Employment stipulating the period of notice for termination of an employee’s employment, the court proceed to consider what periodof notice is reasonable. See Beredugo V College of Science and Technology, Port Harcourt (1991) 4 NWLR 651. What is a reasonable period of notice depends on the circumstance and the status of the employee. In Hill V C. A. parsons & co. Ltd (1971) 3 NLWR 995, it was held that one month notice was not reasonable for the determination of the employment of a professional engineer. It has been held that an airline pilot was entitled to three months notice. See Nicoll V Falcon Airways Ltd (1962) 1 Lioyds Rep 345. Six months has been considered adequate for a manager of 120 Cinemas. See Adams V Union Cinemas Ltd (1939) 3 AER 136. The labour Act has stipulated some minimum period of notice. Section of the Act provides as follows; 1) Either party to a contract of employment may terminate the contract on the expiration of the notice given by him to the other party of his intention to do so. 2) The notice to be given for the purpose of subsection (1) of this section shall be a) One day, where the contract has continued for a period of three months or less; b) One week, where the contract has continued for more than three months but less than two years; c) Two weeks, where the contract has continued for a period of two years but less than five years, and d) One month, where the contract has continued for five years or more . Ollivant (Nig) Ltd (1990) 1 All NLR 80 Supreme Court distinguished between 30 days and one month notice. (see S. Notwithstanding. It should be noted that according to section 11(4) of the Labour Act. A notice is not effective until received by the employee. In the latter form of notice it was held that a month notice must expire at the end of a current month. Termination of employment takes effect from the day notice expires and not the date it was given.B. See also Adeyemo v Oyo State public Service commission (1979) 1 O. In precious v Reedi (1924) 2 KB 149. And time begins to run on receipt of the notice of termination. the tenant received by post on September 5.H. 11(3) Labour Act).W Smith (cabi Ltd v Brindle (19 / 3) 1 AER 230. 1923. . So that where a month’s notice is given and serves to be effective after the first day of the month.Please note that any notice for a period of one week or more shall be in writhing. it is essential in Law that the forem of notice must be complied with. 197 when the contract provided for a notice of one month.C 83 where it was held that the defendants could not terminate the plaintiff’s employment on a 10-days notice commencing from April 8. from the landlord purporting to give him “one month notice to quit”. 1923 a notice dated September 1. that the required length of notice is given.Y. It was held that the notice to quit was invalid inasmuch as it did not expire at the end of the monthly term.S. then the proper date of the expiration of the notice would be the end of the next month if the document is properly worded to of that of fetch. Thus in Oyekoya v G. See H. a period of notice exclude the day on which the notice is given. But usually contract of employment of a public office sometimes contain additional procedure which are regarded as a condition precedent and must be complied with if the termination iis to recognized by the court as valid. but another person purported to exercise the same. The validity of a lawful notice to terminate does not depend on acceptance or rejection of notice. Please more that section 11(6) of the labour Act provides for the waiver of right to notice or payment in lieu of notice. See Riordan v war office (1959) 2 AER 552. the commission had no power to remove certain . The supreme court held that such exercise of power by the military governor was null and void. purporting to exercise the power provided under section 9(1) of the pensions Act 1959. the contract ended then and not when notice expired. 211. In Hart Military Governor of Rivers state (1976) S. the military Governor purported to exercise the power within the competence of the Civil Service Commission. see Dixon V St (1931) 1 C 157. Where for instance. But under the section. Also in Roberts v Sule Katagun & Ors (1966) LLR 1. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT OF A PUBLIC SERVANT Generally speaking a contract of employment of whatever kind may be brought to an end by notice. the police Service Commission forced an officer to go on retirement. Payment in lieu of notice excludes overtime and other allowances. provided it has reached the appropriate person or his agent. the termination will be invalid. See section 11(9). the power to terminate is vested in a particular authority.However where payment is made in lieu of notice and the employment was asked to leave at the beginning of the period of notice.C. Notice is a unilateral act requiring no acceptance and once given becomes irrevocable. where a worker is engaged for say.Section 9(7) of labour Act provide that a contract shall be terminated in in the expiry of the period for which it has made in other words. the justice of the case demand that declaration be granted to restore him to his post. TERMINATION OF A FIXED TERM CONTRACT A contract of employment which provide for working for a fixe period of time cannot be determined before the expiration of the fixed period. the employee can however be rightfully dismissed for misconduct. Where the contract of employment has statutory favour. Fakuade v OAUTICMB (19093) 5 NWLR 47. In Federal Capital Development Authority v Sule (1994) 3 SCNJ 71. See Nigerian Port Authority v Ephraim Banjo (1972) 2 S. willful . the determination of such contracts must be noted that not all contracts of employment of public servant have statutory favour. Only the passage of time or the completion of the work will discharge the contract. See v University of Ilorin (1994) 3 NWLR (pt 330) 81. Implicit in section 9(7) (a) is that no formal notice is required to terminate the contract.C 175.officers. three years. the supreme Court held that since the employment was tinged with a statutory favour and having held his termination null and valid. In Orji v Zaria industries & Anor (1992) 1 SCNJ 29. The Supreme Court held that the officer’s dismissal was unlawful because the Commission acted beyond its power. the Supreme Court b held that mere participation of any government in a private does not ipso facto convert such a company into a statutory one which will make its officers qualify to be regarded as public officers. the contract will terminate at the end of the three years. Although a fixed term contract cannot be terminated by notice. in the earlier case of Savage V British India Steam Navigation Company Ltd (1930) 46 TLR 294. the plaintiff who was wrongfully dismissed before the expiration of his fixed –term contract of one year was held entitled to the salary for the unexpired period of his contract. what is the position of a person whose contract of service provides that his employment is “permanent” and “pensionable”. it was held that the employer’s right to terminate a contract of employment on . then I it was not terminable by notice by the employer. The question however is.disobedience or lawful or reasonable order or for incompetence. the house of Lord held by bare majority that where a contract of employment was based on an advertisement for “permanent and pensionable” employment. In Melelland Ireland General Health Service Board (2857) 1 WLR 594. and the contract contained express provision for termination by the employers by notice in the event of gross misconduct. In Garabedian v Asad (1961) All NER 477. in any other event. In Abukogbo v African Timber & plywood Ltd (1966) 2 All NER 87. The Court of Appeal implied an employment for the office of the employee. the contact otf employment was terminable within three years and then made permanent. In salt v Power Plan Co Ltd (1936) 3 AER 322. Again in Ward v Barclary Perkins & Co Ltd (1939) 1 AER 287. However. Here the decision of a Court faced with such a situation will depend on the contraction of the terms of the contract and facts of the case. right J was inclined towards a presumption that a provision for termination by the employer on reasonable notice could be implied into a contract of employment which could otherwise last till the retirement of the employee. the Court held that a provision for permanent and “pensionable” employment does not necessarily mean employment for life. In Nicol Electricity Corporation if Nigeria (1965) LLR 61. the employer does not have the power to suspend his employee for disciplinary reasons unless such power are expresses or can imply in the terms of the contract. It is not enough to ask the worker just to ratify a unilateral decision by initialing the charge V NBC (1967) NER 103. at common Law. Generally. but while there is neither work being done in pursuance of it. the old contract is discharged and superseded by the new one: Strange V Mann (1965) 1 AER 1069.“ordinary notice such as would suffice for an ordinary employee” was not excluded by the admission of the employee as a “permanent Staff” McClelland’s case may be distinguished from these two cases on the ground that express provision in the contract of employment for termination in certain events excluded a consideration in favour of termination in any other events. the parties to a contract of employment may terminate the contract by a subsequent agreement. TERMINATION BY AGREEMENT As in any other contract. Thus if the employer and employee agree to complete new terms and conditions. This suggest that subsequent agreement must be mutual. the power of suspension of contract of . nor remuneration being paid“ suspension of employee’s contract of service is usually geared toward enforcing discipline on the erring employee. SUSPENSION FROM EMPLOYMENT Suspension from employment has been defined as that state of affairs which exist while there id a contract in force between the employer and employee. The Court held that the defendants could on the term of the contract suspend the Plaintiff. The company suspended the plaintiff for two weeks before dismissing him. the terms must expressly say so. In bird British Calanese Ltd (1945) 1 KB 336. but not to apply the both. Okunoren V U. the RULES OF A RAILWAY COMPANY: entitled it to punish its employee by immediate dismissal or suspension. then the employer is under duty to pay him the remuneration he would he would have earned during the suspension. Again.C Ltd (1958) 20 HLR 25. This decision. The clause operates in accordance with its terms. Where the contract of employment gives the employment the power to dismiss or suspend the employee lon disciplinary grounds. If the employee is eventfully dismissed after suspension. which suspension may ultimately lead to dismissal. the employment was suspended for two days without pay under a well established practice known to him. the whole contract is suspended.service of the plaintiff was expressly reserved therein. in has been established that where the employer is entitled to suspend his employee. It was held that it was wrongful on the part of the company to do so. In Warbarton V Taff Value Railway Co (1902) 18TLR 420.A. and no deduction can be made wages which are not payable. Nicol V ECN (1965) LLR 261: Nigerian Produce marketing Board V Adewunmi (1972) 11 SC 111.J commented: Under the suspense clause the right to wages ceased and the wages are not earned. That includes a right to withhold wages and work: Wallwork V Fielding (1922) KB 66. then it is open to the employer to choose either of the two punishments. shows that where the terms of contract of employment reserve the right to suspend. Scott L. therefore. See also section 17(1) (b) of the Labour Act. in the sense that the operation of the mutual obligation of both . DISMISSAL FORM SERVICE We have already noted the distinction between dismissal and termination of appointment.A Irem Obubra District Council & Anor (1960) 5 FSC 24. In J.parties is suspended. Bird’s case indicates that a term permitting suspension may be implied from collective agreement. DISMISSAL FOR MISCONDUCT Acts constitute misconduct as to attract the sanction of dismissal are not cast in the same mould. or theft as in Abukugbo V African Timber & Plywood Ltd (1966) 2 ANLR 87. the workman ceases to be under any present duty to work. The Court therefore reserves a wide discretion to decide on the acts amount to misconduct. Dismissal has been justified on the following grounds: a breach of the duty of fidelity: Stoco V Maja (1968) NKLR 372. or from trade custom or from statute.V. . or negligence as in Usen V B. Section 11(5) of the Labour Act recognizes the efficacy of dismissal by providing that either party to a contract can terminate the same without notice by reson of such conduct by the other party as would have enabled him to do before the making of the other Act.A Ltd (1965) ALL NLR 244. the Court observed carries infamy and deprives one of benefit which termination did not. and the employer ceases t be under any consequential duty to pay. or unauthorized borrowing: Sinclair V Neighbour (1966) 3 AER 988. Although the Labour Act did not make use of the word dismissal. the provision is nonetheless one of without notice. . Under the contract of service. this decision cannot be supported. bcompanies. The paintiff and his women sometimes engage in conduct which bended to embarrass and annoy the other occupants of the building who were members of the company’s staff. it was held that under law there is no definition of what is misconduct. The defendants provide the plaintiff with free accommodation in one of the company’s flats. Misconduct outside working hours provided it affects the employment relationship has been held to justify dismissal. The worker is unprotected if the whole matter is left to subjective view of the employer. the company reserved the right to terminate the employee’s employment without notice or compensation “if the employee commit any act which in the opinion of the company is likely to bring the latter into dispute with any other persons. a mechanical engineer was employed by the defendants under a written contract for a fixed period of twenty months beginning from February 1960. 122 or an employee’s private love life as in Moller v Monier Construction Company (Nig) Ltd (1961) 2 16. In that case the plaintiff.C.What constituted misconduct is a question of act alone and not governed by any trigh standard. Lord James held that there is no fixed rule of lkaw defining the degree of misconduct which will justify dismissal”. With the greatest respect. A single isolated act of sufficient gravity can justify dismissal. Such misconduct as drunkenness as in Clouston Co Ltd v Corry (1902) A. authorities and before the public. In Clouston & Co Ltd V Corry (1906) A.C 122. it is what the employer consider to be a gross misconduct which entitles the employer to dismiss the employee. On the above fact it was held that the company was justified in dismissing the plaintiff form service. In Oyed TUTH (1990) NWLR 194. The plaintiff regularly and openly brought women of certain class to his flat to pass the night with him. see Gregory V Ford (supra). termination or compulsory retirement of the employee concerned. the failure to afford a requisite skill which had been expressly or impliedly promised is a breach of a legal duty and . the more difficult it is to establish incompetence. the plaintiff replied enclosed a picture of his work. DISMISSAL FOR INCOMPETENCE An employee’s incompetence usually manifests itself at the commencement of employment. According to Willes J. Disobedience of an employee’s lawful order and/or insubordination by an employee is an act of misconduct which may justifiably attract the penalty of summary dismissal. the Supreme Court held as follows: THE WORD “Insubordination” connotes disobedience. and this was establish in the celebrated case of Harmer v Cornelius (1858) 5 CB (NS) 236. Note that not all lawful of reasonable orders need to be obeyed if they are outside the scope of the contract service. and willful disobedience of lawful order or command of a superior officer has been judicially interpreted quite rightly to mean insubordination. The right to dismiss for incompetence is as an extension from the right to dismiss misconduct.DISMISSAL FOR DISOBEDIENCE An employer can dismiss an employee on the ground of willful disobedience of lawful reasonable orders within the scope of his contract service. He was engage but was found to be so incompetence that he was dismissed within two days of starting work. In university of Calabar v Essien (1996) 10 227. The longer a person is in employment. In that case. The Court held the dismissal fir incompetence lawful. A) Co.F Furniture (W.F Furniture (W. In Electricity Corporation of Nigeria V George Nichol (1969) 1 HMLR 268. the Supreme Court held as follows: it is settled law that complaint about the misconduct of a servant which had been previously condoned cannot be a groung for dismissal on a subsequent occasion. The right to dismiss is exercisable in all types of contract of service. Under the common law. Incompetence should not be confused with mistake. First.therefore misconduct. Ltd (1961) All NLR 862. however subject to certain rules. Ltd (1961) All NLR 862. In Ogunsanmi V C. the obligation imposed upon the master is to establish that the contract of service was terminated (a) by notice in accordance with the express or implied . The fact that an employee has made a mistake is no ground for dismissing him.A) Co. Even where the notice of termination contain allegation of incompetence. he is bound to make mistake at times. The right to dismiss is. whether for a fixed period or for an indefinite duration. the employer is bound to prove his employee’s incompetence. In Garabedla V Jamakasi (1961) 1All NLR 177. it is not necessary for the matter to prove his servant was incompetent even though the notice alleged incompetence as the ground for such dismissal. The Court held as follows: where is a termination on notice. See also Ogunsanmi V C. in lawfully terminating a contract of service the employer is not bound to give reasons for his action. then the right to dismiss will be regarded as waived by the employer. when the employee’s misconduct is condoned expressly or impliedly. Savage J said: no matter how efficient a person may be. the one month’s notice terminating the employee’s contract of service contained allegation of incompetence. all that the employer needs to establish to justify his action is to show a) That the allegation was disclosed to the employee. that the rules of natural justice were not breached.F Furniture (W. or (c) by reasonable notice. that is to say. he must give reasons for summarily dismissing the worker. and c) That the disciplinary panel followed laid down procedure. The obligation he has is to show that the contract of employment was terminated in accordance with the terms of contract. Where however.A) Co. or (b) by notice under a custom. the Court of Appeal held that an employer who merely terminate am employee for misconduct does not need to prove anything even if the reason for the termination are stated in the letter. This also the wiew taken by the Court I Ogunsanmi V C. Although the employer is not bound o give any reasons for lawfully terminating the contract of a worker. if any. In Agbo V CBN (1996) 10 NWLR 370. In University of Calabar V Essien (1996) 10 NWLR 227. the Supreme Court held as follows: Where an employer dismisses or terminates the appointment of an employee on the ground of misconduct. an employer pleads that the employee was removed for misconduct. FAIR HEARING AND CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENY . it was held that where a worker is dismissed summarily for incompetence. Ltd (1961) 1 ALL NLR 862. b) That he was given fair hearing. the onus is not the master to prove the incompetence.agreement between the parties. Thus in Nnnink V Costain Blansvoort Dredling Ltd (1960) LLR 90. then he must prove that the employee was given adequate opportunity to explain his action or defend the alleged misconduct. In the determination of his civil rights and obligation. a law shall not be invalidated by reason only that it confers on any government or antiansity power to determine questions arising in the administration of a law that affects or may affect the civil rights and obligations of any person if such law . Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this section.Section 22 of the 1979 constitution of Nigeria provide as follows: 1. 2. a person shall be entitled to a fear hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality. including any question or determination by or against any government or authority.