An employer's right to extend probationary periods: Analysis of Ann Chiamaka Nwanguma v Artee Industries limited & Ors

At a glance

• The National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), in Ann Chiamaka Nwanguma v Artee Industries Ltd & Ors, held that probationary periods in employment contracts are fixed and non-extendable; any extension beyond the agreed term is invalid and constitutes an unfair labour practice.
• The court affirmed that once an employee remains in service beyond the stipulated probationary period without termination, they are deemed confirmed by operation of law.
• Employers must act strictly within the written terms of employment contracts and cannot rely on discretionary or subjective assessments to delay confirmation.
• The decision draws strength from international best practices and equitable jurisdiction, reinforcing broader protection for employees against arbitrary employer actions.
• This case marks a doctrinal shift from earlier NICN decisions, establishing a firmer judicial stance against indefinite or unilateral probationary extensions.

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 probationary period of eighteen months, despite the maximum term being nine months.

Despite being made a supervisor in less than six 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 favour of the claimant on the last two issues and awarded damages accordingly.

National Industrial Court of Nigeria’s decision

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 NGN500,000 in damages for the excessive extension of her probationary period.

Key points on the decision

• Probationary periods are fixed and must follow the contract: The court held that an employer cannot extend an employee’s probation beyond the duration agreed in the employment contract. Once the probationary period ends and the employee is still in service, they are legally deemed confirmed even without a formal letter.
• Unilateral extensions without justification are unlawful: Employers must not rely on personal discretion or vague reasons like 'poor attitude' or 'misconduct' to extend probation. Such actions, if not properly documented or communicated in writing, amount to unfair labour practices under Section 254C(1)(f) of the 1999 Constitution.
• Retention after probation implies automatic confirmation: If an employee continues working beyond the agreed probationary period, especially without any formal termination, the law presumes confirmation. Continued service indicates the employer’s satisfaction with performance.
• Poor treatment at work can strengthen claims of unfair labour practice: In this case, the claimant suffered a serious injury due to employer negligence and was forced to resume work without proper medical care. This, alongside the unjust extension of her probation, contributed to the court’s findings.
• Damages awarded for breach of employment rights: The court awarded NGN500,000 in damages to the claimant for the unfair extension of her probation, reaffirming that employers must respect contractual terms and treat probationary employees fairly.
• The decision sets a stronger precedent than past cases: Unlike earlier cases like Adefisoye Stephen Abiodun v Safari Support West Limited, where probationary extensions were tolerated if communicated, the court in Ann Nwanguma v Artee Industries Ltd declared these clauses are invalid, even if written into the contract.
• International standards and equity influence court decisions: By citing ILO Convention C158 and Sahara Energy Resources Ltd v Oyebola, the court aligned Nigerian labour law with international best practices. Even though the convention is not ratified by Nigeria, it was used to reinforce fair treatment and job security.
• NICN’s equitable jurisdiction protects employees from abuse: Using its powers under Sections 13 to 15 of the National Industrial Court Act, the NICN invalidated the employer’s indefinite probation clause, showing the court’s willingness to intervene where the law is silent, but fairness demands action.

We will continue to closely monitor these developments and provide judicial updates on this matter, as they occur. Should you require advice with respect to employment related issues, please do not hesitate to contact us at employment@olajideoyewole.com