EMPLOYERS’ OBLIGATION TO GIVE WORK/EMPLOYMENT REFERENCES UNDER THE NIGERIA DATA PROTECTION REGULATION (NDPR) 2019 / Olumide Babalola

EMPLOYERS’ OBLIGATION TO GIVE WORK/EMPLOYMENT REFERENCES UNDER THE NIGERIA DATA PROTECTION REGULATION (NDPR) 2019 / Olumide Babalola

From time immemorial, whenever an employee moves to a new employment, it had been a standard practice for employers of labour to give employment/work reference to the prospective employers of such former employees. 

The contents of such references varied on case-by-case basis and in most cases, the employees subject matter of the references had little or no knowledge of same and consequently had no control over the transferor or the recipient of such information which may make or mar them in their career pursuit. 

 

With the global prominence of data protection laws and regulations came the need to now interrogate what used to be the routine practice of further processing employees’ personal data without their informed and express consent and thereby violating their rights to privacy in the process except certain other validating factors exist.

 

A lot has been said and written about employers’ (as data controllers and/or administrators) obligations to their staff under the Nigeria Data Protection Regulation but it must be emphasized that such duties do not end upon cessation of master/servant relationship but endures for as long as the servant’s record are retained by the master, hence accentuating the importance of making and updating employees’ data-retention policies by employers of labour. That is not however the focus of this intervention. 

 

Can employers lawfully send their ex-employee’s references without their informed consent?

 

By virtue of Article 2.2 of the NDPR, personal data can only be lawfully processed where:

 

a)        Data subject has given consent for specific purposes;

b)       Necessary for performance of contract;

c)        Necessary for compliance with legal obligation;

d)       Necessary to protect vital interest of data subject;

e)        Necessary to perform task in public interest

 

 

Now, we will consider all the indices of lawful processing of data to ascertain whether or not sending of references falls under any of them while bearing in mind the meaning of employee references (according to https://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/employee-references.html) thus:

 

“Employee references are the positive or negative comments about an employee’s job performance provided to a prospective employer. In most cases, a prospective employer will contact a person’s current or former employer to seek references as part of the process of considering that person for a new position. Prospective employers check references during the interview process in order to ensure that a candidate’s assertions about his or her job skills and work experience are accurate. In fact, obtaining references is one of the most important parts of the hiring process because it can provide valuable information that sets one candidate apart from others and facilitates a sound hiring decision.”

 

 

On Employee’s consent and necessity of processing for performance of contract

 

Experience has shown that the data subject is seldom or never aware of the request for his employment reference proceeding from his current employer to the former employer, hence an employee’s consent is hardly sought and/or obtained before the exchange of such pleasantries between his past and prospective employers. 

 

Assuming the employee’s consent is even sought and obtained, it is our modest opinion that such cannot constitute valid consent since it couldn’t have been freely given, knowing fully well that his chances of securing the new job may be dependent on favourable reference from his ex-employer, hence such consent is induced especially since the employee may not know the contents.

 

 The provision of article 2.3(ii)(d) of the NDPR is instructive in this respect thus:

 

 “Data Controller is under obligation to ensure that consent of a Data Subject has been obtained without fraud, coercion or undue influence; accordingly:

……

d) when assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary (or excessive) for the performance of that contract.” (Emphasis mine)

 

From the foregoing provision, it is our considered opinion that: (a.) The status and bargaining power of an employer (past or present) constitutes undue influence on an employee to give consent for the processing of his personal data in order to secure another employment and (b.) Most employment offers/contracts are made subject to references from past employers which, in our humble opinion, is not necessary for the performance of the subsequent contract except in cases of crime or other vices. 

 

 

Necessary for legal obligation

 

A legal obligation has been defined as any obligation from time to time created by any enactment or authority. The Labour Act, Cap 198, Laws of the Federation 1990 (LA) is the principal law regulating labour relations in Nigeria but out of its 92 sections none is expressly dedicated to employer’s obligation to provide work reference or work certificate.

 

Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the LA expressly list matters that must be contained in an employment contract but the obligation to provide employment/work reference is conspicuously absent and thereby activating the canon of interpretation of ejusdem generis rule to dislodge any suggestion that employment reference is contemplated by the relevant sections. See Federal Republic of Nigeria v Ibori (2014) LPELR- 23214 (CA).

 

From the foregoing, we again, modestly conclude that, under the extant LA, an employer does not have any legal obligation to give employees reference/work certificate with or without request.

 

 

Public Interest

 

Employment contracts are, by their nature, private agreements with the exception of employments with statutory flavour, which are arguably public matters, since the government is the employer and wages are paid from public funds.

 

The Nigerian Supreme Court in Centre for Pollution Watch v. NNPC (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666) 518 @ 583, defined the term “public interest” as:

                                                           

“…the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection of something in which the public as a whole has a stake especially, an interest that justifies government regulation.”

 

Admittedly, although the public is interested in how public funds are spent, this writer modestly thinks, positing that employment reference is a matter of public interest is, drawing the principle too far, except always, such employee’s subsequent employment constitutes grave danger to the state as a whole.

 

From the apex court’s definition above, can one now say that a civil servant’s employment reference concerns the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection simplicita? I humbly, think not!

 

 

 

Vital interest of the employee

 

Although vital interest is not specifically defined under the definition article of the NDPR, an inference can be drawn as to its meaning from article 2.12(f) thus:

 

“The transfer is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of other persons, where the data subject is physically or legally incapable of giving consent; provided, in all circumstances, that the data subject has been manifestly made to understand through clear warnings of the specific principle(s) of data protection that are likely to be violated in the event of transfer to a third country…”(Emphasis mine)

 

Indubitably, good references are in the interest of an employee, but the NDPR is clear that, processing such without consent can only be lawful where done in the data subject’s vital interest and it is our belief, that except of course, where the employee is bedridden and is unable to give consent but that is rarely the case where employers give references without recourse to the employees.

 

Flowing from the above, this writer opines that, an employer’s provision of employee’s reference to a third party without the employee’s express consent does not fall under processing in the latter’s vital interests contemplated under paragraph d of article 2.2(ii) of NDPR.

 

 

Performance of contract

 

Article 2.2(ii) provides that:

 

“Without prejudice to the principles set out in this regulation, processing shall be lawful if at least one of the following applies:

……

Processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the Data Subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the Data Subject prior to entering into a contract.” (Emphasis mine)

 

From the clear provision above, it appears settled that, an employer is at liberty to provide employee’s work reference without the requirement of seeking further consent once such a clause is embodied in their employment contract or any other written agreement between the parties.

 

The problem that arises here is, where there is no such clause in the employment contract, would such processing still be lawful? This poser seems to have been answered by the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) in the case of Kelvin Nwaigwe v. Fidelity Bank Plc (unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/85/2014) where Kanyip, J. (as he then was) held that:

 

“I am persuaded by the force of these UK case law authorities that in appropriate cases there is an implied term in contracts of employment imposing duty on the employer to provide work reference in respect of its employee, whether former or existing. The defendant in the instant case is a Bank and hence a financial institution. This means that the defendant has an obligation to give a work reference to, or in respect of, the claimant, which work reference must be true, accurate, fair and not misleading to a future employer; and I so find and hold. In this respect, relief (c) claimed by the claimant succeeds in terms of the defendant giving a true, accurate, fair and not misleading reference of career record on demand to the claimant.” (Emphasis mine)

 

Although the decision above was handed down pre-NDPR days, this writer is of the considered view that, the reasoning of the court importing the implied obligation to provide work reference, remains the law in Nigeria until set aside by the appellate court.

 

Conclusively, as held by the NICN above, in appropriate cases, employers are at liberty to give work reference to their employees’ (past or present) prospective employers without seeking further consent on the strength of the contract of employment pursuant to article 2.2(ii)(b) of the NDPR provided always that the reference must true, accurate, fair data of the employee.

Olumide writes from Lagos, Nigeria and can be reached via olumide@olumidebabalolalp.com

Dele Adesina SAN felicitates with NBA Badagry Branch on the occasion of its Annual Law Week

Dele Adesina SAN felicitates with NBA Badagry Branch on the occasion of its Annual Law Week

On behalf of myself and colleagues at Dele Adesina LP, I extend my warm regards to the Chairman, Executives and Members of the NBA Badagry Branch (Heritage Bar) as the Branch holds its Annual Law Week from the 9th to the 13th of March, 2020.

With the theme “The State of the Nation and the Nigerian Lawyer” i am sure the deliberations will be rich and focused on the role of lawyers as the custodian of justice, the conscience of the Nation and a bridge between the government and the people.

Please accept our highest regards.
Dele Adesina, SAN

PUSAN MILESTONES: Promoting Gender Balance in the Legal Profession

PUSAN MILESTONES: Promoting Gender Balance in the Legal Profession

The
Paul Usoro SAN led administration has recorded many wins and achievements so
far, one that stands out is the inauguration of a new leadership for the NBA
Women’s Forum and in the spirit of the International Women’s Day 2020, this
initiative leads the way in ensuring gender equality in the legal profession. 



It will be recalled that the Executive Council of the
Women Forum was recently inaugurated by the President of the Nigerian Bar
Association, Paul Usoro SAN on the 17th day of September 2019.


The purpose of the NBA Women
Forum is to give prominence to the promotion of women-Lawyers’ rights and
privileges while also bringing to the front burner gender-related issues and
ensuring that all prejudices and over-shadowy discriminatory practices against
women lawyers become a thing of the past. 

Paul
Usoro SAN in his speech during the inauguration noted that
the constitution of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) mandates that there
should be a women’s forum to address issues that affect women. On the issue of
sexual harassment, he had this to say, “We have just finished our Annual
General Conference (AGC) and one of the very hot sessions was the session on
bullying and sexual harassment. A lot of female lawyers spoke passionately
about their experiences and the general consensus was that the NBA must do
something about it.”


The executives of the NBA Women’s Forum have also hit the ground
running and they exhibit a line-up of successful female lawyers who have always
shown a passion for excellence and the promotion of the welfare of female lawyers.
The NBAWF held its inaugural General Council meeting on Wednesday the 30th
October 2019, at the NBA National Secretariat Abuja. It immediately set up a
Mentorship Committee which developed a mentorship programme for members. 


The programme offers free mentoring for young female lawyers
from 0-5 years at the bar. NBAWF mentoring is intended to encourage and assist
members to develop to their full potentials in all areas of career and life and
will be held at different locations in the country. For instance, it’s take off
session will be held on Tuesday, 17th March, 2020 at the NBA Port Harcourt Bar
Center, Bank road, Port Harcourt,  Rivers State.

The executive is made up of Professor Oluyemisi Bamgbose, SAN –
Chairperson, Chinyere Okorocha, Vice Chairperson, Nsidibe Aideyan, Secretary
and Hajia Safiya Balarabe as Treasurer.

To assist the Forum’s executive in an advisory capacity, a
blue-ribbon Council was also constituted by the NBA President comprising very
eminent legal practitioners. These include, Her Excellency, Anna Isiyaku, First
Lady of Taraba State, Maryam Uwais, MFR, Special Adviser to the President,
Professor Joy Ngozi Ezeilo, OON, Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Nigeria,
Nsukka, frontline arbitrator, Dorothy Ufot, SAN, frontline arbitrator, Hajia
Hadiza Magaji, Chief Registrar, Borno State Judiciary. 

Others are, Florence Fiberesima, Solicitor-General and Permanent
Secretary, Rivers, State Ministry of Justice, Dr. Foluke Dada, academician,
gender activist and NBA 2nd Vice President; and Ayotola Jagun, Chief Compliance
Officer at Oando Plc.




Dele Adesina SAN’s celebratory message on International Women’s Day

Dele Adesina SAN’s celebratory message on International Women’s Day

All members of Dele Adesina LP and I join the world in celebrating the achievements and successes of women globally. Particular in our profession, I cannot help but mention the successes of the likes of Chief Mrs. Folanke Solanke SAN, CON, Hon. Justice Aloma Mariam Mukhtar CJN Rtd, the first female Senior Advocate of Nigeria and first female Chief Justice of Nigeria respectfully.
 
After these leading women, many other female lawyers have led the way with numerous ground breaking achievements and this brief message cannot be enough to outline all. I also note the record achievements of groups such as the Federation of International Women Lawyers (FIDA), African Women Lawyers Association (AWLA) and members of the Nigerian Bar Association Women’s Forum.
 
As we all continue to raise our voices against inequality, gender stereotypes and gender oppression in every facet, I call for gender inclusion and equality at all instances. I specially commend the female members of the Nigerian Bar Association for their dynamism and their giant strides in the profession.
 
Happy International Women’s Day 2020.

Dele Adesina SAN

Dele Adesina, SAN Quotes on the Legal Profession 

Dele Adesina, SAN Quotes on the Legal Profession 

Our Profession is at a cross-road. Some others have argued that the Profession is under siege. Today, we increasingly have to contend with disobedience of Court Orders and Judgments. There is the challenge to independence of the Judiciary as an institution as well as the independence of Lawyers and Judges as professionals. The worship of money and men rather than the worship of God have also become part of the problems of the Profession. 

The general perception today is that our Judiciary is corrupt and that Lawyers and Judges are part of the Nation’s problems. Even though the conduct of some of our Members tend to justify this perception, but permit me to say that the conduct of a few Members does not and cannot justify the general condemnation of our Judicial institution and our beloved Profession.

Culled from Dele Adesina SAN’s Goodwill Message To The Young Lawyers Forum (Y.L.F) Ilorin Branch, on the occasion of their Annual Bar Dinner which held on 7th December, 2019

Assault and Detention of Mr. Temitayo Igunnu by Men of the Nigerian Army & Police – This Barbarism Must Stop

Assault and Detention of Mr. Temitayo Igunnu by Men of the Nigerian Army & Police – This Barbarism Must Stop

Just a few weeks after condemning the unlawful assault of a legal practitioner, Ibangah Goodness Esq, it is sad that we have to once again contend with yet a  case of another assault on another lawyer by officers of the very agencies mandated to protect Nigerian citizens. 
 
Information reaching me is that, in the early hours of Friday, 6th March, 2020, the side mirror of Mr. Igunnu’s car was broken by a Naval officer who was driving a commercial bus around Bonny Camp. However, rather than address the situation peacefully, the said Naval officer resorted to threats of force. During the course of the altercation, some soldiers attached to the Bonny Camp Cantonment were alleged to have intervened, but rather than ensure a peaceful resolution of the matter, they chose to constitute themselves into a mob squad and proceeded to assault Mr. Igunnu while inflicting grievous bodily injuries on him. In addition to the public brutalisation and dehumanisation of Mr. Igunnu, he was reported to have been unlawfully detained by the soldiers at the Bonny Camp Cantonment and later moved to the Bar Beach Police Station where he was detained until the intervention of the leadership of NBA Lagos Branch and other colleagues who secured his release.
 
I commend the Chairman, Executives and Members of the NBA Lagos Branch for the swift intervention and facilitation of our colleague’s release as well as the commitment of the Branch to see that justice is done. The Nigerian Bar Association must send a clear message to members of the Police and Armed Forces that the unlawful assault and oppression of Nigerian Citizens will not be condoled and most especially that an assault on a legal practitioner will cause a swift and decisive response from the Nigerian Bar Association.
 
Lastly, I call for the National Human Rights Commission to collaborate with the Nigerian Bar Association to ensure that incidents of brutality of Nigerians by members of the Armed Forces, the Nigerian Police and other security agencies are brought to an end.  However, we must ensure that the present case of brutality against Mr. Igunnu is not only investigated, but the officers involved in the dastardly act must be brought to justice. Acts of impunity and unprofessional conduct by members of the Armed Forces against lawyers must become a thing of the past. 
Dele Adesina SAN 
 

 
 
Dele Adesina, SAN Quotes on Leadership 

Dele Adesina, SAN Quotes on Leadership 

“Times such as this require honest, purposeful and focused leadership with relevant and verifiable experience and record of past successful services to the Profession and to the Association with the requisite character, competence and capacity to galvanize our members both leaders and followers, old and young, in order to reconstruct our profession. The time has come when we all, most particularly you the leaders of tomorrow, must resolve to produce leaders who will be driven by the passion to serve the Bar and better the standard of living of its Members. Beyond politics and politricks is the welfare and wellbeing of our Members and the survival of the Profession.”

Culled from Dele Adesina SAN’s Goodwill Message To The Young Lawyers Forum (Y.L.F) Ilorin Branch, on the occasion of their Annual Bar Dinner which held on 7th December, 2019

DELE ADESINA SAN: A dedicated Bar Man with commitment and passion.

DELE ADESINA SAN: A dedicated Bar Man with commitment and passion.

The Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (BOSAN) held its two in one programme, the ANNUAL BOSAN DINNER and the MAIDEN BOSAN SCHOLARSHIP AWARD on the 30th of November 2019 at Continental Hotel, Victoria Island, Lagos. While Chief Felix Fagbohungbe SAN is the Chairman of Bosan Fund Utilisation Committee, Dcn Dele Adesina SAN is the Chairman of Bosan Scholarship award Sub-Committee. 
In the photograph above is Chief Felix Fagbohungbe SAN in white agbada. Next to him on his right is Hon Justice Coker of the High Court of Lagos State and Mr and Mrs Dele Adesina. On the left hand of the Chairman is Prof and Mrs Fabian Ajogwu SAN and Prof Yemisi Bamigbose SAN of University of lbadan. 
The 1st photograph is Dcn Dele Adesina SAN Chairman of the BOSAN Scholarship Sub Committee  presenting the Body of Senior Advocate of Nigeria Scholars at the well attended dinner.
The 3rd photograph above is of the other members of the Scholarship Sub Committee, Mr Lanre Onadeko SAN former Director General of the Nigerian Law School. Prof Yemisi Bamigbose SAN of University of lbadan, Prof Atsenuwa, Dean Faculty if Law, University of Lagos.  Prof Essien Essien SAN,  Vice Chancellor,  University of Uyo and Prof Fabian Ajogwu SAN together with the maiden Awardees holding their highly coveted prizes.
Each of the 5 awardees went home with the Scholarship prize of five hundred thousand ( #500,000.00) Naira
The Legal Duty of Employers to Protect Employees from Workplace Injuries in Nigeria | Michael Dugeri

The Legal Duty of Employers to Protect Employees from Workplace Injuries in Nigeria | Michael Dugeri

Introduction
In Nigeria, the law requires all employers
to take responsibility for preventing workplace injury and disease. As a
result, employers must take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances
for the protection of their workers. This usually entails the maintenance
of a healthy and safe work environment; provision of hazard information, proper
safety equipment, training and competent supervision.

Brief facts
In the case of Henry
Ihebereme v. Hartland Nigeria Limited
, (Unreported Suit No.
NICN/ABJ/172/2018, the judgment of which was delivered 23 January 2020) the
Claimant
sued
his former employer to demand compensation for the sum of N250 Million as
“compensation for the permanent loss of the use of his hand, for pain and
suffering, and for loss of enjoyment of life”. The Claimant had been employed
as a bricklayer, with responsibilities, which included moulding of concrete slabs
and their removal from the point of moulding to the point of the site where it
is needed and such related tasks as the foreman may direct. While at work the
Claimant was injured by a forklift that was being operated by his co-employee,
leading to the loss of his arm. Specifically, the Claimant suffered ‘multiple
fractures of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th middle phalanges of the left hand’. He was
first treated at a medical facility at the instance of the Defendant.

The
Defendant, however, contended that the Claimant was injured when he negligently
climbed the forklift, without authorization. The Defendant also contended that it
offered medical treatment to the Claimant, but that the Claimant deliberately
refused, neglected and failed to proceed for further medical treatment instead
insisted on collecting Ten Million Naira as compensation from the Defendant.
The law
In
its judgment, the National Industrial Court examined the merits of the
Claimant’s case against the Defendant, which was based on the tort of negligence.
The Court pointed out that duty, breach, causation, and damage are the elements
which together make up a successful negligence claim. By these requirements,
the tort of negligence relies on the blameworthy nature of the defendant’s
conduct for success. In other words, for a claimant to succeed in a negligence
action, he must prove that the defendant was in fact negligent, that is, he
failed to take that degree of care which is reasonable in all circumstances of
the case or he failed to act as a reasonable man would have acted. Then if the
defendant owes a duty of care, his negligence becomes breach of that duty. The
resultant damage on the claimant would then be actionable. Even here, there is
still the possibility that the claimant may not recover (or only partly
recover) against the defendant given the limiting/control devices of remoteness
of damage, contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk. In other
words, a defendant may owe a duty of care, may breach that duty of care, for which
the claimant suffers resultant damage, and yet not be liable or be only partly
liable if the damage is too remote, or the claimant contributed to the injury
or the claimant voluntarily assumed the risk in issue.

The
Court in this case had no difficult coming to the conclusion that the Defendant
owed the Claimant a duty of care given the proximate relationship between the
two, and the fact that the claimant was injured in the course of working for
the Defendant, indicated that there was a breach of the duty of care, and
resultant damage. The English case of Smith & ors
(FC) v. The Ministry of Defence (2013)
LPELR-17965(UKSC); Suit No
: [2013] UKSC 41, held thus: “An employer owes his employees a duty to take reasonable care to
provide safe equipment and a safe system of work, which includes assessing the
tasks to be undertaken, training in how to perform those tasks as safely as
possible, and supervision in performing them
”. This position is reinforced
by IITA v. Amrani,
(1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 332) 296 which held that the standard of the master’s duty towards
his servant is to see that reasonable care is taken; the scope of that duty
extends to the provisions of safe fellow servants, safe equipment, safe place
of work and access to it and a safe system of work.

The
earlier authority of Western Nigeria Trading Co. Ltd v. Ajao
(1965) All NLR 524
(followed in recent cases like Ola Suleiman v. Hongzing Steel Company
Limited
unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/73/2011, the judgment of which was
delivered on 26th February 2015)
is
no less instructive: an employer’s duty at common law is not only to provide
goggles (safety equipment), but also to see to it that they are used. The case
of Green Pack Rubber Ind. Ltd v. Ossai
(2004) 2 FWLR (Pt. 194) 668, on its part stressed that when a statutory duty is imposed
on an employer but not also on the workman who is injured and there is breach
of that duty which is a cause of the accident to the workman, the employer will
be liable subject to an apportionment for contributory negligence. The case stated
further that the employer will be completely exonerated if the workman, having
been given appropriate equipment and instructions, disobeyed those instructions
or did some deliberate wrongful act which breaks the causal connection.

Employee duty to mitigate damage



In
the case of
Henry
Ihebereme v. Hartland Nigeria Limited
, which is under review, the Defendant acknowledged via correspondence that the Claimant
was its sailor, and in the normal course of his duties, was injured when the
wire rope holding a snatch block broke and a block fell on him. The Court
therefore had no difficulty in concluding that the acknowledgment of negligence
on the part of the Defendant resulted in the injury that the Clamant suffered.

However,
in inadvertently admitting negligence, the Defendant contended that the Claimant
aggravated the state of his injury by discharging himself from the hospital
even when the hospital advised against this. To the defendant, the decision to
discharge himself and go to bone healers was completely that of the claimant
and his relations contrary to the advice of the hospital. The Claimant did not
contradict this piece of evidence. As a result, the Court found and held that it
was the duty of the Claimant to mitigate the damage; he cannot recover damages
for an aggravation or prolongation of his injuries which is due to his neglect
or willful default; such unreasonable conduct being novus actus interveniens.
(i.e,
an intervening unforeseeable event that occurs
after the defendant’s negligent act and operates to precipitate or worsen the
plaintiff’s loss).

The
Court made reference to two older case law authorities on the doctrine of novus
actus interveniens
. The first was the case of Ekwo v. Enechukwu
(1954) 14 WACA 512.
The plaintiff’s hand in this case was seriously injured as a result of the
negligent fixing of a seat belt in the defendant’s lorry. Immediately after the
accident, a servant of the defendant offered to take the plaintiff to a
hospital for medical attention, but the plaintiff refused, preferring instead
to consult a native doctor. Seven days later, the plaintiff did go to a
hospital, by which time the hand had become septic and gangrenous and so had to
be amputated. The doctor who attended to the plaintiff in the hospital
testified that the amputation was the result of the wound becoming septic, and
he was of the opinion that had the plaintiff come to the hospital immediately,
he might have been saved from amputation and the fracture would have been
cured. The Court held that the plaintiff did not act unreasonably in consulting
a native doctor instead of going immediately to a hospital.

The
second case is Mange v. Drurie
(1970) NNLR 62. Here, the Plaintiff was riding a bicycle when he was knocked
down and suffered injury to his leg as a result of the careless driving of a
lorry by the Defendant. He was immediately taken to the hospital by the Defendant.
However, before treatment was complete and against medical advice, the Plaintiff
discharged himself and did not return to the hospital for two days. During this
two-day period, the leg became infected and so had to be amputated. The Plaintiff’s
claim for damages for loss of the leg was rejected by the Court.

The
Court applied the cases of Ekwo v. Enechukwu and Mange v. Drurie in holding that the Claimant in the instant
case failed to mitigate his damage and could therefore not recover against the
Defendant for the aggravated injury
.

Conclusion

The law on employers’ liability for injuries that
occur to employees in the course of employment ensures that no employee who is
injured in the course of employment goes without compensation for the
injury.  It provides the employee with choice of legal regimes to utilize
for the purpose of seeking compensation.  An employee can either:

1.      Sue
his employer in negligence founded on the breach of the common law duty of
care;

2.      Sue
the employer where injury occurred due to a breach by the employer, of a
statutory duty, for example, as contemplated by the Factories Act. 

3.      When
the employer is not blameworthy in negligence, sue an occupier of premises for
negligence founded on Occupiers’ Liability.

4.      Sue
another employer for injury or loss sustained by an employee, which is caused
by the employer’s employee in the course of his employment; in which case the
liability is vicarious; 

5.      Seek
compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, for injuries which occurred
in the course of employment, either by accident or as a consequence of the
employment.

The choice is usually that of the Claimant’s. 
Each regime has its pre-conditions to be met before the Claimant can be
entitled to the claim.  Where the employee is unable to fulfil the
conditions, then he may lose a deserved compensation. 

Micheal Dugeri

NBA Ikeja Branch Unanimously Adopts Dele Adesina, SAN As Sole Candidate for the Office of the President, Nigerian Bar Association (OPNB)

NBA Ikeja Branch Unanimously Adopts Dele Adesina, SAN As Sole Candidate for the Office of the President, Nigerian Bar Association (OPNB)

Members of the NBA Ikeja Branch at the Branch Monthly Meeting on 2nd March, 2020, unanimously adopted the candidacy of Deacon Dele Adesina SAN as the sole candidate for the office of President of the Nigerian Bar Association (OPNB).

The motion was moved by a very senior member and Past Secretary of the Branch, Chief Richard Ahonaurogo and seconded by another Past Secretary of the Branch and Immediate Past National Welfare Secretary, Mr. Adesina Adegbite. The resolution was overwhelmingly carried with thunderous applause from members of the Branch. 

Prince Dele Oloke, the Chairman of the NBA Ikeja Branch delivered a message from Egbe Amofin O’odua which is the umbrella body of lawyers from Yoruba extraction. It can be recalled that on Saturday, December 14, 2019, Egbe Amofin picked Dcn Dele Adesina SAN out of five contestants as its official candidate for the President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) in 2020. In making the choice, Egbe Amofin set up a committee to look at all candidates vying for the position and recommend one candidate that the Egbe will support and endorse for the election.

The committee which was chaired by Chief Akintola and comprised of all NBA Branch Chairmen in the South West in delivering its report stated that it set up certain yardsticks a candidate must possess to qualify. The yardsticks include that such a candidate must have a good and standard practice, must have leadership skills, must be a person who is receptive to the generality of members, must have experience in general law practice and must be exposed. Such candidate must also have played a significant role in the NBA as a professional body. He must also be a person of integrity without any corruption case against him. He must also have widespread appeal in other zones of the association. Chief Akintola said having considered all these, the committee then voted and Dele Adesina SAN came out tops.

Prince Dele Oloke further stated that Chairmen of the Southwest zones have been given the mandate to impress it on their members that Dele Adesina, SAN is the only OPNBA endorsed candidate of the Southwest Zone. In the same spirit Chief Richard Ahonaruogho added that he is particularly happy about the choice of the branch to adopt Dele Adesina, SAN as the NBA presidential candidate.

Mr. Adesina Adegbite, a Past Secretary of the Branch and Immediate Past National Welfare Secretary also added that the mandate of Egbe Amofin endorsing Dele Adesina, SAN was unanimously done by the Forum and reaffirmed at the forum’s last meeting which held last month at the  Afe Babalola Bar Centre, Ibadan, Oyo state. 

The record achievements of Dele Adesina SAN within and outside the NBA also speaks for itself, as the Past General Secretary of the NBA, he facilitated the creation of the various NBA Sections, passionately protected the rights of the NBA Members and led the way for the promotion of the welfare of lawyers.