Law Report CLRN
Dear Friends of CLRN
Welcome again to this week’s CLRN newsletter!
*Subscriptions*
This is a reminder to our current print subscribers that the August
issue [cited as (2013) 8 CLRN] is now available in print. Online
subscribers can also access the August issue on the website. Even if
you are not a subscriber you can purchase individual digests, cases or
volumes. Log on to www.clrndirect.com.
Comments and Feedback
Remember that our Weekly Case Reviews are also posted on our blog so
please share the link with friends and colleagues who are not already
on our mailing list: www.commerciallawreports.blogspot.com.
We very much value your feedback and we thank everyone who has
provided us with this and encourage you to leave comments on our blog
or write to the CLRN editor to share thoughts or views on our Case
Review and anything else you would like to see included in the weekly
newsletter.
*Case Review** *
* **FIICHARLES ORGAN & **14 ORS. V. **NIGERIA LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS
LIMITED & ANOR.*
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
/(//ONNOGHEN//; //CHUKWUMA-ENEH//; //MUHAMMAD//; //OGUNBIYI//;
//AKAAHS//, JJ.SC)///
The Appellants were supernumerary police officers assigned to the 1st
Respondent. They however asserted that they were employees of the 1st
Respondent and that they were entitled to the benefits due and
accruable to the 1st Respondent’s staff. In support of their claim,
they contended that they were recruited by the 1st Respondent. The
Respondents on the other hand countered that the Appellants were
employed by the 2nd Respondent (the Commissioner of Police, Rivers
State) by virtue of the Police Act and posted to the 1st Respondent.
The Appellants filed an originating summons against the Respondents
seeking several reliefs including a declaration that they are staff of
the 1st Respondent and accordingly must enjoy all benefits that accrue
to its staff. The Appellants sought and obtained an injunction
restraining the Respondents from terminating their employment before
the determination of the substantive suit at the trial court. In spite
of the injunction, their employment was terminated. The Appellants
challenged their termination.
The trial court dismissed the Appellants’ case and declared that
they were supernumerary police officers employed by the 2nd
Respondent. The trial court noted that the supernumerary police
officers are not employed by the persons making use of their services,
but by the Nigerian Police Force. The court finally held that the
Appellants had failed to establish that they were employees of the 1st
Respondent.
Dissatisfied, the Appellants appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of
Appeal which affirmed the decision of the trial court. The Appellants
further appealed to the Supreme Court raising three issues for
determination, one of which was:
*/“Whether on a proper application of the law to the evidence
before the court of appeal, that court was right when it affirmed the
judgment of the trial court to the effect that appellants are
Supernumerary Police Officers and members of the Nigeria
/**/P/**/olice /**/F/**/orce”/**//*
Learned counsel to the Appellants argued that the 1st Respondent
initiated the Appellants’ employment and by virtue of Section 91 of
the Labour Act cannot deny being employers of the Appellants simply by
not issuing the latter their appointment letters. *//*
Learned counsel to the 1st Respondent argued that the Appellants bore
the burden of establishing that they were employees of the 1st
Respondent and failed to discharge that burden.
After considering the arguments of the parties, the Supreme Court
dismissed the appeal holding as follows:
* *
“It is beyond dispute that appellants claim for wrongful termination
is founded on contract. Again it is trite that he who hires can fire.
It nevertheless remains the law that an employer must observe and
adhere to the conditions under which the employee is hired before such
an employee can be fired otherwise the employer can ipso facto be held
liable for unlawful termination of the services of the employee. See
/Garuba v. Kwara Investment Co. Ltd// // /(2005) 5 NWLR (Pt 917) 160/;
Osianya v. Afribank // //(Nig) Plc // /(2007) 6 NWLR (1031) 565.**
In the instant case where the appellants allege wrongful termination
of their employment by the 1st respondent the onus is on them to prove
not only the existence of a contract of employment
between them and the 1st respondent but the terms of the very contract
their employer breached in bringing the contract to an end.
An appraisal of the reliefs the appellants seek from and are refused,
by both courts, for want of proof of the existence of the contract of
employment they assert exist between them and the 1st respondent are,
declaratory. The appellants must establish their entitlements to the
reliefs upon the strength of their own case and not on the weakness of
the respondents' case. See /Gbadamosi v. Dairo /(2007) 3 NWLR (Pt
1021) 282 and/ Dada Dosunmu /(2006) 18 NWLR (Pt 1010) 134/./ On the
cause the appellants identified in their originating summons as well
as the documents they annexed thereto, the question the courts must be
able to answer is whether indeed there exists a
contract of employment between the appellants and the respondents
breach of which entitles the appellants to the reliefs they claim. The
concurrent findings of the two courts alluded to earlier in this
judgment which evolve from the evidence the appellants supplied, and
was rightly adjudged unavailing to them, are unassailable. Once a
plaintiff is unable to prove his case the court must dismiss the
claim. This is the concurrent verdict of the two courts below. And
this explains the resolution of appellants 2nd issue against them and
the inability of this court to interfere with the judgment of the
court below.”
The Supreme Court also considered the arguments on whether the
Appellants had established their entitlement to the reliefs sought and
held that:
“All the reliefs the appellants seek are on the basis of the fact
that they are employees of the 1st respondent and no more... It
remains my considered view that reliefs are granted to a plaintiff if
he succeeds in proving his claim. Failure to do that disentitles the
plaintiff to the reliefs which are dependent on the worthiness of the
claim in the first place.”
* *
* *
*Counsel:*
Ledun Mitee for the Appellants
Seyi Sowemimo SAN with Remi Coker for the 1st Respondent
N.C. Ireogbu for the 2nd Respondent
This summary is fully reported at (2013) 10 CLRN
info@clrnltd.com <mailto:info@clrnltd.com>
www.clrndirect.com
<http://clrndirect.com/lists/public_html/lists/lt.php?id=ZR9bWV5YDgZJB1UGT1daAAY%3D>
--
This message was sent to ikeake2003@yahoo.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails from clrndirect.com in the
future, please click
http://clrndirect.com/lists/public_html/lists/lt.php?id=ZR9bWV5YDgRJB1UGT1daAAY%3D
To share this message with someone, forward it to them by clicking
http://clrndirect.com/lists/public_html/lists/lt.php?id=ZR9bWV5YDgVJB1UGT1daAAY%3D
This is a product offering from Commercial Law Reports Nigeria Limited
(clrndirect.com) 2ND Floor 369 Borno Way,
Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Tel: +234 1 7395409, +234 1 2133342, 0809111CLRN ( 08091112576 )
--
powered by phpList, www.phplist.com --
Welcome again to this week’s CLRN newsletter!
*Subscriptions*
This is a reminder to our current print subscribers that the August
issue [cited as (2013) 8 CLRN] is now available in print. Online
subscribers can also access the August issue on the website. Even if
you are not a subscriber you can purchase individual digests, cases or
volumes. Log on to www.clrndirect.com.
Comments and Feedback
Remember that our Weekly Case Reviews are also posted on our blog so
please share the link with friends and colleagues who are not already
on our mailing list: www.commerciallawreports.blogspot.com.
We very much value your feedback and we thank everyone who has
provided us with this and encourage you to leave comments on our blog
or write to the CLRN editor to share thoughts or views on our Case
Review and anything else you would like to see included in the weekly
newsletter.
*Case Review** *
* **FIICHARLES ORGAN & **14 ORS. V. **NIGERIA LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS
LIMITED & ANOR.*
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
/(//ONNOGHEN//; //CHUKWUMA-ENEH//; //MUHAMMAD//; //OGUNBIYI//;
//AKAAHS//, JJ.SC)///
The Appellants were supernumerary police officers assigned to the 1st
Respondent. They however asserted that they were employees of the 1st
Respondent and that they were entitled to the benefits due and
accruable to the 1st Respondent’s staff. In support of their claim,
they contended that they were recruited by the 1st Respondent. The
Respondents on the other hand countered that the Appellants were
employed by the 2nd Respondent (the Commissioner of Police, Rivers
State) by virtue of the Police Act and posted to the 1st Respondent.
The Appellants filed an originating summons against the Respondents
seeking several reliefs including a declaration that they are staff of
the 1st Respondent and accordingly must enjoy all benefits that accrue
to its staff. The Appellants sought and obtained an injunction
restraining the Respondents from terminating their employment before
the determination of the substantive suit at the trial court. In spite
of the injunction, their employment was terminated. The Appellants
challenged their termination.
The trial court dismissed the Appellants’ case and declared that
they were supernumerary police officers employed by the 2nd
Respondent. The trial court noted that the supernumerary police
officers are not employed by the persons making use of their services,
but by the Nigerian Police Force. The court finally held that the
Appellants had failed to establish that they were employees of the 1st
Respondent.
Dissatisfied, the Appellants appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of
Appeal which affirmed the decision of the trial court. The Appellants
further appealed to the Supreme Court raising three issues for
determination, one of which was:
*/“Whether on a proper application of the law to the evidence
before the court of appeal, that court was right when it affirmed the
judgment of the trial court to the effect that appellants are
Supernumerary Police Officers and members of the Nigeria
/**/P/**/olice /**/F/**/orce”/**//*
Learned counsel to the Appellants argued that the 1st Respondent
initiated the Appellants’ employment and by virtue of Section 91 of
the Labour Act cannot deny being employers of the Appellants simply by
not issuing the latter their appointment letters. *//*
Learned counsel to the 1st Respondent argued that the Appellants bore
the burden of establishing that they were employees of the 1st
Respondent and failed to discharge that burden.
After considering the arguments of the parties, the Supreme Court
dismissed the appeal holding as follows:
* *
“It is beyond dispute that appellants claim for wrongful termination
is founded on contract. Again it is trite that he who hires can fire.
It nevertheless remains the law that an employer must observe and
adhere to the conditions under which the employee is hired before such
an employee can be fired otherwise the employer can ipso facto be held
liable for unlawful termination of the services of the employee. See
/Garuba v. Kwara Investment Co. Ltd// // /(2005) 5 NWLR (Pt 917) 160/;
Osianya v. Afribank // //(Nig) Plc // /(2007) 6 NWLR (1031) 565.**
In the instant case where the appellants allege wrongful termination
of their employment by the 1st respondent the onus is on them to prove
not only the existence of a contract of employment
between them and the 1st respondent but the terms of the very contract
their employer breached in bringing the contract to an end.
An appraisal of the reliefs the appellants seek from and are refused,
by both courts, for want of proof of the existence of the contract of
employment they assert exist between them and the 1st respondent are,
declaratory. The appellants must establish their entitlements to the
reliefs upon the strength of their own case and not on the weakness of
the respondents' case. See /Gbadamosi v. Dairo /(2007) 3 NWLR (Pt
1021) 282 and/ Dada Dosunmu /(2006) 18 NWLR (Pt 1010) 134/./ On the
cause the appellants identified in their originating summons as well
as the documents they annexed thereto, the question the courts must be
able to answer is whether indeed there exists a
contract of employment between the appellants and the respondents
breach of which entitles the appellants to the reliefs they claim. The
concurrent findings of the two courts alluded to earlier in this
judgment which evolve from the evidence the appellants supplied, and
was rightly adjudged unavailing to them, are unassailable. Once a
plaintiff is unable to prove his case the court must dismiss the
claim. This is the concurrent verdict of the two courts below. And
this explains the resolution of appellants 2nd issue against them and
the inability of this court to interfere with the judgment of the
court below.”
The Supreme Court also considered the arguments on whether the
Appellants had established their entitlement to the reliefs sought and
held that:
“All the reliefs the appellants seek are on the basis of the fact
that they are employees of the 1st respondent and no more... It
remains my considered view that reliefs are granted to a plaintiff if
he succeeds in proving his claim. Failure to do that disentitles the
plaintiff to the reliefs which are dependent on the worthiness of the
claim in the first place.”
* *
* *
*Counsel:*
Ledun Mitee for the Appellants
Seyi Sowemimo SAN with Remi Coker for the 1st Respondent
N.C. Ireogbu for the 2nd Respondent
This summary is fully reported at (2013) 10 CLRN
info@clrnltd.com <mailto:info@clrnltd.com>
www.clrndirect.com
<http://clrndirect.com/lists/public_html/lists/lt.php?id=ZR9bWV5YDgZJB1UGT1daAAY%3D>
--
This message was sent to ikeake2003@yahoo.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails from clrndirect.com in the
future, please click
http://clrndirect.com/lists/public_html/lists/lt.php?id=ZR9bWV5YDgRJB1UGT1daAAY%3D
To share this message with someone, forward it to them by clicking
http://clrndirect.com/lists/public_html/lists/lt.php?id=ZR9bWV5YDgVJB1UGT1daAAY%3D
This is a product offering from Commercial Law Reports Nigeria Limited
(clrndirect.com) 2ND Floor 369 Borno Way,
Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Tel: +234 1 7395409, +234 1 2133342, 0809111CLRN ( 08091112576 )
--
powered by phpList, www.phplist.com --
Comments
Post a Comment