WILFUL MISCONDUCT

• Date: 06 February 2019

(1) "In the case of: Horabin v. British Airways Corpn. (1952) 2 All ER 1016 @ 1020 B - D. the term ‘wilful misconduct’ was explained thus: "In order to establish wilful misconduct; the plaintiff must satisfy you that the person who did the act knew at the time that he was doing something wrong, and yet did it, notwithstanding; or alternatively, that he did it quite recklessly; not caring whether he was doing the right thing or the wrong thing, quite regardless of the effects of what he was doing on the safety of the aircraft and of the passengers for which and for whom he was responsible. The element of willfulness is essential in the present case if the plaintiff is to recover more than the £3,000 odd to which he is admittedly entitled." (Italics supplied) It is evident from the above that willful misconduct comprises the act itself and the mental element." - Per Kekere-Ekun, J.S.C., in British Airways v. Atoyebi Suit No. S.C. 332/2010; (2014) 13 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1424) 253 at 283.

(2) "The principle enunciated in Horabin’s case (supra) with regard to how to determine wilful misconduct is applicable to any claim for damages arising under the provisions of the CAO. The case was cited with approval by this Court in the recent case of: Harka Air Services (Nig.) Ltd. v. Keazor (2011) 13 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1264) 320 @ 342 A; 360 H. His Lordship, Rhodes-Vivour, J.S.C. stated at page 364 C- D: "Wilful misconduct is a deliberate wrong act by a pilot, airline staff, or its agent which gives rise to a claim for damages by passengers. When staff of an airline act with reckless indifference, such unacceptable behaviour especially by a professional person amounts to wilful misconduct." - Per Kekere-Ekun, J.S.C., in British Airways v. Atoyebi Suit No. S.C. 332/2010; (2014) 13 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1424) 253 at 283.

(3) "In the instance case leading to this appeal, the appellant’s dismissal was on the ground of dishonesty which amounted to a gross misconduct. The appellant unequivocally and in writing, admitted the same. Surely, the confidence between the parties, has been destroyed by the appellant. Willful misconduct, is said to be any act that is prejudicial to the interest of the master which is outside the scope of the duties of the servant. This is exactly what happened in this said case. See Shuaibu v. Nigeria-Arab Bank Ltd. (1998) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 551) 582, (1998) 4 S.C.N.J. 109 at 129 and Biishi v. The Judicial Service Commission & Anor. (1991) 6 N.W.L.R...