Beyond the Appointment Letter: The Binding Nature of Conditions of Service

CASE TITLE: CHELSEA SUITES LTD v. IGWE (2026) LPELR-83752(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 14TH APRIL, 2026

JUSTICES: UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, JCA    

PAUL AHMED BASSI, JCA         

ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, JCA

COURT DIVISION: LAGOS

PRACTICE AREA: LABOUR LAW/CONDITIONS OF SERVICE

FACTS:

The Respondent was employed as a driver by the appellant in September 2002. On 31st March 2008, he resigned his appointment. He subsequently sued the Appellant, seeking declarations that the non-payment of his gratuity constituted an unfair labour practice, and that the failure to remit his pension contributions was unlawful. He also sought payment of ₦218,505.00 as gratuity, remittance of ₦67,446.00 to his pension account, general damages of ₦5,000,000.00 for hardship suffered, and other ancillary reliefs.

The Appellant contended that the respondent was not entitled to gratuity and denied liability for his unremitted pension deductions and/or remittances.

A major bone of contention between the parties is whether the ‘Conditions of Service’ admitted as Exhibit C3 form part of the Respondent’s contract of employment. The Respondent claimed that it did, while the appellant claimed that it did not. Both parties testified before the lower Court, calling one witness each, and, in the end, the learned trial Judge found in favour of the Respondent.

The Appellant was dissatisfied with the decision and therefore filed this appeal.

ISSUES:

The Court determined the appeal on the following issues:

1. Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the Conditions of Service of the Respondent together with his letter of employment, both make up his contract of employment.
2. Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the Appellant is qualified to establish a contributory pension scheme in view of S. 1 (b) of the Pension Reform Act 2004.
3. Whether the lower Court was right when it awarded damages and costs to the Respondent.
4. Whether the judgment of the trial Court is at variance with the evidence adduced before the Court?

COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS

Learned Counsel to the appellant C. C. Odo Michael Esq’, has argued that the Court below was wrong in holding that the Conditions of Service (Exhibit C3) tendered by the respondent, together with his Letter of Employment constituted his contract of employment, because the former was not mentioned in the latter. He relied on Smab Inter-Trade Ltd v Bulangu (2013) LPELR-21414; Project Ninetheen Ltd v Aziz/Stacons Ass (2014) LPELR-23736 (CA). Consequently, he submitted, the respondent is not entitled to payment of gratuity which is contained in Exhibit C3. Learned Counsel further submitted that as Exhibit C3 was not signed, it is inadmissible, lacking in probative value and cannot be enforced by the Court. He relied on the decisions in Amizu v Nzeribe (1989) 4 NWLR (Part 118) 755; Salibawa v Habilat (1991) 7 NWLR (Part 174) 461 amongst others.

In response, Learned Counsel to the respondent, Mrs. Victoria Alonge argued vigorously, that Exhibit C3 formed part of the respondent’s contract of employment, together with his letter of appointment, relying on Adekunle v UBA PLC (2016) LPELR-41124(CA). On the implication of the absence of signature on exhibit C3, Mrs. Alonge submitted that the general principle that unsigned documents lack probative value, admits of exceptions, one of which is where the parties do not deny its existence, relying on the decision of this Court in Abeje v Apeke (2013) LPELR-20675 (CA). He pointed out that the appellant did not deny the existence of exhibit C3 but merely contended at paragraph 8A of its Statement of Defence and Paragraph 10A of its Witness Statement that exhibit C3 was not approved by its Management. Mrs. Alonge submitted that it amounted to an unfair labour practice for the appellant to admit the existence of exhibit C3 yet seek not to be bound by it because it was not signed.

DECISION/HELD

 The appeal was dismissed.

RATIO

LABOUR LAW- CONDITIONS OF SERVICE: Whether the conditions of service issued alongside a letter of employment form part of the contract of employment

“Where a booklet containing conditions of service are given along with a letter of employment, to an employee, both together constitute the contract of employment between the employer and the employee. It does not matter that the condition of service is specifically mentioned in the letter of employment. It is deemed to be impliedly incorporated into the letter of employment as part of the terms and conditions of the employment. See Registered Trustees of Ikoyi Club 1938 v Ayodeji (2020) LPELR-51633(CA).” –Per AKINYEMI, J.C.A.

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol