Nigeria
Failure of an employer to query an employee (case law)
Impact date: 12 March 2026 In Comrade Tizhe Vandi v National Union of Printing, Publishing and Paper Products Workers (NUPPPPROW) & Anor, the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) held that the employer breached the claimant’s right to fair hearing and failed to comply with its internal disciplinary procedures before suspending and demoting him. The court found that although the claimant was issued a query, he was not given adequate time to defend himself before the disciplinary committee, and additional allegations of embezzlement were considered against him despite the fact that he was never queried on those allegations. The court further held that the disciplinary process did not comply with the Union’s Constitution and Staff Conditions of Service, as only the National Executive Council had authority to discipline the claimant as a principal officer. Consequently, the court declared the suspension and demotion null and void and also awarded damages for defamation arising from the publication of the suspension letter to third parties.
Employer implications/action needed Employers should ensure that disciplinary actions strictly comply with internal disciplinary policies, employment contracts, staff handbooks, and applicable conditions of service. Queries issued to employees should clearly state allegations against the employee, and all disciplinary steps must follow the organization’s prescribed procedure.
Employer risk Failure to comply with disciplinary procedures after issuing a query may render disciplinary action wrongful or procedurally defective. Employers may consequently face wrongful dismissal claims, damages, reputational risks, and judicial findings that disciplinary decisions were reached in breach of fair hearing principles.
Employment contracts (case law)
Impact date: 23 April 2026
In Dastu Plems Tenmang v UNIJOS Consultancy Limited, the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) considered whether the claimant’s dismissal was wrongful. The claimant sought reinstatement and damages, insisting that his termination was unfair. The defendant countered that the dismissal was lawful and in line with the contract of employment.
After reviewing the evidence, the court held that the burden of proof rested on the claimant, who failed to provide convincing documents or testimony to support his case. The NICN found that the employer acted within its rights and had not breached any contractual or statutory provisions. Accordingly, the court dismissed the suit in its entirety, refusing all the reliefs sought.
Employer implications/action needed Employers should ensure that employment contracts clearly set out termination procedures, notice periods, and payment in lieu provisions. Organizations should also ensure strict compliance with contractual termination procedures and maintain proper documentation relating to termination decisions.
Employer risk Where employers fail to comply with contractual termination provisions, they may be exposed to wrongful termination claims, damages, reputational risks, and litigation costs. The judgment also highlights the importance of clearly distinguishing ordinary master-servant employment from statutorily protected employment relationships.
Employment contracts (case law)
Impact date: 23 April 2026
In the matter of Mrs. Akambi Olanike Taofikat v Odu’a Investment Company Ltd, the National Industrial Court held that the employer’s compulsory retirement of the Claimant at age 56 was wrongful and a breach of her contract of employment. The employer’s Employee Handbook permitted early retirement “on the attainment of 45 years”; however, the court construed this phrase strictly to mean precisely at age 45, not as a floating discretion exercisable at any point between ages 45 and 60.
The court applied the contra proferentem rule, holding that where an employer drafts an ambiguous employment document, the interpretation most favorable to the employee must prevail. Having allowed the Claimant to continue working past age 45 without invoking the retirement clause, the employer was held to have waived its right to rely on that clause. The court awarded ₦20,000,000.00 as general damages, plus 15% post-judgment interest per annum.
Employer implications/action needed Employers must review their employee handbooks and all conditions of service to ensure that retirement and exit clauses are drafted in clear, unambiguous language. Any clause permitting early retirement must explicitly state the full range of ages during which the employer may exercise the right (e.g. “between ages 45 and 60”) rather than a single point-in-time trigger. Employers should also ensure that HR processes include a formal step to invoke retirement clauses at the appropriate time, and that any inaction at the specified age is documented as a conscious decision and not construed as waiver.
Employer risk Ambiguous retirement clauses in employer-drafted documents are now at high risk of being construed against the employer, leading to awards of general damages plus compounding post-judgment interest. The ruling confirms that unilateral retirement outside the precise terms of a contract is actionable as a breach of employment contract, regardless of board-level approval. Employers whose handbooks contain similar open-ended early retirement provisions face immediate litigation risk.
National minimum wage renegotiation – labour law update
Impact date: 1 May 2026 (announcement); July 2026 (negotiations commence)
At the 2026 May Day celebration in Abuja (1 May 2026), the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) and the Trade Union Congress (TUC) jointly announced that formal renegotiation of the National Minimum Wage will commence in July 2026. The NLC President, Mr Joe Ajaero, confirmed that renegotiation was being initiated early to prevent the delays experienced during the 2024 wage cycle. The NLC and the Joint National Public Service Negotiating Council (JNPSNC) have formally demanded a new minimum wage of ₦154,000 per month — a 120% increase from the current ₦70,000 floor set by the National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Act 2024.
The NLC also demanded that all workers receive 100% of their basic salaries from July 2026 pending the conclusion of negotiations. The TUC President called for strengthened social dialogue platforms and reforms to labour administration to ensure fairer industrial relations. The statutory review cycle under the 2024 Act is three years (next due in 2027), but organized labour is seeking an early review citing persistent inflation above 30%, naira depreciation, and the sharp erosion of real purchasing power since the ₦70,000 rate was agreed.
Employer implications/action needed Employers should immediately begin financial modelling for the potential impact of a substantially higher minimum wage, including scenarios of 50%, 100%, and 120% increases from the current ₦70,000 floor. Budget and workforce planning teams should assess the cascading effect on higher pay bands, as minimum wage increases typically trigger consequential adjustments across salary structures. Employers should also review current collective bargaining agreements and ensure compliance with the existing ₦70,000 minimum (and applicable state-level minimums, e.g. Lagos ₦85,000, Imo ₦104,000) while negotiations are ongoing. HR teams should monitor NLC communications closely for any planned industrial action ahead of or during negotiations.
Employer risk The primary risk is a significant and unbudgeted increase in payroll costs if the ₦154,000 demand is agreed in full or in substantial part. There is also a secondary risk of industrial action, work stoppages, or strikes if negotiations stall, given the NLC’s history of coordinated action in wage disputes. Employers operating in Nigeria should have business continuity plans in place for potential disruptions. Additionally, any failure to comply with the current ₦70,000 minimum wage pending the outcome of negotiations remains an independent statutory violation attracting regulatory penalties.
Link N/A
General Application and Implementation Directive
Impact date: 30 May 2026
During this period, the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC) extended the deadline for filing the 2025 Compliance Audit Returns (CAR) for Data Controllers and Data Processors of Major Importance (DCPMIs) from 31 March 2026 to 30 May 2026 under the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 and the General Application and Implementation Directive (GAID).
Employer implications/action needed Employers classified as DCPMIs should ensure completion of data protection compliance audits, Data Privacy Impact Assessments (DPIAs), employee data processing reviews, and filing of Compliance Audit Returns through licensed Data Protection Compliance Organisations (DPCOs). Employers should also ensure that employee monitoring and cross-border data transfers comply with the NDPA and GAID requirements.
Employer risk Failure to comply with the filing obligations or broader NDPA requirements may expose employers to administrative penalties, regulatory investigations, reputational damage, restrictions relating to international data transfers, and possible listing as non-compliant entities by the NDPC.
Link N/A
Contacts
© Eversheds Sutherland. All rights reserved. Eversheds Sutherland is a global provider of legal and other services operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. Eversheds Sutherland is the name and brand under which the members of Eversheds Sutherland Limited (Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP and Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP) and their respective controlled, managed and affiliated firms and the members of Eversheds Sutherland (Europe) Limited (each an "Eversheds Sutherland Entity" and together the "Eversheds Sutherland Entities") provide legal or other services to clients around the world. Eversheds Sutherland Entities are constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local regulatory and legal requirements and operate in accordance with their locally registered names. The use of the name Eversheds Sutherland, is for description purposes only and does not imply that the Eversheds Sutherland Entities are in a partnership or are part of a global LLP. The responsibility for the provision of services to the client is defined in the terms of engagement between the instructed firm and the client.