INSTANCES WHERE A CONTRACT OF SERVICE UNDER A STATUTORY EMPLOYER DOES NOT ENJOY STATUTORY FLAVOUR By Lukman Quyum Abiola & Nana Hauwa’u Abdulazeez

"The fact that an employer is a statutory body does not automatically clothe the employment of its employees with a statutory flavour unless it is so stated in the employees’ contract of employment". The employment letter and other documents must be read in a whole vis-à-vis the statutory instrument in contemplation.

The significance of the inclusion and exclusion of certain clauses (terms) and the similarities of the subject matter of the authority relied upon to the case in question in a contract of employment impact and influence the interpretation of law and resolution of dispute in Nigerian adjudication, and this has been judiciously expounded in the case of Gyubok v. Fedpoly, Bauchi (2024) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1965) 515.

These two factors have their historical narrative in the legal maxim “Expressio unius est exclusio alterius or inclusio unius est exclusio alterius (the expression of one thing excludes others) and Statutes im pari materia (dealing with the same subject matter). This case concerns a disagreement over the termination of the Appellant’s employment at Federal Polytechnic, Bauchi. Gyubok challenged his dismissal, citing that the procedure outlined in Section 12(1) of the Federal Polytechnic Act and his employment contract was not adhered to. 

It is a well-trodden legal principle that the primary duty of the court is jus dicere, not jus dare. The aforementioned case examines the legal dispute involving the appellant and the Federal Polytechnic, Bauchi, the 1st respondent, regarding the termination of the appellant's employment. The Supreme Court of Nigeria, acting in its capacity as the court of last resort, delivered a unanimous decision in favour of the respondents, which included the Federal Polytechnic, Bauchi, and the Council of Federal Polytechnic, Bauchi.

This case analysis focuses on the legal principles governing the termination of employment in Nigerian educational institutions and the role of the judiciary in interpreting and upholding such principles. By examining the Supreme Court's decision, led by Jamilu Yammama Tukur, J.S.C. 

The appellant's employment was terminated on the grounds of "services no longer required," which he contested, asserting that the procedure for termination as outlined in Section 12(1) of the Federal Polytechnic Act and his employment contract was not properly respected.

The appellant's termination was based on administrative decisions taken by the Polytechnic. The appellant had previously faced disciplinary measures, including a suspension, following issues related to his conduct, as indicated by Exhibits 3 to 6. Despite these antecedents, the Polytechnic terminated his employment under the "services no longer required" clause, a move the appellant argued was a “camouflage” and contrary to the requirements of Section 12(1) of the Federal Polytechnic Act.

The court while stating the position of the law inter alia noted that “the law is now recondite on the situation that would warrant our interference” when the learned counsel to the appellant argued two issues before the court that: The termination of the appellant’s employment does not complied with the procedural requirements outlined in Section 12(1) of the Federal Polytechnic Act and the facts of the case warranted the application of precedent in Adeniyi v. Yaba College of Technology (1993) SCNJ (Pt. II) 307; (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 300) 426.

Leading Judgement by Jamilu Yammama Tukur, J.S.C., affirmed the findings of the lower courts, holding that the termination of the appellant’s employment was lawful and in line with the provisions of the appellant’s contract. 

Moreover, the reason that can cause the respondent to follow the due process while termination is to be implemented does not apply to this case, because the expression of one thing excludes others, as ensued in the legal maxim “Expressio unius est exclusio alterius or inclusio unius est exclusio alterius”. The court further stated that if the statutory provisions are not respected, it will be “akin to a naked usurpation, trespass, and invasion of the exclusive constitutional territory of the legislature, which will snowball into an unwarranted erosion of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers enshrined in the constitution—the fons et origo of our laws”.

Moving forward, the court distinguished the facts of the present case from Adeniyi v. Yaba College of Technology (Supra), noting that the termination in the latter case was based on allegations of gross misconduct, requiring adherence to specific procedural safeguards under Section 12(1) of the Act in contemplation. 

It is a well-settled principle of law that when authorities relied upon are not in pari materia with current fact, there would be an uphill task of considerable magnitude in proving their similarities, which can never be justified. 

In the present case, the appellant’s employment was terminated based on the “services no longer required” clause in his contract, which did not necessitate adherence to the procedural requirements of Section 12(1) as it was not a case of misconduct or inability to perform his duties. The appellant had agreed to the terms of his employment, including the clause allowing termination by a month’s notice or salary in lieu thereof, which was duly followed.

The learned Justices emphasised that legal principles derived from past cases should not be applied indiscriminately to all cases without considering the unique facts. In this regard, the court rejected the appellant’s reliance on the precedent case of Adeniyi v. Yaba College of Technology (supra), as the facts in those cases were distinct from those in the instant appeal. He concluded that the appellant's termination did not violate any statutory provision or employment terms.

The court ultimately dismissed the appellant's appeal, constituting the majority decision of the presiding justices affirming the decision of the trial court and Court of Appeal. The appellant failed to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice or any serious procedural violation that would warrant the Supreme Court's intervention. 

The Supreme Court reached a unanimous decision in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, consequently dismissing the appellant's appeal in this case. In a whole, this case, in the context of employment disputes in public institutions, emphasises the significance of considering the unique terms and conditions of each employment contract. The Supreme Court's decision in the instant case reiterated that, when assessing the legality of employment terminations, courts must carefully consider the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

This case further highlights the need to apply legal precedents judiciously, recognising that precedent should not be applied indiscriminately without regard to the unique facts of the case at hand. Emphasising the essence of considering the specific facts of each case and applying judicial precedent with careful discretion. Gyubok v. Fedpoly, Bauchi (Supra), serves as a guide for interpreting employment contracts and resolving employment disputes in public institutions. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgement of the two lower Courts was affirmed.

About the Authors:

Lukman Quyum Abiola is a member of Research & Litigation Directorate, Solace Chambers, Bayero University, Kano. She can be reached via +234 902 281 7217

Nana Hauwa’u Abdulazeez 

Nana Hauwa'u Abdulazeez is a member of Research & Litigation Directorate, Solace Chambers, Bayero University, Kano. She can be reached via +234 703 917 6661