Month: September 2023

Resignation is when an employee chooses to end their job and tells their employer about it on their own accord. Some of the principles of law guiding resignation in Nigeria are:

1. As held in Zubairu & Anor v. Mohammed & Ors, (2009) LPELR -5124 (CA), the legal position is that resignation from employment is by giving the required length of notice or payment in lieu of notice. 

In the eyes of the law, when someone wants to quit their job, they have to do it in two ways: They can tell their employer in advance and work for a certain period before leaving. This period is called the “required length of notice.” It’s like saying, “I’m going to leave, but I’ll keep working for a little while before I go.” If they don’t want to wait, they can give their employer money instead of working during the notice period. This is called “payment in lieu of notice.” It’s like paying your employer to let you leave right away without working more days. This explanation tells us that one can’t just run away from his place of employment. Don’t be that guy!😂

2. On notice, the law is that a notice of resignation is effective not from the date of the letter, but from the date on which the letter was received by the employer or his agent.  WAEC v. OSHIONEBO (2006) LPELR-7739(CA). Importantly, it is not necessary for the person to whom the notice of resignation is addressed to reply that the resignation has been accepted. See Yusuf V. Governor of Edo State (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt 731

3. Is an employee mandated to give a reason before their resignation? This question was answered in a 2023 case of FBN Merchant Bank LTD v Owotemu (2023) LPELR-60451(CA) where the court per Ugochukwu Anthony opined that: “by parity of reasoning or analogous reasoning and to avoid the concept of forced labour; where an employee complies with the terms of the contract and resigns from his employment, the motive which impelled him to resign is of no moment.”

This statement means that when an employee follows all the rules and terms of his job contract and decides to quit, the reason why he wants to quit doesn’t really matter. Even if he has a specific reason for resigning, like not liking their job anymore, as long as he follows the rules and procedures for resignation, it’s considered okay. This is to make sure that employees are not forced to work against their will.

4. Can a suspended employee resign? We have already discussed this in LSP070. Tell me the answer.

Thank you for reading. See you next week.

If you have interned at a litigation firm before, there is a higher probability that you have been sent to file a court process. Filing of a court process in Nigeria refers to the submission and registration of legal documents or pleadings with the appropriate court, initiating a legal action, or responding to a lawsuit. Filing fees are generally set out by the Rules of Court and paid to the registrar of the appropriate Court.

In our Court administration system, it is imperative that litigants cannot initiate a lawsuit without paying the requisite fees. These fees serve the primary purpose of generating revenue for the public coffers and are not intended as punitive measures against litigants exercising their right of access to the court under Section 6 (6) of the 1999 Constitution. The fact that the fees payable are increased in certain categories of cases does not render the charging of the increased fees unconstitutional. See the case of Atolagbe & Anor v Awuni & Ors (1997) LPELR-593(SC).

Moving forward, does non-payment of filing fees rob the court of its jurisdiction to hear a matter? What happens if an inadequate fee was paid, and is there any remedy for such?

On the first question, the principle of law is that non-payment of filing fees deprives the court of its jurisdiction. In Okolo & Anor v Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd (2004) LPELR-2465(SC), Niki Tobi JSC (as he then was) opined that: Payment of filing fees is a precondition to the court’s assumption of jurisdiction. Where filing fees are not paid, a court of law will have no jurisdiction to entertain the matter before it. This is because the rules of court make it mandatory for a party to pay filing fees.

On the second question, the law is that the payment of inadequate fees does not bar the court from exercising jurisdiction as it is a mere irregularity which could be cured by payment of the appropriate fees. In Ogew & Anor v IGP & Ors (2015) LPELR-24322(SC), the Court, per Fabiyi JSC (as he then was), reinstated the law and opined that: “It is basic to say it without any form of hesitation that, based on the position of this court in the case of Akpaji v. Udemba (supra), payment of inadequate filing fees is a mere irregularity. So, in the case of Lawal & Anor v. Odejimi & Anor (1963) WNLR 23; (1963) ANLR 569 @ 570, where inadequate fees were paid for a writ of summons, the trial court allowed the plaintiff time to pay the balance of the fees.“

Similarly, in Igoin & Ors v Ajoko (2021) LPELR-58334(SC, the Supreme Court held that filing fees are fixed by the Court and collected by the registry. If the registry gives a wrong figure to pay to a litigant, it’s not the litigant’s fault. In any case, it can easily be cured by payment of the correct fees and cannot be used suo motu to strike out an appeal.

On the distinction between the non-payment and inadequate payment of filing fees, Moronkeji Ogunwumiju JSC in Igoin’s case held that “it is trite law that non-payment of filing fees is different from inadequate payment. While the former is the fault of counsel, the latter can be the fault of the Registry. Nonpayment of filing fees is a serious omission by the Appellant which, in effect, deprives the Court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal. See Okolo v. UBN Ltd (2004) 3 NWLR Pt.859 Pg. 87. On the other hand, inadequate payment of filing fees is usually the fault of the Registrar who made a mistake when he/she told the Appellant the amount to be paid. In cases where the fees paid by the Appellant are inadequate, it is the duty of the presiding Judge to order the erring Appellant or party to pay the correct filing fees instead of striking out the appeal or process.”

In conclusion, the legal principle is that non-payment of a filing fee goes to the root of the case and deprives the court of jurisdiction to entertain the matter, while the payment of inadequate fees is considered a mere irregularity that can be rectified by paying the appropriate sums.”

This week’s article focuses on the right of audience of legal practitioners in Nigeria. Upon admission to the Nigerian bar, one becomes a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court. The question that arises next is whether they are entitled to appear before any court, including the Supreme Court.

The foremost Nigerian authority in this area is the Supreme Court’s decision in F.R.N v Osahon (2006) LPELR-3174(SC). In that case, the apex court held that ‘When any person is called to the Bar and enrolled to practice, they have the right of audience, and unless the Constitution explicitly forbids such a person or provides qualifications for appearance in court, any act prescribing provisions contrary to the spirit of the Constitution should be regarded as meaningless.’ Therefore, in that case, the court allowed a police officer to prosecute a criminal matter and held that it did not contravene Section 174 of the Constitution, which empowers the Attorney General of the Federation on public prosecution.

Thus, the law is settled that legal practitioners, as long as they are not under any legal disability, can appear before any court in Nigeria. With that said, the next question is: can an untried allegation be considered a legal disability that deprives a legal practitioner of the right of audience before the court? An important judicial authority in this regard is the intriguing 2015 Court of Appeal case of Francis v State (2015) LPELR-25802 (CA). This case is particularly interesting due to its unique circumstances.

This legal case resembles a tug-of-war between the appellant, who faces serious charges, and the prosecution, who is dissatisfied with the appellant’s lawyer. It turns out that the lawyer also works for the government, and the prosecution argues that representing the appellant conflicts with his government job.

The appellant argues that the Constitution grants them the right to choose their own lawyer, and any law that prevents a lawyer from appearing in court is unconstitutional. He cites Section 36(6)(C) of the Constitution, Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as well as the case of Awolowo & Ors. v. Minister of Internal Affairs and Ors (1962) L. L. R. 177, amongst others.

On the other hand, the prosecution points out that Sectione Section 36 of the Constitution is not absolute and can have exceptions. The counsel refers to a code of conduct for public officers as outlined in the Fifth Schedule of the 1999 Constitution, which states that government employees, especially lawyers, should not engage in private legal work if it conflicts with their government duties.

Regarding this issue, the court, while accepting the legal principle established in F. R. N. V. Osahon (Supra) and rejecting the one in Awolowo v Minister of Internal Affairs & Ors (supra), held that ‘in this particular case, I reiterate that an allegation of a breach of professional conduct ethics and/or conflict of interest, in and of itself, cannot disqualify a legal practitioner from representing an accused person in a criminal trial.”

In conclusion, the trite principle of law is that a lawyer has the right of audience before any court in Nigeria and an allegation of a breach of professional conduct doesn’t stop the enjoyment of this right. Thank you for reading. See you next week.