionable cadre of the Federal Government Service are not regarded as employed at the pleasure of the Federal Government. This point was first made in Bashir Alade Shitta-Bey v. The Federal Public Service Commission (1981) 1 SC. 40 at pp. 57/58.
— A. Oputa, JSC. Olaniyan & Ors. v. University of Lagos (1985) – SC.53/1985
In the case of Organ and Ors. v. Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd., and Anor (2013) LPELR – 20942 (SC), the Supreme Court emphatically held as follows: “The letter of employment is the bedrock on which any of the appellants can lay claim to being employees of the respondent and without the production of such a document, no employment can be inferred. The Employees’ Handbook issued by 1st Respondent is not a substitute for the letter of employment”.
In C.B.N v Igwillo (2007) 4-5 SC 154 @ 172 lines 25-40 to be as follows: “The law is settled that there are now roughly three categories of contracts of employment viz: (a) those regarded as purely master and servant; those where a servant is said to hold office at the pleasure of the employer; and those where the employment is regulated or governed by statute, often referred to as having statutory flavour; See: Olaniyan Vs University of Lagos (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.9) 599. An employment is said to have statutory flavour when the employment is protected by statute or laid down regulations made to govern the procedure for employment and discipline of an employee. Any other employment outside that category is governed by the terms under which the parties agree to be master and servant.”
Ordinarily and consistent with the common law principle, the Court will not impose an employee on an employer.
– Karibe-Whyte, JSC. Chukwumah v. SPDC (1993)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry