NURUDEEN ADIO OLUFUNMISHE VS T. E. G. LABINJO
August 22, 2025FASASI ADESHINA VS THE FEDERAL PUBLIC TRUSTEE & ORS
August 22, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1972) Legalpedia (SC) 62117
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Thu Mar 30, 1972
Suit Number: SC 64/69
CORAM
ADEMOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MADARIKAN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SOWEMIMO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
NIGERIAN PORTS AUTHORITY APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The respondent was dismissed from service in breach of express stipulations in his contract with the appellant which allowed him work until he is 60years or a Medical Certificate declares him unfit.
HELD
The court held that the respondent was to continue in service from year to year depending upon a certificate of fitness from a Medical Officer.
ISSUES
Whether paragraph 1505 provides for a retiring age of 60 years when an extension is granted or a retiring age of 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60 years as the case maybe depending upon a medical certificate.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
MEANING OF UNLAWFUL RETIREMENT
“In our view, if it is the latter, as the appellants now claim by the argument of their counsel, it is difficult to agree with the view postulated by counsel that the notice of determination served on the respondent was a valid one. Such notice, in our view, may be given by agreement of parties or for misbehaviour. The respondent was to expect his contract of service to continue from year to year until he reached the age of 60 or until such time before 60 years of age when the Medical Officer certified him as unable to work further. This certainly, in our view, is the correct interpretation that can be given to the old Section 1505. Now, has the amendment of the Section by the insertion therein of the words “at the discretion of the Authority” made any difference? We do not think so. The words, to our mind, cannot be taken to mean that the Authority, during the period of extension, had a right or discretion to terminate the contract by notice, unjustifiably. The discretion the Authority had in the matter, which it could exercise under Section 1505, was whether it would decide to allow a continuation of his service as from 2nd April, 1966. It was clear that what the Authority said in effect was a continuation of his service by the respondent until he was 60 years of age depending upon a certificate of fitness by the Medical Officer from year to year. PER MADARINKA JSC
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
