By the late 1980s the Cameroon economy like most of her African contemporaries was encumbered by an economic crises that undermined the power of the state to decide on the functioning of the power of demand and supply let alone the operation of the factors of production. The toll of this economic meltdown was enormous on the local folks moreso because the government which had heitherto be the sole determinant of employment and working conditions was forced to reschedule its activities to meet a new norm. The pressure for this reforms took many forms and top among them was the condition for Loans and take off measures imposed by International Monatry Fund (IMF) on States to reduce public spending through a broad based programme of privitisation. The problem with privitaisation is not even that incomes/salaries and working conditions were now going to be determined by the new empployer under the labout office abitration but rather that legality /justice was tampered with both by the state and the privitisation contracting parties leaving the labourers at the mercy of circumstances. Was it therefore the absence/limitations of laws that was responsible for the plight of the labourers caugght up by the privitisation programme or the unwillingness of the state and its contracting parties to recourse to legislation that placed the workers and these newly privitised enterprises in a precarious balance? This the intriguing central question which this article summonds existing laws and evidential material to answer.Informed by this data, the paper argues the responsibility of the labourers plight lies on the state and the contracting parties who have advetendly failed to use the existing legislation to protect the labourers during the switch of ownership. With the consciousness of the common Law and OHADA stipulations on labour fundamentally spelt out on labour and cmapany laws,the papar make bold to submit that it is not the absence of legislation that is the problem b