By Obiabo Francis Amedu
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/idrinstitute.png")
In February 2024 the Nigerian Supreme Court reached a landmark decision that was significant in several respects, for perhaps the first time ever, the Apex Court decided that the Appellant (Skye Bank Plc) was liable to pay the Respondent his two years’ salary for his wrongful termination without fair hearing from the bank as against the traditional 1-month salary as compensation which was awarded the Respondent by the Oyo State High Court. In resolving the Skye Bank Plc v Adegun (SC. 406. 2018) appeal, the Supreme Court, lucidly explained the distinction between wrongful termination and unlawful termination of employment.
Apart from reaching a conclusion that the dismissal of Mr Adegun was wrongful because he was not granted fair hearing, the Court made statements which are helpful to settle the constant debate over the application of International Best Practices especially by the National Industrial Court. The Court acknowledged the new jurisprudence in labour and industrial relations, holding that it is no longer fashionable to terminate the employment of an employee without good cause or motive having to do with the capacity, conduct of the employee or organizational restructuring.
As noted earlier the Skye Bank decision remains significant in several respects, particularly as it represents a significant departure from the ratio of the Court in the case of Adedeji v. CBN (2023) 5 NWLR Part 1878 where the Apex Court decided that employees of the Apex Bank did not enjoy employment with a statutory flavor, Hon. Justice Inyang Okoro JSC while delivering his contributory judgement in the appeal held as follows:
The Appellants have, in their brief of argument, heavily placed reliance in the decision of this Court in CBN v. Igwilo(2007) 45 SC 154, (2007) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1054)393 and Imolame v. WAEC (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt.265)303 to forcefully argue that the fact that the Central Bank of Nigeria is a statutory establishment ,, and particularly in the light of the provisions of Section 14(1) of the CBN Act, 1990 and the CBN Staff Manual which regulate their conditions of service, the appellants employment with the 1st respondent automatically enjoyed statutory flavour.
This argument is not correct.
There are three categories of contracts of employment namely
- Purely master and servant relationship
- Servant who hold their office at the pleasure of the employer; and
- Employment with statutory flavor
See Mobil Producing (Nig) Unlimited v. Okon Johnson & Ors (2018) 14 NWLR (Pt.1639)379; John Oforishe v. Nigeria Gas Company Ltd. (2018) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1602) 35; Longe v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.1189)1
In the master and servant relationship, the employer has unfettered right to terminate the employment as long as he complies with the terms and condition which regulates the employment relationship. In such a situation, this court has always held that the court would not foist a willing servant on an unwilling master. See Obanye v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (2018) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1648) 375. In the contract with statutory flavour the conditions for appointment and termination of the contract are governed and protected by an enabling statute. In other words, employment with statutory flavour enjoy the protection of the statute enacted by the National Assembly. Such contracts can only be terminated in the manner as prescribed by the very statute that created them. See Comptroller-General of Customs & Ors v. Gusau (2017) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1598) 353; Bamgboye v. University of Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290
It is instructive to note that the common denominator in every contract of employment, is that they all have terms and condition which regulate the employment relationship such as terms on determination, notices, wages and more. In this case, the appellants rely heavily on the provisions of the Central Bank of Nigeria Staff Manual which was drawn up by the Board of Directors of CBN. That document is clearly not an enactment by the parliament or any law making body as a schedule to the CBN Act or Subsidiary legislation. Their employment cannot therefore be said to be governed by the statute. Again, it is undisputed that upon their rationalization, they were paid salaries in lieu of termination as stated in the Staff Manual. To my mind, their relationship with the 1st Respondent was that of master and servant.
In the circumstance, the Claim for reinstatement does not inure to the appellants. The two courts below were correct in their concurrent findings against the Appellants and I have no reason to interfere.
It is incredible to find that the Supreme Court would clearly and unambiguously hold that employment with the Central Bank of Nigeria was not one that was clothed by Statutory flavour, particularly as the decision in Adedeji v. CBN appears to be in contradiction with the earlier decision of the same Court in the case of Comp.Gen ., Customs v. Gusau(2017) 18 NWLR (Part 1598) Page 390 , paras C-E
An employment enjoys statutory flavour when the contract of service is governed by statute or where the conditions of service are contained in regulations derived from statutory provisions. In the circumstance, they invest the employee with a legal status higher than the ordinary master/servant relationship. In the case, it was not in dispute between the parties that the respondent’s employment was governed by the Civil Service Rules 2008.
The jurisprudential thoughts expressed above by Hon. Justice Ejembi Eko JSC(RTD) is firmly rooted in the ratio of the leading judgement delivered by the cicero of the Nigerian Apex Court Hon. Justice Chukwudifu Oputa in the Case of Olaniyan v. University of Lagos (1985) 2 NWLR 599 SC where he held thus:
“In the case on appeal, there was no suggestion either in the pleadings, the evidence, the addresses of counsel or the judgment of the trial Court or even in that of the Court below that the Appellants held their offices either at the pleasure of the Crown or the Federal Government or the Visitor or the University Council. I will hasten to say that it will be a contradiction in terms for a citizen of a Republic, such as Nigeria, to hold his office at the pleasure of the Crown. Which Crown? We have no Crown here and public Servants in the established and pensionable cadre of the Federal Government Service are not regarded as employed at the pleasure of the Federal Government.”
To hold as the Supreme Court did in the case of Adedeji v. CBN(Supra) that employees of the Central Bank of Nigeria did not enjoy statutory flavour, is to imply that they work at the pleasure of the government in power and whoever is at the helm of affairs at the Bank and that they can be sacked at any time, provided they are paid their terminal benefits. The Central Bank of Nigeria is a creation of statute. By its enabling statute (Central Bank of Nigeria Act 2007) the bank was established to achieve the objective of promoting stability and continuity in economic management and economic policy formulation in Nigeria, how then can the objectives of the bank be achieved if the employees do not enjoy tenured security as is the case obtainable and recognized in government bureaucracies around the world.
The critical and perhaps most distinctive feature of the government bureaucracy in Nigeria is the tenure system. This system guarantees and insulates government employees from the unpredictability of Nigerian politics and political appointees. The Tenure system for all intents and purposes applies across board to those in the “core civil service” and those in the public service whether in governmental agencies, parastatals and public corporations created by Acts of the National Assembly. In fact, to the average man on the street government job, is government job irrespective of whether a person is employed in the ministry of finance or in the Central Bank of Nigeria, it therefore comes as no surprise that the new CBN Governor emboldened by the decision in Adedeji v. CBN proceeded to sack over 300 staffs of the bank including at least seven directors and senior management staff. The Supreme Court decision in Skye Bank v. Adeogun was greatly heralded by labour and industrial relations expert as the dawn of a new era, it is sincerely hoped that the Supreme Court would be presented with another opportunity to revisit the decision in Adedeji v. CBN(Supra) this is moreso as the Nigeria Supreme Court enjoys a special pride of place as the Highest Court in the land. The judgments handed down by the Court is at the very pinnacle in the judicial pyramid and every other Court is bound to “stand by the decisions of the Supreme Court on similar facts and legal issues”.
Contact & Orders 📞 0704 444 4777 | 0704 444 4999 | 0818 199 9888 🌐 www.alexandernigeria.com
______________________________________________________________________
“History of Rivers State Judiciary: A Compendium of Personalities on the Bench.” Authored by Ampim Gogo Blankson, Esq., Deputy Director at the Rivers State Ministry of Justice, in collaboration with the Rivers State Judiciary
💰 Cover Price: ₦20,000.00 (Twenty Thousand Naira)
Bukky Law Books, Rivers State High Court Complex, Moscow Road, Port Harcourt – 📞 08034868754📞 08034729738📞 Enquiries:
______________________________________________________________________
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
