A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria has quietly shaken the foundations of Nigerian employment law. In Skye Bank Plc v. Adedokun Adegun [1] (“Adegun”), the apex court appeared to embrace the jurisprudential approach of the National Industrial Court (NICN) in adjudicating wrongful dismissals, adopting an interpretation rooted in international best practices. This shift is remarkable given that such international best practices, though persuasive, have not been domesticated into Nigerian law as required by Section 12 of the Constitution, despite Section 254C of the Constitution and Section 7(6) of the NICN Act seemingly empowering the NICN to consider them, and it was the Apex Court, whose judgments are binding on all other courts in Nigeria, that delivered this judgment.
Yet, any applause for this progressive approach remains muted. Subsequent decisions, particularly Dangote Cement Plc v. Ager [2] (“Dangote”), have cast doubt on whether the position heralded in Adegun signals a permanent doctrinal shift or merely reflects a fleeting moment of judicial liberalism. These conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court expose an enduring tension at the heart of Nigerian employment law: should employment relationships be governed strictly by the contracts parties freely enter into, or should they be shaped by evolving international standards that demand fairness, justification, and dignity in the workplace?
A Turning Point
Delivered on 27 February 2024, the Supreme Court’s decision in Skye Bank Plc v. Adedokun Olusegun Adegun marks a momentous departure from the traditional common law orthodoxy that has long governed employment relationships in Nigeria. It signals a judicial pivot towards principles grounded in fairness, procedural due process, and international labour standards.
The Respondent, Mr. Adegun, was a staff member of the defunct Cooperative Bank Plc, which later merged with other institutions to form Skye Bank Plc. His dismissal on 29th March 2006 followed a review by the Bank’s integration team, which revisited past disciplinary issues during his employment at Cooperative Bank. The integration team concluded that he was involved in fraudulent withdrawals from a customer’s account between August 2004 and December 2005 and terminated his employment for gross misconduct.
However, the background tells a more complex story. Prior to the merger, Cooperative Bank Plc had already queried the Respondent over the withdrawals, issuing ten specific questions to which he responded not with direct answers but with an apology. While this response was arguably inadequate, the Bank’s final decision at the time was to issue only a caution, suggesting either resolution or, at the very least, non-culpability.
Years later, the integration team’s decision to revisit and discipline the Respondent afresh on the same facts was at the heart of the legal contest. The Respondent approached the High Court, seeking redress for wrongful dismissal. The trial court agreed that his dismissal was procedurally defective but, in line with orthodox common law reasoning, awarded only one month’s salary in lieu of notice and ₦100,000 in general damages.
The Court of Appeal, however, took a different view, enhancing the damages to ₦14,221,000, equivalent to two years’ salary. On further appeal, the Supreme Court not only affirmed the award but used the opportunity to articulate a progressive judicial philosophy. The Court held that the failure to give the Respondent an opportunity to defend himself before the integration team constituted a denial of fair hearing. It further held that even if such hearing had been granted, it was improper for an employer to “rediscipline” an employee for the same offence on the same facts, especially after the matter had been previously addressed and resolved by way of a caution. Doing so, the Court noted, violated the doctrine of estoppel.
Crucially, the Supreme Court acknowledged that it is no longer acceptable, either legally or morally, for an employer to terminate employment without justification. The Court emphasised that international best practices and global labour standards now inform the adjudication of employment disputes in Nigeria. Termination must not only be procedurally sound but also substantively fair. Arbitrary dismissal, particularly of high-performing or long-serving employees, is no longer in vogue.
In Adegun, the Supreme Court thus confirmed a subtle yet transformative shift: Nigerian labour jurisprudence is steadily realigning itself with global standards, where fairness, equity, and dignity of labour are paramount. This case stands as a watershed moment in reinforcing employee rights and shaping employer obligations within the modern workplace.
[1] (SC/406/2018).
[2] (2024) LPELR-61800 (SC).
--
Read the full publication at Punuka
