Introduction

Under Nigerian labour laws, the length and conditions of probation are determined by the terms agreed upon by the parties, often allowing employers to extend the period at their discretion. This flexibility enables employers to evaluate an employee’s suitability over an extended period before confirming their appointment. However, recent decisions from the National Industrial Court of Nigeria have begun to question whether an employer’s unilateral extension of probation, particularly when exercised arbitrarily, constitutes an unfair labour practice.

On 15 October 2024, the NICN delivered its judgment in the case of Ann Chiamaka Nwanguma v. Artee Industries Limited &. The judgment, amongst other declarations, nullified the employer’s extension of an employee’s probation period. This recent decision is an updated perspective on the popular case of Adefisoye Stephen Abiodun v. Safari Support West Limited where the court held that unilateral extensions of probation without proper written communication are unjust and unlawful.

Background

The claimant, Ann Chiamaka Nwanguma, a research and development employee at Artee Industries Limited sued the company and three others over the alleged unfair extension of her probationary period, wrongful termination and negligence related to a workplace injury.  She alleged that after she sustained serious injuries at work due to employer negligence, she was subjected to unfair labour practices, including an unreasonably prolonged probation period to eighteen (18) months, with the maximum term of probation being nine (9) months. Despite being made a supervisor in less than six (6) months after being employed, her confirmation was withheld without valid justification. The court examined key issues on negligence in workplace safety, extension of probation and unfair termination of employment. It ruled in favor of the claimant on the last two issues and awarded damages accordingly.

Legal Issues on Extension of Probation

A central issue before the court was whether an employer can extend an employee’s probationary period beyond the agreed duration. The claimant argued that the extension of her probation was unfairly prolonged and amounted to unfair labour practice; particularly given that she had been promoted to a supervisory role within six months of employment. Despite meeting the required performance standards allegedly, her employer extended her probation without justification. During this extended period, she faced increased work hours, victimization, and eventual termination without notice or payment in lieu of notice.

The employer, however, contended that the extension was due to the claimant’s unsatisfactory performance, citing concerns about her attitude and alleged rudeness, which amounted to misconduct. It further argued that the employment contract permitted dismissal without notice in cases of misconduct.

The court ruled in favour of the claimant on both the extension of probation and wrongful termination of employment.  On the extension of probationary period, the court held that:

There is no room for extension of probation period in Nigeria. It is either you confirm or terminate at the agreed period. If an employer feels the employee did not quite measure up to the standard but could still not terminate the worker’s employment because the worker’s performance was all the same satisfactory enough to retain him/her, the worker, has by logic, met the requirement for confirmation and the employer’s refusal under such subjective conditions is definitely abusive.

Therefore, the court found that the employer’s decision to extend the claimant’s probation without valid justification amounted to an unfair labour practice. And as a result, the claimant was awarded N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) in damages for the excessive extension of her probationary period.

Comparative Analysis between Adefisoye Stephen Abiodun v. Safari Support West Limited’s case and Ann Chiamaka Nwanguma v Artee Industries Limited’s case

In Adefisoye Stephen Abiodun’s case, the claimant challenged the termination of his employment during a probationary period. He argued that the extension of his probation was done unilaterally and without proper written communication, and that there were no clear performance standards to justify his termination. The NICN held that while employers have the right to terminate employment during a probationary period if performance is unsatisfactory, such decisions must adhere to clear contractual terms and valid performance standards. The court further ruled that unilateral extensions of probation without proper written communication are unjust and unlawful.

In Ann Nwanguma’s case, Ann  alleged that she was kept on probation for 18 months, despite her appointment letter stipulating a 6-month probation period. She also claimed that she suffered an accident during her duties, leading to serious injuries, and was compelled to resume work without adequate healthcare. The NICN declared that there is no room for extension of the probation period in Nigeria beyond what is stipulated in the employment contract. The court held that Ann Nwanguma was deemed confirmed from the moment she reached 6 months at her workplace, as stated in her appointment letter. The court awarded her damages for unfair labor practices.

Both cases underscore the NICN's stance against arbitrary extensions of probation periods. However, the Ann Nwanguma’s case marks a significant departure from previous jurisprudence by asserting that any clause in an employment contract allowing for the extension of a probation period beyond what is initially stipulated is invalid. This position contrasts with earlier decisions where courts often upheld the employer's discretion to extend probation periods, provided such extensions were communicated and justified. The NICN's ruling in Ann Nwanguma’s case emphasizes that the probation period is fixed and non-extendable, reinforcing the protection of employees' rights.

Key Takeaways from Nwanguma’s Case

1. Employer’s Duty in Probationary Employment

         The decision establishes that:

• Employers cannot extend probation indefinitely to avoid granting full employment rights.
• If an employer retains an employee beyond the agreed probationary period without termination, the employee is deemed confirmed.
• Indefinite probation extensions constitute unfair labour practices under Section 254C-(1)(f) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

Therefore, employers will need to review and revise existing clauses on the extension of probation in employment contracts, manuals, and handbooks to align with the recent judicial development. Employers should engage their legal and HR teams in redrafting these provisions to ensure that employees are not inadvertently deemed confirmed due to a lack of clear contractual language. Proper drafting of contracts is essential to preserve the employer’s discretion in confirming employment, thereby avoiding unintended consequences relating to entitlements, notice periods, and other employment obligations.

2.  International Best Practices as a Standard for Labour Relations

By referencing ILO Convention C158, the court demonstrated that international best practices are increasingly influential in Nigerian employment jurisprudence. Despite Nigeria not ratifying the convention, the court cited Sahara Energy Resources Ltd v. Oyebola to affirm that courts may apply international best practices in employment disputes. This development broadens employee protection and ensures Nigerian labour law aligns with global standards on fair termination and job security.

3. The Role of Equitable Jurisdiction in Employment Disputes

The decision also underscores the NICN’s equitable jurisdiction under Sections 13-15 of the National Industrial Court Act, enabling it to enforce fair labour practices even where statutory provisions are silent. The court exercised this power to strike down the employer’s indefinite probation clause, reinforcing that such terms are impermissible under Nigerian law.

Conclusion

The decision in Ann Chiamaka Nwanguma v. Artee Industries Limited & Ors marks a turning point in how Nigerian courts interpret probationary employment. Contractual probation periods are final and non-extendable. The court has reinforced stricter adherence to written terms and places greater responsibility on employers to act within the scope of the employment contract.

Although this decision originates from the NICN; a court of coordinate jurisdiction, it carries significant persuasive weight. Pending any appellate review, it stands as a robust affirmation of workers' rights and may influence future interpretations of employment contracts across the judicial hierarchy.