LawPavilion Electronic Law ...

thereof, or any officer of a local authority, or
persons acting in his aid, for anything done or
intended to be done or omitted to be done under
the provisions of this Act, until the expiration of
one month after notice in writing has been served
on such local authority member, officer, or
person..."
The position of the Law is that where a suit is
brought under an express or specific contract it is
no longer necessary to serve on the Corporation
pre-action notice. Furthermore from decided
authorities there would be no need to serve
pre-action notice when goods have been sold, and
the price is to be paid upon quantum meruit, or for
cases of breach of contract, claims for work and
labour done.
Clearly the appellant's claim is founded in contract.
The appellant's main claim is for the payment of his
entitlement due from the respondent as a result of
the contract of employment they both entered into.
The appellant as the employee, and the respondent
the employer. The sums of money became due
when the appellant's employment was terminated
by the respondent. Section 26 of the NICON Act is
not intended by the legislature to apply to specific
contracts consequently the mandatory nature of
Section 26 of the NICON Act does not apply to the
appellant's suit, it being an action on a specific
contract. A contract of employment.
There are recognized exceptions to the rule on
interpretation of statutes that when words used are
unambiguous they should be given their plain and