MOBIL PRODUCING NIGERIA UNLIMITED V. JOHNSON & ORS. (2018)

Background

This appeal concerned the employment status of fifteen security personnel recruited by Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited to protect its properties. The respondents had answered Mobil’s recruitment advertisement, undergone examinations and interviews conducted by Mobil, and received letters of appointment on Mobil’s letterhead into its Security Unit as “Spy Police Constables.” Their salaries and employment conditions were determined by Mobil. They were subsequently sent for training involving the police authorities and were issued certificates of participation. They also wore police-related uniforms and performed security duties at Mobil’s facilities.

A dispute arose when police authorities transferred some of the respondents from one state or police area to another. The respondents resisted the transfer, arguing that they were employees of Mobil and not employees or members of the Nigeria Police Force. Mobil, however, took the position that the respondents were supernumerary police officers connected with the police authorities rather than its own employees. The respondents commenced proceedings at the Federal High Court by originating summons, seeking declarations concerning their employment, orders nullifying the transfers, reinstatement, payment of salaries and benefits, injunctions, and appropriate non-police uniforms and designations.

The Federal High Court granted some reliefs but refused the principal declarations that the respondents were Mobil employees. The Court of Appeal reversed important aspects of that judgment and held that the respondents were employees of Mobil, not supernumerary police officers appointed under the Police Act. Mobil appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to consider the Force Administrative Instruction or Force Order governing supernumerary police appointments.
2. Whether the documentary evidence established a valid contract of service, or whether the purported employment was illegal or inchoate because it related to the appointment of supernumerary police officers.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal could grant reliefs including nullification of transfers and reinstatement after holding that the respondents were Mobil employees without statutory flavour.
4. Whether the use of originating summons, instead of a writ of summons and pleadings, denied Mobil a fair hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that sections 18 to 22 of the Police Act prescribed the mandatory procedure for appointing supernumerary police officers. A person or company seeking such officers must apply to the Inspector-General of Police; the Inspector-General must, with the President’s approval, direct the appropriate authority to make the appointments; and the appropriate authority, identified under section 22(4), is the Police Service Commission or a duly authorised superior police officer. The hirer must also make the prescribed payments to the Accountant-General for uniforms, salaries and maintenance.

Mobil did not establish that it had followed those statutory steps. It did not prove that it made the required application, obtained presidential approval, secured a directive from the Inspector-General, or that the Police Service Commission appointed the respondents. Instead, Mobil itself advertised, interviewed, selected and issued appointment letters to the respondents. The Court therefore held that the respondents were not supernumerary police officers under the Police Act. Their designation as “Spy Police,” their police-style uniforms, their training and their interaction with police authorities could not create a statutory status that the prescribed recruitment process had not conferred.

The Court further held that the Force Administrative Instruction or Force Order was subordinate legislation. It could not cure non-compliance with the principal legislation and could not validly operate inconsistently with the Police Act. Since the statutory preconditions had not been fulfilled, there was no basis for applying the subordinate instrument to validate the appointments.

Court Findings

The Court distinguished between the respondents’ actual employment relationship and the statutory status of a supernumerary police officer. The appointment letters showed that Mobil intended to employ the respondents in its Security Unit. The contracts were therefore not illegal or inchoate. They constituted ordinary master-and-servant employment contracts between Mobil and the respondents, even though Mobil chose to describe them as “Spy Police.” The Court recognised three broad categories of employment: ordinary master-and-servant employment, employment held at the pleasure of the employer, and employment with statutory flavour. The respondents fell into the first category, not the third.

Because the police authorities were not the respondents’ employers, their purported transfers and termination-related actions were ineffective. The Court upheld the essential reliefs granted by the Court of Appeal, including the respondents’ reinstatement. However, it modified one aspect of the lower court’s order: since the respondents were ordinary Mobil employees and were not governed by the territorial restrictions applicable to supernumerary police officers, Mobil retained the contractual right to transfer them to areas of its operations as it deemed necessary.

The Supreme Court also rejected Mobil’s complaint about originating summons. Mobil had participated in the proceedings, responded by counter-affidavit and conducted its case on that basis. It had therefore waived any objection to the procedure and could not raise the alleged irregularity for the first time on appeal. A party must maintain a consistent case throughout the litigation and cannot benefit from a procedure at trial before challenging it after an adverse result.

The preliminary objection succeeded in part. Grounds attacking an obiter dictum of the Court of Appeal were struck out because an obiter dictum is a non-binding observation that does not form part of the decision’s ratio and is not ordinarily appealable. The other grounds had been regularised by leave of the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, subject to the clarification that Mobil could transfer the respondents as its employees. The respondents were employees of Mobil, not employees of the Nigeria Police Force or supernumerary police officers appointed under the Police Act. No order as to costs was made.

Significance

The decision emphasises that statutory employment status depends on strict compliance with the enabling statute, not on labels, uniforms, administrative practice or the parties’ assumptions. It also confirms that subordinate legislation cannot override or repair non-compliance with principal legislation. For private organisations seeking police protection, the case provides a clear warning that recruitment of security staff must be distinguished from the statutory appointment of supernumerary police officers. Finally, the judgment illustrates the consequences of waiver, procedural consistency, and the limited legal significance of obiter dicta in appellate litigation.