O. OGUNDE VS OSENI OJOMU
August 22, 2025ILU GARBA VS THE STATE
August 22, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1972) Legalpedia (SC) 90561
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Apr 21, 1972
Suit Number: SC. 191/69
CORAM
COKER,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MADARIKAN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SOWEMIMO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
THE NIGERIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
There was an audit investigation and as the respondent could not defend discrepancies found in his department, employment was terminated. He brought this action 31 months later.
HELD
The court held that the appellant was entitled to protection under the Act, so the action was Statute barred.
ISSUES
Whether the trial judge was wrong when he held that section 61 (1) of the Act does not apply and consequently the action is not statute barred.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
MEANING OF DISMISSAL UNDER LABOUR LAW
“In my view, Section 61(1) contemplates the position where the Corporation on the authority of an Act does an act which causes injury or trespass to a person or his property. But it does not apply to a case where the Corporation is exercising its right based on common law or on a contract. An action for wrongful dismissal, especially one of this nature, is a specie of breach of contract. This is a common right and is not based on any statute. A master acting within the limits of his authority is entitled to dismiss an employee taking proper care that his action is within the terms of his contract with the employee but such an act cannot come within the provisions of Section 61 (1) of the Nigerian Broadcasting Corporation Act.” PER MADARIKAN JSC
CASES CITED
COMPTON AND WEST HAM COUNT BOROUGH COUNCIL (1939) 3 ALL E.R 193
STATUTES REFERRED TO
PUBIC AUTHORITIES PROTECTION ACT 1893
NIGERIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION ACT
