{"id":87263,"date":"2024-11-11T15:41:21","date_gmt":"2024-11-11T15:41:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dnllegalandstyle.com\/dnl\/?p=87263"},"modified":"2024-11-11T15:41:21","modified_gmt":"2024-11-11T15:41:21","slug":"wrj-nicn-no-14-balancing-employee-rights-and-employer-responsibilities-a-review-of-iheanacho-v-bap-services-ltd","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dnllegalandstyle.com\/dnl\/wrj-nicn-no-14-balancing-employee-rights-and-employer-responsibilities-a-review-of-iheanacho-v-bap-services-ltd\/","title":{"rendered":"WRJ-NICN No.14: Balancing Employee Rights and Employer Responsibilities: A Review of Iheanacho v. BAP Services Ltd."},"content":{"rendered":"

By Elvis Evbaruovbokhanre Asia<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Case: <\/em><\/strong>Mr. Grant Iheanacho V BAP Services Limited <\/em>[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

Judge:<\/strong> Justice N.C.S Ogbuanya<\/p>\n

Date:<\/strong> 20\/8\/2024<\/p>\n

Main Issues of Law<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Application of statutes of limitation to Employment Contracts and the Common Law Principles of Laches and Acquiescence.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
      \n
    1. Entitlement of Employee on Suspension to Salaries and Other Benefits\/<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
        \n
      1. Right of Employee Who Fails to Compute and Pay Pension to Claim Pension Contribution<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Summary of Facts<\/strong><\/p>\n

        The Claimant proceeded on annual leave on July 1, 2011, but the leave was extended as compulsory leave to enable the Defendant to investigate allegations of fraud and financial misappropriation by the Claimant. The Claimant remained on leave until July 12, 2012, when his employment was terminated. The Claimant initiated the action in 2021 for salaries earned during the period and unpaid pension deductions over the years of employment with the Defendant. The Defendant challenged the suit on the grounds that it was statute-barred under the Rivers State Limitation Law, which prescribes a five-year period for such actions. The Defendant also disputed the monthly salary to which the Claimant was entitled at the relevant time and argued that the Claimant was not entitled to pension because, as General Manager, he had the duty to compute and pay the pension but failed to do so.<\/p>\n

        Court\u2019s Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n

        The court held that the Claimant was entitled to remuneration during the period of his leave (July 2011\u2013July 2012) but was not entitled to pension contributions, having failed to ensure compliance as General Manager of the Defendant.<\/p>\n

        Legal Principles Relied On<\/strong><\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Application of Statutes of Limitation to Employment Contracts and the Common Law Principles of Laches and Acquiescence<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Ratio:<\/strong> Judicial authorities on the applicability of statutes of limitation, such as the Public Officers Protection Act (POPA), to employment contract claims have consistently upheld the inapplicability of such limitation laws, as confirmed by the recent Supreme Court case Rector Kwara Poly v. Adefila [2024] 9 NWLR (Pt. 1944) 529, which is in line with the earlier case of National Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission v. Ajibola Johnson & Ors [2019] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1656) 247. All categories of statutes of limitation affect the validity of a suit. Thus, if one statute of limitation, such as POPA, is deemed inapplicable to employment contract claims, similar statutes, like the Rivers State Limitation Law, should also be considered inapplicable to employment contracts.<\/p>\n

          Obiter:<\/strong> The common law principle of laches<\/em> and acquiescence<\/em> offers an alternative argument to the judicial position on the non-application of statutes of limitation to employment contract claims. While statutes of limitation specify an exact timeline, the principle of laches <\/em>and acquiescence applies a “reasonable time”<\/em> test, potentially supporting a preliminary objection if a suit is delayed unreasonably.<\/p>\n

            \n
          1. Entitlement of Employee on Suspension to Salaries and Other Benefits<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            Under current law, suspension, even when termed “compulsory leave,” only suspends the employment relationship, temporarily relieving the employee of duty but implying a right to remuneration. Suspension, unlike termination or dismissal, does not sever the employment relationship and merely places it in abeyance until a final decision on the employment\u2019s status is made.<\/p>\n

              \n
            1. Right of Employee Who Fails to Compute and Pay Pension to Claim Pension Contribution<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              An employee who intentionally neglects the statutory and administrative responsibility to facilitate the contributory pension scheme cannot later claim unpaid pension contributions.<\/p>\n

              Commentary<\/strong><\/p>\n

              The decision is significant for many reasons. First, the court reaffirmed the law\u2019s position on the inapplicability of limitation statutes to employment contracts, after considering debates on the issue. The court referenced and relied on the Supreme Court decision in Rector, Kwara Poly v. Adefila, where it was held that POPA does not apply to employment contracts, reasoning that this logic applies equally to other limitation laws, including the Rivers State Limitation Law. Surprisingly, however, the court, without prompting, suggested that the Defendant could have argued for the application of the common law principles of laches<\/em> and acquiescenc<\/em>e as an alternative to statutory limitation. The court noted that, had the Defendant’s counsel argued this, the “test of reasonable time” could have provided a stronger basis for a preliminary objection based on an unreasonable delay in filing the suit.<\/p>\n

              The court’s unsolicited comment on laches<\/em> and acquiescence<\/em> creates another avenue for further debate on the limitation of action in employment claims. It suggests that what the law grants in terms of an unrestricted timeline for employees to bring a claim may be restricted by common law principles. This raises the issue of whether common law principles should be allowed to revive a matter that statutory law excuses. One might have thought that, given the Third Alteration to the Constitution and commendable efforts to eliminate vestiges of common law, the NICN would not permit the exhumation of common law principles in employment claims under any circumstances.<\/p>\n

              Secondly, the court\u2019s decision affirming the Claimant\u2019s entitlement to remuneration during suspension serves as an important reminder to employers. In addition to the NICN\u2019s position that indefinite suspension amounts to unfair labor practice[2]<\/a>, employers are reminded that the use of suspension as a punitive measure, even for the investigation of alleged misconduct, is no longer permitted.<\/p>\n

              Finally, the court\u2019s rejection of the Claimant\u2019s pension claim, based on his duty to ensure pension deductions while employed, deserves critical examination. While the facts of the case remind employees of their duty to comply with statutory obligations and that noncompliance may hinder future claims, this does not fully justify the court’s complete excusal of the Defendant’s failure to make pension payments. This approach does not fully consider the company’s management responsibilities, as the Defendant\u2019s board of directors bears ultimate responsibility for compliance with the law. The Claimant\u2019s administrative failure could have stemmed from inadequate supervision by the Defendant\u2019s board, which has a duty to oversee management. The effect of the decision is that the Defendant has received judicial validation for flouting a statutory provision, which runs contrary to public policy.<\/p>\n

              \n

              Elvis E. Asia is the Managing Partner of Law Future Partners and a PartneratBols Attorneys, Nigeria. He has an LLB, Ambrose Alli University; and LLM from the University of Lagos. He is a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, United Kingdom, Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators of Nigeria and the Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria. Elvis is the author of the book \u2018Oil and Gas Insurance and Nigeria\u2019s Local Content Policy\u2019<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

              \n

              Footnotes<\/strong><\/p>\n

              [1]<\/a> SUIT NO: NICN\/PHC\/29\/2021. Available online at https:\/\/www.nicnadr.gov.ng\/nicnweb\/details.php?id=9357&p=MR.%20GRANT%20IHEANACHO%20-VS-%20BAP%20SERVICES%20LIMITED<\/a><\/p>\n

              [2]<\/a> See Ogbodu v. Global Fleet Oil & Gas Ltd. & Anor. [2015] 55 N.L.L.R (Part 187) 201<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

              By Elvis Evbaruovbokhanre Asia Case: Mr. Grant Iheanacho V BAP Services Limited [1] Judge: Justice N.C.S Ogbuanya Date: 20\/8\/2024 Main Issues of Law Application of statutes of limitation to Employment Contracts and the Common Law Principles of Laches and Acquiescence. Entitlement of Employee on Suspension to Salaries and Other Benefits\/ Right of Employee Who Fails […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":86651,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-87263","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-contemporary-legal-issues","category-publication"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t