It is not the law that once a crime is detected the employer cannot dismiss an employee unless he is tried and convicted first

MASTER - SERVANT RELATIONSHIP: Position of the law governing disputes between master and servant in the interpretation of contracts of employment

"The complaint of the appellant in the present issue is that what the court below termed as breaches committed by the appellant are infact criminal allegation of forgery and foreign exchange malpractices for which the appellant ought to have been charged to court and prosecuted before proceeding with his dismissal. Unfortunately for the appellant, this is not the present position of the law governing disputes between master and servant in the interpretation of contracts of employment.

The correct position of the law is stated by this court in the case of Francis C. Aringe v. First Bank of Nigeria Ltd. (2004) 12 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 888) 663 at 673 where Belgore JSC later CJN said -

"This is a simple case of employee and employer not covered by statutory rules as in Federal Civil Service Commission & Others v. J.O. Laoye (1989) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt.106) 652 or Garba v. University of Maiduguri (1986) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 18) 550.

The latter case has had many irrelevant references as holding that once a crime is detected the employer cannot dismiss an employee unless he is tried and convicted first. This is unfortunately an erroneous interpretation of that judgment.

In statutory employment, as in private employment, the employer can dismiss in all cases of gross misconduct.

In this case, the appellant was found guilty of insubordination and fraudulent claim of money; he claimed overtime allowance when he infact was never on duty to work during the normal office hours. He claimed refund for a treatment in hospital which never took place; he in this instance forged a doctor's certificate, I find no merit in this appeal."

Per MOHAMMED, J.S.C. in P. C. MIKE EZE v. SPRING BANK PLC.
CITATION: (2011) LPELR-SC.69/1998