On Whether the National Industrial Court has jurisdiction over claim of an employer for destruction of his property by an employee -

Dungus & Ors. v.  ENL Consortium Ltd.  [2015]  60 N.L.L.R (Pt. 209) 39

On Whether  the National Industrial Court has jurisdiction over claim of an employer for destruction of his property by an employee -

        The National Industrial Court under section 245(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, is given jurisdiction over all labour, employment, trade union, industrial relations, etc. causes and matters, and matters incidental thereto. In the instant case, the counterclaim of the defendant is a claim by an employer against its employees for the destruction of the employer’s goods, machines, plants and equipments while at work. This comes squarely within the jurisdiction of this Court under section 254C(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. (P. 90, Paras. B-D)

To subscribe for your copies of the Nigerian Labour Law Reports (NLLR) contact:

1

                      1.      Debbie Abu (Assistant Managing Editor/Business Development Manager) – 07038436051

2.     Olubunmi Sogbade (Head, Admin) – 08069492058, 08026119096.

3.     Olawale Okono (Marketing Manager) -08035675155

OR

 Email: lawpublishers@rochebalaw.com; info.rochebalawpublishers@gmail.com; debbie.abu@rochebalaw.com. 

Visit our website on www.labourlawreports.com

On Duty of employee to protect the property of his employer and effect of negligence in respect of -

Dungus & Ors. v.  ENL Consortium Ltd.  [2015]  60 N.L.L.R (Pt. 209) 39

On Duty of employee  to protect the property of his  employer and effect of negligence in respect of -

        An employee owes it a duty to his employer to protect its property or use same in such a way that no preventable loss would occur. Where he is tardy or there is lack of diligence in his approach to his duty or he is negligent and the master by the same suffers loss due to the unacceptable and untoward behavior of the employee, such employee is guilty of misconduct to which the appropriate disciplinary action can be taken against him. [Abomeli v. NRC [1995] 1 NWLR (Pt. 372) 451 CA referred to.] (Pp. 89-90, Paras. H-B)

On Test for determining whether suspicion was reasonable where an employer discipline on an employee based on suspicion -

         

Odiase v. Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi [2015] 60 N.L.L.R (Part 208)   1                 

On Test for determining whether suspicion was reasonable where an employer discipline on an employee based on suspicion -

    

   Where suspicion is the basis of exerting disciplinary action on employee, in such cases it is open to the court to enquire if a reasonable employer could honestly have come to hold such suspicion on the particular facts of the case  and if the answer is "yes" then the court could not enquire further into the matter, that is to say, into the propriety or otherwise of acting on the suspicion. In the instant case, the trial court looked at this side of the appellant's case and came to the conclusion that the suspicion leading to the ultimate act of summary dismissal of the appellant was well founded. In this regard, the respondent reserve the right to suspend the appellant based on suspicion and within six months thereof to conduct investigation regarding the suspicion and to reinstate the appellant to his employment on being exonerated by the investigation in line with Art. 4(iii) and (iv) of Exhibit “1”. (P. 214, Paras. B-C, F-G)

WELCOME TO 2016