LawPavilion Electronic Law ...

other things not specifically therein mentioned.
See: Udo v. Orthopaedic Hospital (1993) 7
SCNJ (P.42) 445 and Awuse v. Odili (2004)
AFWLR (Pt.212) 1664.
It is conceded that the employment relationship
of the parties in this matter is not one governed by
statutory flavour so that the said appellant's
employment is governed wholly by the Handbook
and the letter of appointment and not by any
provisions of NICON Act. In other words, that the
said provision of Section 26(2) cannot be seen as
forming part of his conditions of employment and
therefore is not enforceable against him.
On Issue 2 - on whether pre-action notice is
applicable to contracts of service or specific
contracts as here. The appellant has posited that
pre-action notice does not apply to specific
contracts and so that the instant action being in
relation to his contract of services does not require
service of pre-action notice as a condition
precedent to instituting the instant action and
refers to and relies on Nigerian Ports Authority
v. Construzioni Generali Farsura Cogefar Spa &
Anor. (1974), ECSLR 658; (1974) 12 SC; and
moreso on the cases of Salako v. LEDB & Anor.
20 NLR 169, CBN v. Adedeji (2005) AFWLR
(Pt.244) 912 at 930, FGN v. Zebra Energy Ltd.
(2002) 3 NWLR (pt.754) 471 at 409. These
cases he submits have similar provisions as in the
case of Nigerian Ports Authority v.
Construczioni E.t.c. (supra) and has further
opined that they have held non applicability of