MAIJAH ELISHA GYUBOK v. THE FEDERAL POLYTECHNIC & 2 ORS.
SUPREME COURT
(OKORO; AGIM; OGBUINYA; ABIRU; TUKUR, JJ.SC)
FACTS
Maijah Elisha Gyubok (The Appellant) was employed in the services of the Federal Polytechnic, Bauchi, the 1st Respondent, through a letter of employment, as a Technologist. Over time, the Appellant rose to the rank of Principal Technologist II. The Appellant’s employment was governed by a contract of service and the Federal Polytechnic Staff Manual, which outlined the terms and conditions of his employment. The Appellant faced some disciplinary issues, which led to his case being referred to the Appointment and Promotions Committee of the 1st Respondent. Following the committee’s recommendations, a letter of termination was issued, informing the Appellant that the Governing Council had approved the termination of his employment. The termination was based on the grounds that the 1st Respondent no longer required services of the Appellant. The Appellant was further instructed to hand over all the 1st Respondent’s properties in his possession and contact the Bursar for payment of one month salary in lieu of notice and other benefits.
It was the Appellant’s contention that the termination was carried out wrongfully and not in accordance with the statutory provisions laid down by the Federal Polytechnics Act. On the other hand, the 1st Respondent’s contention was that the termination was because the Appellant’s services were no longer required and not because of any misconduct or the inability to perform his duties. Dissatisfied with the termination of his employment, the Appellant filed a suit in the Federal High Court sitting in Jos, Plateau State, challenging the termination of his employment by the 1st Respondent.
The trial court upheld the 1st Respondent’s argument, stating that the Appellant had not proven that he was entitled to a more elaborate procedure than the one used for his termination. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal considered the case and dismissed the appeal. Further aggrieved by the decision, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court for final determination. One of the issues raised for determination was: Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the judgment of the trial Court to the effect that the Appellant’s employment with the Respondents was rightly terminated.
ARGUMENTS
In arguing the issue, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant’s employment with the 1st Respondent and the termination of the employment were governed by the Federal Polytechnic Act, thereby granting it statutory flavor. Learned counsel contended that in line with the provisions of the Act, the 1st Respondent could only terminate the Appellant’s employment on the grounds of misconduct and/or inability to perform the functions of his office. Furthermore, counsel argued that the 1st Respondent had unilaterally terminated the Appellant’s employment without providing any of the grounds mentioned earlier and, in doing so, failed to give the Appellant an opportunity to make representations on his behalf, contrary to the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel further contended that the failure of the 1st Respondent to strictly adhere to the conditions set forth by the Act in terminating the Appellant’s employment rendered the termination invalid, unlawful, and in breach of the statutory rights conferred upon the Appellant.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the termination of the Appellant’s employment was not based on the grounds of misconduct or inability to perform the functions of his office, but rather on the grounds that the 1st Respondent no longer required the services of the Appellant. It was submitted that the termination was not a result of any fault on the Appellant’s part, but a decision taken by the 1st Respondent in line with their operational needs. Counsel emphasized that parties to a contract are bound by the terms of their agreement, and as such, the Appellant could not be allowed to resile from the agreed-upon terms simply because he disagreed with the execution of those terms. Moreover, counsel highlighted that the Appellant’s employment letter clearly contained a provision stating that either party could terminate the contract by giving one month’s notice or a month’s salary in lieu of notice. Since the Appellant had accepted the offer letter and begun working for the 1st Respondent, it was submitted by the learned counsel that he could not now complain about the invocation of the terms of the contract, which had been mutually agreed upon at the start of the employment relationship. Therefore, counsel argued that the termination was in accordance with the agreed contractual terms.
DECISION OF THE COURT
In resolving the issue, the Supreme Court held that:
The fact that an employer is a statutory body does not automatically clothe the employee’s employment with a statutory flavor, unless explicitly stated in the employee’s contract of employment. The court further emphasized that in cases of wrongful termination where the employer is a statutory body, and the employment contract does not make reference to the statute, the foundation of such an action is the contract of employment, which forms the basis of the grievances of an aggrieved employee. This means that the terms and conditions in the contract are crucial when determining the legality of the termination.
The court however, noted that when a contract of service has statutory flavor, the termination procedure outlined in the relevant statute or regulation must be strictly followed. This is because the statute grants the employee special status, which goes beyond the ordinary master/servant relationship. However, in instances where the statute does not specify the reason for termination, the employer has the right to end the contract for any reason or no reason at all, as long as the employer acts within the terms of the employment contract. The court further clarified that the motive for termination cannot be questioned as long as the employer follows the agreed terms and conditions in the contract.
Issue resolved in favour of the Respondent.
Dr. S. A. T. Abubakar with B. E. Asuquo for the Appellant
The Respondents were served through phone call on 7/3/2024 at 4:10pm.
No appearance for the Respondents
This summary is fully reported at (2025) 5 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co.
See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company.
