immortalcrown:
You probably didn't read my comment to the end. If the boss drives the boy to shop, gives the boy lunch from home and does not give the boy pocket money, the boss will win in a court because the court will conclude the boy stole the boss's money to play the bet. But if the boss gives the boy pocket money, the boss will like not win the case.

Not so Sir, even if he drives him to his shop and all that you listed, the boss will still not win. What if the money was a gratuitous donation to the boy from a Good Samaritan?

Even after the hole years that apprentice settlement no go reach 8 million

Prettychild:

Not so Sir, even if he drives him to his shop and all that you listed, the boss will still not win. What if the money was a gratuitous donation to the boy from a Good Samaritan?

Court does not use your kind of reasoning to rule cases. Even if someone testifies to have given the boy the money, there are many other things to consider. On which date and what time did the boy play the bet? If the bet was played when the boy was meant to be taking care of the master's shop, the master will either win the whole money or a part of it because the master's business suffered one form of loss or the other when the apprentice left the shop to play the bet.

I am not supporting the master to lay a claim on the money. I am just pointing out how such a case will be treated in a court of law. But it seems many people here do not know how the law opperates. Well, I have just made my point. I don't need to stress myself on this argument because there is no trophy for the winner in this argument.

immortalcrown:

Few simple questions for you:

1.
Can a court of law handle an apprenticeship case? If yes, what is the essence of your saying the form of apprenticeship is unknown to law?

2.
If an apprentice is proven guilty in a case that involves his master, will the court rule the case against the master just because the apprentice is a weaker one? If no, what is your point?

3.
You said the law favouring the apprentice does not mean he will win the case. Therefore, I am right for saying the master can win the case.

1.
Can a court of law handle an apprenticeship case? If yes, what is the essence of your saying the form of apprenticeship is unknown to law?

I've just told you the case will not be treated according to the customary rules of your apprenticeship system. In other words, the parties can come to Court but the case will be determined by the normal laws of the land. The "master" will have little to no argument whatsoever.

2. If an apprentice is proven guilty in a case that involves his master, will the court rule the case against the master just because the apprentice is a weaker one? If no, what is your point?


I told you quite clearly that the law will adopt a position that is sympathetic to the apprentice but not necessarily to the complete disadvantage of the master. That is to tell you that the probability of the apprentice winning any employment dispute is higher.


3. You said the law favouring the apprentice does not mean he will win the case. Therefore, I am right for saying the master can win the case.

No. I told you the general rule: in all matters of employment, the Courts will be sympathetic to the employee.

If the nwa boy comes to court to argue that his settlement is too small, for example, the Court may admit such an argument and will likely favour the boy, because the law recognizes is vulnerability. But the oga can potentially win such a case, where it is shown that the settlement is actually fair: for example, by showing that the settlement exceeds the amount the boy could have saved if paid a fair salary, adjusted by interest to offset inflation and opportunity costs.

But I also told you the specific rule: in this particular case, the so-called master cannot win. He has no legal claim because his claim is rooted in the customary rules of the nwa boy system.

I have told you that the law will not recognize these rules because they are legally akin to slavery.

SmartyPants:


1.
Can a court of law handle an apprenticeship case? If yes, what is the essence of your saying the form of apprenticeship is unknown to law?

I've just told you the case will not be treated according to the customary rules of your apprenticeship system. In other words, the parties can come to Court but the case will be determined by the normal laws of the land. The "master" will have little to no argument whatsoever.

2. If an apprentice is proven guilty in a case that involves his master, will the court rule the case against the master just because the apprentice is a weaker one? If no, what is your point?


I told you quite clearly that the law will adopt a position that is sympathetic to the apprentice but not necessarily to the complete disadvantage of the master. That is to tell you that the probability of the apprentice winning any employment dispute is higher.


3. You said the law favouring the apprentice does not mean he will win the case. Therefore, I am right for saying the master can win the case.

No. I told you the general rule: in all matters of employment, the Courts will be sympathetic to the employee.

If the nwa boy comes to court to argue that his settlement is too small, for example, the Court may admit such an argument and will likely favour the boy, because the law recognizes is vulnerability. But the oga can potentially win such a case, where it is shown that the settlement is actually fair: for example, by showing that the settlement exceeds the amount the boy could have saved if paid a fair salary, adjusted by interest to offset inflation and opportunity costs.

But I also told you the specific rule: in this particular case, the so-called master cannot win. He has no legal claim because his claim is rooted in the customary rules of the nwa boy system.

I have told you that the law will not recognize these rules because they are legally akin to slavery.

1.
The normal law of the land will maintain that the apprentice belongs to the master throughout the apprentiship period. Even the apprentice's parents have no authority over the apprentice as long as the apprenticeship is on. The parents can only withdraw the apprentice from the apprenticeship and whatever the apprentice did under the master before the withdrawal is bounded by the apprenticeship.

2.
Everything you said about the law being sympathetic is senseless because if it is proven that the apprentice used the master's money to play the bet, the master will be awarded either the whole money or a part of the money. Even if someone testifies to have given the boy the money, there are many other things to consider. On which date and what time did the boy play the bet? If the bet was played when the boy was meant to be taking care of the master's shop, the master will either win the whole money or a part of it because the master's business suffered one form of loss or the other when the apprentice left the shop to play the bet.

I am not supporting the master to lay a claim on the money. I am just pointing out how such a case will be treated in a court of law. But it seems many people here do not know how the law opperates. Well, I have just made my point. I don't need to stress myself on this argument because there is no trophy for the winner in this argument. Suit yourself.

immortalcrown:

1.
The normal law of the land will maintain that the apprentice belongs to the master throughout the apprentiship period. Even the apprentice's parents have no authority over the apprentice as long as the apprenticeship is on. The parents can only withdraw the apprentice from the apprenticeship and whatever the apprentice did under the master before the withdrawal is bounded by the apprenticeship.

2.
Everything you said about the law being sympathetic is senseless because if it is proven that the apprentice used the master's money to play the bet, the master will be awarded either the whole money or a part of the money. Even if someone testifies to have given the boy the money, there are many other things to consider. On which date and what time did the boy play the bet? If the bet was played when the boy was meant to be taking care of the master's shop, the master will either win the whole money or a part of it because the master's business suffered one form of loss or the other when the apprentice left the shop to play the bet.

I am not supporting the master to lay a claim on the money. I am just pointing out how such a case will be treated in a court of law. But it seems many people here do not know how the law opperates. Well, I have just made my point. I don't need to stress myself on this argument because there is no trophy for the winner in this argument. Suit yourself.

I'm no lawyer, and I've followed this back and forth, but I can cleary tell that you can't distinguish between actual constitutional law and tradition.

What you have in mind is akin to Slavery and no court of law will support that,

Bvesan:


I'm no lawyer, and I've followed this back and forth, but I can cleary tell that you can't distinguish between actual constitutional law and tradition.

What you have in mind is akin to Slavery and no court of law will support that,

Suit yourself. If you like, call me a slaver. Suit yourself.

Even that his share he will still finish it on bet and go broke , so better he give his oga small bcus las las him go still return to oga house.

immortalcrown:

1.
The normal law of the land will maintain that the apprentice belongs to the master throughout the apprentiship period. Even the apprentice's parents have no authority over the apprentice as long as the apprenticeship is on. The parents can only withdraw the apprentice from the apprenticeship and whatever the apprentice did under the master before the withdrawal is bounded by the apprenticeship.

2.
Everything you said about the law being sympathetic is senseless because if it is proven that the apprentice used the master's money to play the bet, the master will be awarded either the whole money or a part of the money. Even if someone testifies to have given the boy the money, there are many other things to consider. On which date and what time did the boy play the bet? If the bet was played when the boy was meant to be taking care of the master's shop, the master will either win the whole money or a part of it because the master's business suffered one form of loss or the other when the apprentice left the shop to play the bet.

I am not supporting the master to lay a claim on the money. I am just pointing out how such a case will be treated in a court of law. But it seems many people here do not know how the law opperates. Well, I have just made my point. I don't need to stress myself on this argument because there is no trophy for the winner in this argument. Suit yourself.

The normal law of which land? Lol. You still think we are talking about your traditional law here??

lol.

Please, I was never arguing with you. I only shared legal knowledge with you. If you doubt me, try and take any nwa boy case to court and see what becomes of yourself since you think its about proving some point on nairaland.

Knowledge is for you to accept or reject, and since you've chosen to reject it, good for you.

SmartyPants:


The normal law of which land? Lol. You still think we are talking about your traditional law here??

lol.

Please, I was never arguing with you. I only shared legal knowledge with you. If you doubt me, try and take any nwa boy case to court and see what becomes of yourself since you think its about proving some point on nairaland.

Knowledge is for you to accept or reject, and since you've chosen to reject it, good for you.

Maybe you do not know the meaning of the word, "argument". Once you disagree with a statement, it is an argument. If I say something is like this and you say it is like that, we are arguing. As for taking an apprentice to court, I have seen many of such cases. I know a case where a court ordered the apprentice to either prolong his apprenticeship under his boss or the apprentice's family should pay part of the money the apprentice stole from the master. The family will pay just a part and the remaining part would be taken as what the boss would have used to settle the boy. The court ruled the case that way because it was proven that the apprentice stole and mismanaged millions of Naira from the boss.

joyandfaith:

His parents, friends and co could have given him money as well. That was the reason white people colonized us. Slave mentality.

Which parents or whatever. Except you don't really know what it means to be an apprentice.

DaddyFabooluz:


Which parents or whatever. Except you don't really know what it means to be an apprentice.

What does it mean to be apprentice? Are they slaves? Slaves have no right to own anything. Apprentices have their right intact.

Prettychild:

Not true dear, the boss can’t win this in court. The boy was merely on a frolic of his own when luck shined on him

You people are just funny on this forum. Do you know why apprentices are not liable to pay taxes under the law?

FullBlastLight:
Apprentice Wins N16m Sports Bet in Alaba Market, His Boss Orders the Boy To Give Him Half of the Money


https://www.legit.ng/people/1498715-apprentice-wins-n16m-sports-bet-alaba-market-boss-orders-boy-give-money/

Maybe the boy is a minor. Oga go collect 8m from my hand? Na ogun go kill am. to hell with his shop. All the ticket wey cut, him give me part of it? I dey vex aswear

ThatsONYI:







More reason, nwaboi apprenticeship program must either be scrapped or modernized, in an "African way" though.

Archaic BS that almost destroyed me, it's not meant for people trying to stay honest!

Unfortunately, many millionaires and I daresay billionaires have emerged through it.

Lol…if I give Oga one Naira make I die

Very Funny! The boy is just an apprentice, he is not a slave owned by his boss. If he should give his boss any share of the money it should be on his own free will. I think it greediness from the boss

VeryWickedMan:
N200k should be more than enough to organize beating for his boss.

immortalcrown:
Maybe you do not know the meaning of the word, "argument". Once you disagree with a statement, it is an argument. If I say something is like this and you say it is like that, we are arguing. As for taking an apprentice to court, I have seen many of such cases. I know a case where a court ordered the apprentice to either prolong his apprenticeship under his boss or the apprentice's family should pay part of the money the apprentice stole from the master. The family will pay just a part and the remaining part would be taken as what the boss would have used to settle the boy. The court ruled the case that way because it was proven that the apprentice stole and mismanaged millions of Naira from the boss.

I never said you cannot take an apprentice to Court. It's like you are hard of hearing or just stubborn.

For the last time: I said the Court will apply the normal laws of the land.

You are talking about theft, which is of course known to the laws of Nigeria, and which the Court in your example, treated by ordering specific performance of the contract, failing which, payment of damages.

I'm sure you can find similarities between your case and what I said below:

If the nwa boy comes to court to argue that his settlement is too small, for example, the Court may admit such an argument and will likely favour the boy, because the law recognizes is vulnerability. But the oga can potentially win such a case, where it is shown that the settlement is actually fair: for example, by showing that the settlement exceeds the amount the boy could have saved if paid a fair salary, adjusted by interest to offset inflation and opportunity costs.

This is vastly different from when you want to assert an ownership right over anything the boy owns. That is slavery by Nigerian laws. So good luck arguing that in Court.

Anyway, all that is there to be said has been said.

SmartyPants:


I never said you cannot take an apprentice to Court. It's like you are hard of hearing or just stubborn.

For the last time: I said the Court will apply the normal laws of the land.

You are talking about theft, which is of course known to the laws of Nigeria, and which the Court in your example, treated by ordering specific performance of the contract, failing which, payment of damages.

I'm sure you can find similarities between your case and what I said below:




This is vastly different from when you want to assert an ownership right over anything the boy owns. That is slavery by Nigerian laws. So good luck arguing that in Court.

Anyway, all that is there to be said has been said.

Suit yourself.

SmartyPants:


Kai.

I assumed you had a certain level of understanding. That was my fault. I'll break it down

1. Nwa boy is not known to law and cannot be admitted in Court in its customary form. That is because the characteristics of the nwa bo arrangement are legally akin to slavery or human trafficking. This means if a case concerning an nwa boy and his so-called master comes to court, the Court will not treat it as an nwa boy arrangement. It will accept the case of course, but it will treat it according to the normal labour laws of the land. Do you understand now?

2. When I said the law favours the employee, this is within the context of labour conflicts, not murder or other matters that are irrelevant to the subject of employment relations. I thought that would have been obvious? Besides, the law favouring the employee does not even mean that the employee will win all the time: it means that by default, the employer has a higher argumentative burden.

So you see, you must never open you mouth to discuss law. You don't even know the basics.

Nwa boy 'Igbo apprenticeship' system is recognised under the customary laws.
There is a reason why apprentices are exuded from paying taxes even when they are above 18 years.
Read wide and open your mind.

I juz dey laff....who witness diz yarn...,naw mber month we dey so,naw so all diz winnings dey happen,...make una no fall for bet scam...,naw there way to encourage more pple in betting,u go juz dey hear nd watch arranged script online...

flexyrule:
Shi shi... My Oga no go see.
If e do anyhow, I go just march men to him shop.
You think say to permutate games Na beans.

As in ehn! The oga dey mad!

FullBlastLight:
Apprentice Wins N16m Sports Bet in Alaba Market, His Boss Orders the Boy To Give Him Half of the Money


https://www.legit.ng/people/1498715-apprentice-wins-n16m-sports-bet-alaba-market-boss-orders-boy-give-money/

Me win millions and my oga go come hear am??
I dey mad?

Omoh no be by forming gra gra.... This nah why me i love Aba boys vibes... They're Always a guy man whenever the need arises. No dull moment. The guy nah Mumu.

immortalcrown:
Why can't apprentices do such things without louding it?

A similar situation happened in Onitsha and the boss wanted the whole money. The boss said he is entitled to the whole money because the apprentice used his (boss's money) to play the bet. Meanwhile, the apprentice used his lunch money for the bet as his boss gave him 300 Naira daily for lunch. I don't know how they settled it.

I am not in support of the boss's claim. But let us be factual and logical here. It is best to keep such as a secret. If you as an apprentice expose such, the boss can claim the money. He can even win in a law court because the apprentice is his responsibility and the apprentice is obligated to dedicate all his time to serving the boss during the apprentiship period, especially if the boss takes the boy to shop and gives him lunch from home. If the boss gives the boy transport fare or money for lunch, the court can establish that the boy owns the bet money because the boy has the right to decide whether to starve himself and spend his lunch money on something else. If the boy does not get transport fare and lunch allowance, the court will establish that the capital used for the bet belongs to the boss, therefore the boss will get the money won from the betting.

Even if someone testifies to have given the boy the money, there are many other things to consider. On which date and what time did the boy play the bet? If the bet was played when the boy was meant to be taking care of the master's shop, the master will either win the whole money or a part of it because the master's business suffered one form of loss or the other when the apprentice left the shop to play the bet.

If the apprentice dies during the apprentiship period, the boss would be held responsible. This is why whatever the apprentice achieves under the boss is accredited to the boss.

So, if you are an apprentice and you play bet or anything for yourself, keep it as a secret. Your boss owns you when you are under him. So, use your brain.

I am not supporting the master to lay a claim on the money. I am just pointing out how such a case will be treated in a court of law. But it seems many people here do not know how the law opperates. Well, I have just made my point. I don't need to stress myself on this argument because there is no trophy for the winner in this argument. Those who disagree with me should suit themselves. I may not respond to further quotes of my comment.

you dey osha

DashHaulageltd:
For a lot of people who do not know much about the apprentice system, I’d explain further for you. The boy who serves his oga is actually not allowed by law to have money till he finishes learning his trade and gets settled to start his own. It’s therefore assumed that whatever money the boy used in this situation to play the bet belongs to his boss. His winning should actually entirely go to the boss if he was a selfish man. Asking for equal sharing is valid and no one should feel cheated here.

.
taaah

immortalcrown:
Why can't apprentices do such things without louding it?

A similar situation happened in Onitsha and the boss wanted the whole money. The boss said he is entitled to the whole money because the apprentice used his (boss's money) to play the bet. Meanwhile, the apprentice used his lunch money for the bet as his boss gave him 300 Naira daily for lunch. I don't know how they settled it.

I am not in support of the boss's claim. But let us be factual and logical here. It is best to keep such as a secret. If you as an apprentice expose such, the boss can claim the money. He can even win in a law court because the apprentice is his responsibility and the apprentice is obligated to dedicate all his time to serving the boss during the apprentiship period, especially if the boss takes the boy to shop and gives him lunch from home. If the boss gives the boy transport fare or money for lunch, the court can establish that the boy owns the bet money because the boy has the right to decide whether to starve himself and spend his lunch money on something else. If the boy does not get transport fare and lunch allowance, the court will establish that the capital used for the bet belongs to the boss, therefore the boss will get the money won from the betting.

Even if someone testifies to have given the boy the money, there are many other things to consider. On which date and what time did the boy play the bet? If the bet was played when the boy was meant to be taking care of the master's shop, the master will either win the whole money or a part of it because the master's business suffered one form of loss or the other when the apprentice left the shop to play the bet.

If the apprentice dies during the apprentiship period, the boss would be held responsible. This is why whatever the apprentice achieves under the boss is accredited to the boss.

So, if you are an apprentice and you play bet or anything for yourself, keep it as a secret. Your boss owns you when you are under him. So, use your brain.

I am not supporting the master to lay a claim on the money. I am just pointing out how such a case will be treated in a court of law. But it seems many people here do not know how the law opperates. Well, I have just made my point. I don't need to stress myself on this argument because there is no trophy for the winner in this argument. Those who disagree with me should suit themselves. I may not respond to further quotes of my comment.

Now this is a man who thinks. I love this�

God picked him call, him put am for hands-free abi loudspeaker

DadaHammed:


Nwa boy 'Igbo apprenticeship' system is recognised under the customary laws.
There is a reason why apprentices are exuded from paying taxes even when they are above 18 years.
Read wide and open your mind.

1. Apprentices do not earn an income so they are not expected to pay tax Mr. man.

2. I do not have time to teach you a whole lecture on customary law, but take this:

a. Nwa boy is incompatible with the laws of the land because the laws of the land have express provisions for apprenticeships

b. The specific aspect of nwa boy culture under examination will not meet what we call the repugnancy test even if there was no statutory impediment, which there is.

Whether you agree or not, no further replies will be honoured.

We should be objective in our judgement.
the boy in question has been using his boss money to gamble without his knowledge and eventually this one paid
he should share it with his boss cos even the money used in playing it belong to the boss and the boy also is still serving the boss.
Suppose, he committed crime who will they hold, his boss.
he is lucky he has a good boss who only demanded for half

Nobody won anything. It's the betting companies trying to stimulate people into betting by fabricating these stories.

SmartyPants:



1. Apprentices do not earn an income so they are not expected to pay tax Mr. man.

2. I do not have time to teach you a whole lecture on customary law, but take this:

a. Nwa boy is incompatible with the laws of the land because the laws of the land have express provisions for apprenticeships

b. The specific aspect of nwa boy culture under examination will not meet what we call the repugnancy test even if there was no statutory impediment, which there is.

Whether you agree or not, no further replies will be honoured.

Pick up that book and read, it chronicles the laws governing the apprenticeship system under customary legal instruments.

You are currently bereft of information on the topic, so you cannot ascribe to yourself the position of an expert on customary laws and culture. You can't be competent enough to push for amendment of a law without knowing the basics of such laws.