Scholarlink

<p>It has become common for employers to execute employment bond agreement (EBA) with their employee(s) usually at the point where the employee seeks further study/training in the course of the employment. The EBA obligates the employee to remain in the employment of the employer for a certain period in reciprocity for the money spent in training the employee or time off work granted by the employer while undergoing the training/further&#xa0;studies. This article adopts a comparative method and relies on primary data such as, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, Nigeria Labour Act 1974, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, South Africa Basic Conditions of Employment Act 1997, Indian Contract Act 1872, case law, and secondary data such as internet sources, ILO Forced Labour Convention No. 29 of 1930 and textbooks in examining the enforceability of EBA under Nigerian law. It interrogates the meaning, rationale for executing employment bonds, types of employment bonds, and highlights the dichotomy between EBA and restraint of trade agreement. It discusses human rights’ issues involved in employment bond practice with a view to deciphering when an EBA could amount to forced labour/restraint of trade. The paper compares the legal framework and practice of EBA in Nigeria with that of India and South Africa (SA) with a particular focus on the attitudes of the courts of these jurisdictions to its enforcement with a view to drawing lessons for Nigeria. The paper found that, in Nigeria, the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) has exclusive original civil jurisdiction over labour disputes, including EBA disputes. In Nigeria, SA, and Indian law, where an EBA is in the similitude of forced labour, it has human rights implications, and the Indian and South African legislations contain more expansive provisions which expressly regulate EBA, unlike Nigeria. The paper recommends stakeholders’ sensitisation of employers on best practices on EBA as found in SA and India, Nigeria labour legislation should be amended to include provisions that expressly regulate EBA as in India and SA and, the NICN should award aggravated damages against employers that resort to EBA to perpetuate forced or indecent labour to achieve deterrence.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Determining the enforceability of employment bond agreement in Nigeria, South Africa, and India

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月12日

查看全文
  • David Tarh-Akong Eyongndi,
  • Oluwatobiloba Ifedolapo Ajayi,
  • Hilary Nwaechefu

摘要

It has become common for employers to execute employment bond agreement (EBA) with their employee(s) usually at the point where the employee seeks further study/training in the course of the employment. The EBA obligates the employee to remain in the employment of the employer for a certain period in reciprocity for the money spent in training the employee or time off work granted by the employer while undergoing the training/further studies. This article adopts a comparative method and relies on primary data such as, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, Nigeria Labour Act 1974, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, South Africa Basic Conditions of Employment Act 1997, Indian Contract Act 1872, case law, and secondary data such as internet sources, ILO Forced Labour Convention No. 29 of 1930 and textbooks in examining the enforceability of EBA under Nigerian law. It interrogates the meaning, rationale for executing employment bonds, types of employment bonds, and highlights the dichotomy between EBA and restraint of trade agreement. It discusses human rights’ issues involved in employment bond practice with a view to deciphering when an EBA could amount to forced labour/restraint of trade. The paper compares the legal framework and practice of EBA in Nigeria with that of India and South Africa (SA) with a particular focus on the attitudes of the courts of these jurisdictions to its enforcement with a view to drawing lessons for Nigeria. The paper found that, in Nigeria, the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) has exclusive original civil jurisdiction over labour disputes, including EBA disputes. In Nigeria, SA, and Indian law, where an EBA is in the similitude of forced labour, it has human rights implications, and the Indian and South African legislations contain more expansive provisions which expressly regulate EBA, unlike Nigeria. The paper recommends stakeholders’ sensitisation of employers on best practices on EBA as found in SA and India, Nigeria labour legislation should be amended to include provisions that expressly regulate EBA as in India and SA and, the NICN should award aggravated damages against employers that resort to EBA to perpetuate forced or indecent labour to achieve deterrence.