MEME VS MEME
September 3, 2025IYU VS THE STATE
September 3, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1965-06) Legalpedia 34953 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden At Abuja
Fri Jun 25, 1965
Suit Number: SC 280/1963
CORAM
BAIRAMIAN CHIEF JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ONYEAMA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
AJEGBO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
NWAOKORO
APPELLANTS
SAPELE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENT
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff/appellant sued the defendant/respondent claiming £80 damages for wrongful dismissal. The court found for the appellant, dissatisfied the respondent appealed to the High Court which allowed the appeal, hence this present appeal.
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the regulations on which he relies, which are in Part X of the Local Government (Staff) Regulations, 1960 on “Termination of Appointment”, relate to daily paid employees or to established employees only.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
EFFECT OF THE REGULATIONS OF 1960 ON THE COUNCIL’S POWER UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE LABOR CODE ORDINANCE.
“In our opinion the said Regulations of 1960 do not affect the Council’s power under section 32 of the Labor Code Ordinance (cap. 91 in the 1958 Laws of the Federation etc.) to terminate the employment of daily paid laborers on oral contracts whose employment has been continuous for more than one month, by seven days notice: see subsection (2) (b); the fact that the laborers were paid once a month does not make any difference.” Per BAIRAMIAN, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
Vine v. National Dock Labour Board [1956] 3 All E.R. 939 at p. 946
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Labour Code Ordinance cap. 91 in the 1958 Laws of the Federation
