A. K. Anya

One of the most perplexing problems confronting statutory1 bodies in the country today is the challenge posed by the determination of employment of an erring servant.2 Servants of statutory bodies have their respective employments protected by various statutes. An employment is protected by statute, when the servant is an employee of a statutory body as well as the existence of inherent provisions in the statute regulating the procedure for the servant’s dismissal and/or retirement. Our main objective is to highlight the criteria that the courts have employed in determining whether or not an employment has statutory flavour as well as the latitude and limit to the exercise by statutory bodies of powers in disciplining an erring servant. The article attempts to record, analyze and criticize the premises, which statutory bodies have employed in determining the employment of erring servant. This article is based on a fundamental premise that the principle of natural justice has a pervading as well as universal application and that the acceptance of this premise is a desideratum to what follows. I concede to the fact that this premise is not infallible, but could be a source of welcome dialectical disputation. The first part of this article records the principles, which the courts have articulated in the determination of employment with statutory flavour. The second part analyses the limit of statutory bodies’ power in determining the employment of erring servant in its employ. A synthesis of the first and second part of this article would reveal the challenge to the power of statutory bodies and courts in relation to an erring servant.