ELECTRICITY CORPORATION OF NIGERIA V. NICOL

• Pages: 157-163

ELECTRICITY CORPORATION OF NIGERIA V. NICOL



157

ELECTRICITY CORPORATION OF NIGERIA V.

NICOL

ELECTRICITY CORPORATION OF NIGERIA



APPELLANTS

V

GEORGE NICOL



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 591/66

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

BRETT,



J.S.C.

COKER,



J.S.C.

3rd June, 1968.

Master and Servant - Misconduct of servant - Master failing to complain -

Whether complaint could be a ground for dismissal on subsequent occasion -

Master and Servant - Contract - Breach - Measure of damages - Electricity

Corporation of Nigeria - Regulations and conditions of service - Discipline of

officers in senior service - Ithether powers vested in General Manager of

Corporation.

ISSUES:

1. Whether a master who condones his servants misconduct without any

complaint, can use that misconduct as a ground of dismissal on a subsequent

occasion.

30



2. How should a plaintiff-employer's damages be measured in a claim for breach

of contract of employment.

3. Whether the power to discipline officers in the senior service of the Electricity

Corporation of Nigeria, is vested in the Corporation's General Manager.

FACTS:

35



The plaintiff was employed as secretary to the defendant corporation, and

worked in that capacity until Octooer 1963 when he was suspended without his of-

fence being specified by the defendant. A year after his suspension from service,

he was dismissed on various allegations of misconduct. Thereupon, he brought

an action in the Lagos High Court for wrongful dismissal and damages. The trial

40



judge found in his favour and awarded damages. The defendant appealed against

the awards of damages, arguing,

inter alia,

that it had not by its earlier conduct

waived the plaintiffs acts of misconduct or had full knowledge of them, and that

the damages were excessive.

HELD:

45



1. It is settled law that if a master did not complain and appeared to be satisfied

with servant's conduct that his complaint could not be a ground for dismissal

on a subsequent occasion. In this case, there were no instances proved before

the trial judge where it was clear that the alleged misconduct of the plaintiff was

not fully known to the Corporation, and so one could not quarrel with the

50



decision of the judge about the condonation of the various charges against the

plaintiff.

5

10

15

20

25