Can Employers Break the Rules? Exploring The Legality of Summary Dismissal Against Service Conditions

CASE TITLE: BENUE BREWERY LTD v. OKONTA (2024) LPELR-61878(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 22ND MARCH, 2024

JUSTICES: CORDELIA IFEOMA JOMBO-OFO, JCA
BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, JCA
IBRAHIM WAKILI JAURO, JCA

DIVISION: MAKURDI

PRACTICE AREA: LABOUR LAW

FACTS:

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Benue State High Court of Justice sitting in Makurdi.

The facts of this case, as laid out before the trial Court and agreed upon by the parties, is that the Respondent had been in the employment of the Appellant from the 17th day of November, 1995 up until the 13th day of December, 2010, when the Appellant gave him a letter of dismissal without providing the reason for the dismissal. The Respondent had then written the Appellant through his solicitor on the 28th day of January, 2011 demanding to know the reason(s) for his dismissal. In response to which the Appellant had written the Respondent informing him that given the nature of the employment, the Appellant was not under any obligation to give reasons for the dismissal of the Respondent.

It was on this basis that the Respondent had approached the trial Court seeking for redress against the Appellant whom he claimed had flaunted the clear provisions of Article 8 of the Appellant’s Employee’s Handbook which clearly spelt out the disciplinary procedures to be initiated against any erring staff of the Appellant and the processes to be taken before the dismissal of any of the Appellant’s staff which processes & procedures the Appellant had refused to comply with before dismissing the Respondent. He then tendered seven Exhibits in proof of his case, to wit; His letters of employment, An Award for meritorious service given to him by the Appellant, His letter of termination, the letter of demand to the Appellant, the Appellant’s letter of response to the Respondent and the Appellant’s employee handbook.

The case of the Appellant, on the other hand, is that the Respondent’s employment was one without statutory flavour and as such, the Appellant was never under any obligation to give reasons for the dismissal of the Respondent.

At the conclusion of the case, the learned trial judge found in favour of the Respondent and held that the Respondent’s dismissal by the Appellant was wrongful and proceeded to award the sum of N500, 000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only as general damages against the Appellant.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The appeal was determined based on the issues raised by the Appellant thus;

1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in invoking the principle of lack of fair hearing in a case of contract of service without statutory flavour.

2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in the award of general damages in the light of the evidence adduced and the law regulating master/servant relationship.

COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS: 

Learned Appellant’s counsel argued that in contracts of service without statutory provisions, such as in this case, the issue of denial of fair hearing before dismissal does not apply. Counsel referenced cases including Godfrey Isevwore v. Nepa (2002) 13 NWLR (Pt. 784) 417 and Folorunsho v. WAEC (2011) ALL FWLR (Part 556) 422 to support the contention that since the trial judge determined the Respondent’s contract lacked statutory backing, the requirement for fair hearing did not apply, and the trial judge erred in suggesting otherwise. Counsel metaphorically likened this to the biblical story of Adam and Eve, arguing that even in the Garden of Eden, God Almighty heard from them before taking action.

In response, learned Respondent’s counsel countered that the trial judge correctly applied the principle of fair hearing, noting that the Appellant dismissed the Respondent without adhering to the procedures outlined in Exhibit G (the Appellant’s handbook). This, according to counsel, constituted a wrongful termination as per the contractual obligations detailed in Exhibit G. Agbahomvo & Ors v. Oduyagbe & Ors (1999) 3 NWLR (Part 594) 170 and Julius Berger (Nig) Plc v. Emmanuel (2020) LPELR-49693(CA), among others, were cited to support the argument that the trial judge’s decision was justified.

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed.

RATIO:

LABOUR LAW – TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT/APPOINTMENT: Principles guiding the termination of employment

“The law as laid down by the apex Court is quite clear; in a master and servant relationship devoid of statutory flavour, an employer has the right to summarily dismiss an employee on grounds of misconduct or willful disobedience. However, where conditions of service exist between the employer and the employee, the provisions are binding on them. Any disciplinary measure by way of dismissal or termination must follow the laid down procedure. Failure to do so amounts to wrongful dismissal. Therefore, an employee who complains that his employment was wrongly terminated has the onus to place before the Court the terms and conditions of the contract of employment and to prove the way and manner those terms were breached by the employer. See U.T.C. (Nig.) Plc v. Peters (2022) 18 NWLR (Part 1862) 297 at 319-320, Para E-B; 322, Para A-B; Ovivie v. Delta Steel Co. Ltd. (2023) 14 NWLR (Part 1904) 203 at 235-236, Para H-B.” Per JAURO, J.C.A.