Whether the Fact that an Organisation is a Creation of Statute Makes All Its Employees One With Statutory Flavour?

CASE TITLE: IKORO v. PHED (2022) LPELR-59058(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 18TH NOVEMBER, 2022

PRACTICE AREA: LABOUR LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on termination of employment.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the decision of the National Industrial Court, Yenegoa Judicial Division.

The case of the Appellant, as stated in his witness statement on oath adopted by him, as the sole witness in proof of his claim, is that he was an employee of the Respondent. He had been in that employment for about 20 years from when he was employed by the Respondent in 1986 under its former name NEPA. He was confirmed in 1988 and served until the Respondent was renamed PHCN in 2005. He was given a letter of employment, dated 31st May 2014, by the current PHEDC and his employment took effect from 1st June 2014. On the 30th of June, 2014, the Respondent queried him for alleged misconduct. His employment was however summarily terminated by the Respondent in August 2014. During the cross-examination of the Appellant (CW1) by the Respondent’s Counsel, the Appellant stated that he worked with the defunct NEPA which was wholly owned by the Nigerian government and also with the PHCN which was co-owned by the same Nigerian government along with other shareholders before he took up a new appointment with the Respondent (PHEDC) in 2014. That the PHEDC is a public-private company that is supervised by the government. CW1 further stated that he was disengaged by the PHCN before he took the appointment with PHEDC. CW1 also stated, still under cross-examination, that he was paid all his entitlements when he was disengaged by the PHCN. He agreed that he understood the terms of the contract that he signed with the PHEDC and that it was a probational appointment. He also agreed to have received his last salary as well as other entitlements.

The Respondent’s case was put forward by its sole witness, Jubilee Edegbai (DW1), who, in her witness statement adopted by her, stated that the Appellant received the termination of his probational employment with the Respondent in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment as contained in the contract. DW1 also testified that the Appellant is no longer a staff of the Respondent and that upon the termination of his employment, he received one month’s salary, a week’s salary in lieu of notice and other entitlements, on 31/8/2014. She denied any liability by the Respondent for the Appellant’s misfortune and attendant hardship.

Under cross-examination, she stated that she was employed in 2015 and had worked with the Respondent for almost 5 years. That she started working with them when it was PHCN. She denied knowledge of whether the Appellant had worked with the Respondent for 20 years since his appointment with NEPA. DW1 also denied knowledge of whether the Appellant was guilty of any misconduct in the past. She stated that one Mrs. M.A. Yusuf investigated the allegation of extortion against the Appellant and one Mr. Kaaka and that after her investigation the Appellant was exonerated as stated in the report (Exhibit D1). She also stated that the Respondent is different from NEPA and PHCN. Also, the Appellant’s previous service with NEPA and PHCN might not have been considered.

At the end of the trial, the learned trial judge dismissed the claims of the plaintiff. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES:

The appeal was determined on the following issues:

“1. Whether the Defendant/Respondent in this matter is still N.E.P.A. (National Electric Power Authority)?

2. Whether the Respondent complied with Exhibit C2 before terminating the appointment of the Appellant?

3. Whether the lower Court assessed, evaluated and interpreted the various documents, tendered and admitted as exhibits before the lower Court in line with relevant statutory provisions of the law and case law, before coming to the conclusion that the Appellant’s claim fails?”

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• LABOUR LAW – CONTRACT OF SERVICE/CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Whether parties and Courts are bound by the terms of a contract of employment
• LABOUR LAW – EMPLOYMENT WITH STATUTORY FLAVOUR – Whether the fact that an organisation is a creation of statute makes all its employees one with statutory flavour
• LABOUR LAW – TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – Whether an employer has the right to terminate an employee’s employment without any reason