LABOUR LAW — Conditions of Service — Collective Agreement — Interpretation of “Fraud” and “Dishonesty” — Whether Used in Criminal Law Sense or Ordinary Sense
Ratio Decidendi
Per Onnoghen, JSC, in Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc (2011) NLC-123-68-2003(SC) at p. 9; Paras D—E:
"Exhibit P.18 is merely a contract of employment — a collective agreement and the sense in which the words are used therein are not strictly in the technical legal context in which the legally trained mind understands them but in the ordinary day to day application of the words in the relationship between the parties."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that words such as “fraud” and “dishonesty” in a collective agreement are interpreted in their ordinary day-to-day sense, not in their technical criminal law sense. The principle applies in employment disputes involving collective agreements. It ensures that the agreement is interpreted in its context. The principle reflects the ordinary meaning approach. It prevents technical criminal interpretations. The court must apply the ordinary meaning. The principle provides guidance on interpreting collective agreements.