Category: Law

This week’s article examines employment law, addressing whether an employer can put a job offer on hold or request another interview after the offer has been accepted, particularly when the contract does not permit such actions. In doing this, attention is given to the 2019 Supreme Court case of Iyeke & 25 Ors v Petroleum Training Institute [2019] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1656) 217.

In that case, the appellant and 25 others initiated a lawsuit against the respondents at the Federal High Court in Benin City, seeking a declaration that they were employed by the respondents from December 2002. They also sought a declaration entitling them to monthly salaries and allowances from that date and requested an order for the respondents to pay these salaries and allowances from February 2003 onward.

According to the appellants, they were hired by the 1st respondent after interviews conducted in September 2002. However, three months later, they received a letter indicating that their employment was on hold and were instructed to appear before a committee. Following the committee meeting, they were directed to stay away from the 1st respondent until further notice. When the respondents failed to recall them, the appellants declared a trade dispute. A conciliator appointed by the Federal Minister of Employment concluded that there was a deadlock. Consequently, an order of mandamus required the respondents to refer the appellants’ complaints to the National Industrial Arbitration Panel or the National Industrial Court, which the respondents did not do.

In response to the appellants’ affidavit, the 1st respondent admitted offering employment but claimed the appellants refused to appear before the committee, thus abandoning the offer. The trial court ruled that the appellants’ employment had statutory protection, necessitating strict adherence to statutory procedures for termination, which the respondents had not followed. As a result, the court ordered the appellants to be reinstated and paid their salaries and allowances from March 2003. The 1st respondent complied, and the appellants resumed work in October 2005. However, their employment was terminated again in January 2006. Subsequent contempt proceedings led to the termination letters being set aside.

The 1st respondent then challenged the trial court’s judgment at the Court of Appeal, which overturned the decision, stating that there was no reasonable cause of action. Dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal’s decision, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

In explaining how the Court of Appeal (Lower Court) handled the case, the Supreme Court clarified that putting something on hold means deciding not to proceed with it for the time being, but this was not justified in the context of this case. The appellants had attached their letters of appointment to their supporting affidavit, which included specific terms and conditions governing their rights and obligations. The Court of Appeal should have closely examined these terms to determine if the contract could be put on hold or postponed. Instead, the Court of Appeal overlooked these terms, particularly paragraph 12, which clearly stated, “Under no circumstances will the terms and conditions of this offer be renegotiated after your acceptance.”

The Court of Appeal noted that the Petroleum Training Institute (PIT) had not dismissed or terminated the appellants’ employment but had informed them that their appointments were on hold, leaving the appellants in limbo. However, since the letters of appointment explicitly prohibited renegotiation of the terms and conditions after acceptance, PIT could not alter the employment terms by putting the appointments on hold or asking the appellants to attend another interview. The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeal made a serious error by not recognizing that asking the appellants to attend another interview constituted a renegotiation of the employment contract, thus deviating from the established terms. Thus, the Court of Appeal’s decision was unjustified, and the issue was resolved in favor of the appellants.

In conclusion, the principle that an employer cannot put employment on hold or call for a subsequent interview after an offer has been accepted, without contractual allowance for renegotiation, is justified by the fundamental legal concept of respecting binding agreements. Once both parties have agreed to the terms of employment, any unilateral attempt to alter these terms disregards the principle of honoring agreements, leading to instability and uncertainty for the employee.

Thank you for reading. See you next week.

Hello, good afternoon, readers! It’s wonderful to be writing to you again after completing my undergraduate studies at the University of Ibadan during the hiatus. Now, let’s go. This week’s article focuses on the rights of airline passengers. As a passenger, the airline has a common law duty of care to protect you and your belongings. Breaching this duty can result in damages.

The Supreme Court addressed airline liability to passengers in the case of Harka Air Serv. Nig. Ltd v. Keazor (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1264) 320. The court outlined that an airline’s liability to its passengers can arise from various scenarios, including injuries sustained on board, death during the journey, damage or loss of goods, delayed or denied boarding, and actions during flight operations.

By virtue of Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention 1929, a carrier is liable for the damages sustained inthe event of the death of a passenger or injury to passenger, if the accident which caused the damages so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking. To establish liability, the claimant must prove:

1. that the passenger got wounded or suffered/ bodily injury;
2. that the injury arose from the accident; and
3. that the accident occurred on board the aircraft or during the course of embarking(c)or disembarking.

In Harka Air Service Nigeria’s case, the plaintiff, now the respondent on June 24, 1995, boarded a flight from Kaduna to Lagos with Harka Air Services Limited. Despite adverse weather leading other airlines to cancel flights, Harka Air proceeded, encountering turbulence and eventually crash-landing in Lagos. This incident caused panic among passengers, with the respondent sustaining injuries, losing personal belongings, and requiring medical attention, significantly impacting their life and work. Believing the crash stemmed from the airline’s negligence, the respondent sought compensation but faced dismissal, leading to legal action. 

Initially, the Federal High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, awarding damages in Naira. However, the Court of Appeal partially overturned this decision, acknowledging evidence of misconduct but adjusting damages to $11,000 in US Dollars for general damages. The appellant’s liability is rooted in Article 25 of the Warsaw Convention of 1929  which outlines that an airline cannot use the convention’s provisions to limit its liability if the damage is caused by willful misconduct or fault equivalent to willful misconduct. Additionally, if the damage is caused by an agent of the airline acting within their employment scope, the airline cannot use these provisions to limit liability either.

The Supreme Court defined Misconduct as actions where the person knows they are doing wrong but continues anyway or acts recklessly without caring about the outcome. Horabin v. BOAC. (1952) 2 ALL ER 1006.  Goldman v. Thai Airways International Limited (1983) 3 ALL ER693. In this case, the court held that it is clear from the records that on June 24, 1995, the airline operated a flight from Kaduna to Lagos despite other airlines cancelling due to bad weather. The pilot didn’t receive clearance to land and didn’t respond properly to the Air Traffic Controller’s inquiries. The plane was flying higher than usual and touched down late on the runway. The trial judge rightly concluded that the airline’s actions amounted to willful misconduct, justifying a larger compensation award. The pilot consistently took risky actions, knowing they were wrong and disregarding the potential consequences, leading to the unfortunate outcome of the flight. As a result of this, the Court upheld the decision of the trial and lower courts. 

Also, in this case, there was  a question about whether Nigerian courts can issue judgments in foreign currencies if it’s deemed appropriate. The Supreme Court confirmed that they do have this power. The appellant in this case breached their duty of care to the respondent, causing damages. Therefore, the Court of Appeal was correct in awarding damages in the foreign currency as claimed by the respondent. This decision aligns with previous legal precedents such as Koya v U.B.A. Ltd. (1997) 1NWLR (Pt. 481) 251; Nwankwo v. E.D.C.S. (2002) 1NWLR (Pt. 749) 513; U.B.A. Ltd. v. Ibhafidon (1994)1 NWLR (Pt. 318) 90; Broadline Enterprises Ltd. v Monterey Maritime Corp. (1995) 9 NWLR (Pt. 417). 

Furthermore, in Emirate Airline v. Ngonadi (2014) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1413), where the respondent was denied boarding and no justification was provided, the court held that the appellant was liable. 

In conclusion, passengers have rights protected by the law, and airlines must uphold their duty of care. Instances of negligence or misconduct can lead to liability and compensation for affected passengers. Nigerian courts have the power to ensure justice is served, including awarding damages in foreign currencies when necessary.

Thank you for reading❤️. See you next week.🙏

Hello Readers,

In order to prepare for exams, we would be taking a break from the publication of articles for six(6) weeks.

While we are on hiatus, you can read up on past articles. https://thelegalstandpoint.law.blog/

We will be back on May 9nd, 2024.

We are sorry for the inconvenience this may have caused. Thank you.