MR. FEMI ANIBABA V. DANA AIRLINES LIMITED & ANOR (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994).
On Operation of the doctrine of remoteness of damage
The doctrine of remoteness of damage requires that damages must flow naturally from the breach of contract or be in the contemplation of the parties at the time of entering the contract. Damages must be foreseeable and bear a direct connection to the cause of action. In the instant case, the principle of remoteness of damage was rightly invoked by the Court of Appeal in categorising some of the appellant’s claims as remote. The appellant’s claims for past loss of earnings and past dependency on the deceased’s pension were rightly dismissed as remote, as they were not directly linked to the contract of carriage or the death of the deceased.[A.P. Ltd. v. Owodunni (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt. 210) 391referred to.] (Pp. 423-424, paras. G-B)
POLARIS BANK PLC (FORMERLY SKYE BANK PLC) V. MRS CAROLINE O. PINHEIRO (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994) 197
On Burden of proof on party claiming special damages and how discharged
Where a party claims special damages, the burden is on him to prove the special damages to the last kobo. He has to do this by leading credible evidence, most of the time, by documents. However, there are instances where special damages can be proved without documents. He must lead specific, credible, believable, cogent and convincing evidence to prove the anticipated profits, or loss of profit.For a claim in the nature of special damages to succeed, it must be proved strictly and the court is not entitled to make its own estimate of such claim or engage in logical deductions. It should be noted that special damages should be specifically pleaded in a manner clear enough to enable the defendant know the origin or nature of the special damages being claimed against him to enable him prepare his defence.In simple terms, a party seeking special damages is tasked with the obligation of specifically pleading, itemizing and particularizing the scope of the damages and more importantly proving the special damages to the last kobo by leading credible evidence.In the instant case, the respondent did not discharge the burden of proving her entitlement to the claim of special damages for weekly payment of N50,000.00 (Fifty thousand Naira) from 16 October 1995 until the Bulldozer was restored into her possession. It was unclear the basis upon which the respondent sought a weekly payment of N50,000.00 as special damages. The pleadings and evidence adduced by the respondent did not demonstrate the grounds upon which the respondent was entitled to a weekly sum of N50,000.00.For the respondent to be awarded the said amount, the amount generated by the bulldozer on a weekly basis ought to have been particularized in the pleadings and further buttressed by credible evidence which would unequivocally have demonstrated the revenue generated by the bulldozer. The respondent failed to particularize the damages for loss of earnings since the seizure of the bulldozer.In the absence of pleadings and evidence to establish the nature and value of the said bulldozer, the revenue generated by the bulldozer, the precise pecuniary loss suffered by the respondent due to the seizure of the bulldozer or books of account evincing the inflow from the use of the bulldozer, the court should be hesitant in awarding special damages arbitrarily as it would invariably amount to the court delving into speculation.In the circumstances, the quantum of loss suffered by the respondent arising from the seizure of her bulldozer was not ascertainable by the tenure of evidence before the court.[A.T.E. Co. Ltd. v. Mil. Gov., Ogun State (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 26; Nwangwu v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc (2022) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1812) 427 referred to.] (Pp. 218-220, paras. F-B)
FEMI ANIBABA V. DANA AIRLINES LIMITED & ANOR (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994).
On Determination of exchange rate to be used for conversion of award of damages in foreign currency into naira
Judicial awards do not become enforceable until judgment is delivered. Until such a time, no entitlement exists in law to the sum claimed by a plaintiff. It is the judgment of the court that confers legal rights on the successful party. As such, the appropriate reference point for conversion into national currency must logically and necessarily align with the date when the award is crystallised, i.e., the date of the judgment of the court. This is because damages awarded in judicial proceedings are only ascertainable upon judgment, irrespective of antecedent calculations or estimates provided in pleadings. A claim for damages is inherently uncertain until the court decides on the merits, giving effect to quantum and legitimacy. A plaintiff cannot reasonably peg the conversion in his pleadings to the exchange rate at the date of judgment, as it is beyond human foresight to predict the conclusion of trial or the date judgment would be delivered.(Pp. 425-426, paras. H-D)23.
FEMI ANIBABA V. DANA AIRLINES LIMITED & ANOR (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994).
Need to use exchange rate at the date of judgment for conversion of the award of damages in foreign currency into naira
Converting sums to naira at the date of the cause of action would potentially disadvantage claimants in cases where there has been a significant depreciation of the local currency, as is often the case in developing economies. By pegging the conversion to the exchange rate prevailing at the date of judgment, the court ensures that the award reflects the real-time value of the currency, thereby fulfilling its compensatory objective. (P. 427, paras.A-B)
MR. FEMI ANIBABA V. DANA AIRLINES LIMITED & ANOR (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994).
On Rule governing the conversion of sums to naira in compensation for loss in international carriage by air
Article 23 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air,1999 mandates that the conversion of sums to naira shall occur at the existing official exchange rate without expressly delineating the period to which the term “existing” refers. While the provisions are silent on the temporal context of “existing”, the original text of the article offers significant clarity. Article 23(1) provides that in judicial proceedings, conversion of the sums into national currencies shall be made according to their value in terms of Special Drawing Rights as defined by the International Monetary Fund at the date of judgment. The express reference to the date of judgment demonstrates a clear, undoubted, and deliberate intention by the State parties to the Convention to ensure that compensation reflects the currency’s value at the point when the award is crystallised by the court. The interpretation that conversion should occur at the exchange rate prevailing on the date of judgment is further reinforced by the underlying policy objective of the Convention. The Convention seeks to promote uniformity and consistency in the legal framework governing international carriage by air, ensuring that claimants are adequately compensated for losses while maintaining procedural fairness. Any interpretation that undermines the uniformity or results in significant variations in the value of awards based on fluctuating exchange rates would run contrary to the spirit of the Convention. The interpretation is in harmony with both the text of the Convention and the principles of fairness and adequacy in compensation. In the instant case, the Court of Appeal was wrong in holding that conversion to naira must occur at the official exchange rate prevailing at the date of the cause of action. The error offended the clear intention and the statement of purpose of the Montreal Convention. (Pp. 425, paras. C-F; 426, paras. F-G;427, paras. B-C)
MR. FEMI ANIBABA V. DANA AIRLINES LIMITED & ANOR (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994).
On Determination of exchange rate to be used for conversion of award of damages in foreign currency into naira
The importance of determining the exchange rate to be adopted in converting an award of damages in foreign currency into naira, the currency of enforcement, lies in significant fluctuations in exchange rates which can materially impact on actual value of the judgment sum to the successful party. Therefore, it is essential to determine the applicable rate that ensures fairness and reflects the realities of the time. (Pp. 424-425, paras. G-A)22.
MR. FEMI ANIBABA V. DANA AIRLINES LIMITED & ANOR (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994).
On When appellate court will interfere with the award of general damages
An appellate court will only interfere with an award of general damages if the award is manifestly excessive or ridiculously low or if it is based on a misapprehension of the law or facts. In the instant case, the decision of the Court of Appeal to interfere with and increase the award made by the trial court was within its jurisdiction and could not be faulted. The sum awarded by the Court of Appeal was adequate and required no further upward review. [Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1238) 512 referred to.] (Pp. 421, paras. A-C)
MR FEMI ANIBABA V. DANA AIRLINES LIMITED & ANOR (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994).
On the Nature of damages recoverable under Article 29 Montreal Convention, 1999 as compensation for loss arising from international carriage by air
What the law offers in article 29 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, 1999, is compensatory damages which include both special and general damages. (P. 432, para. D)13.
MR. FEMI ANIBABA V. DANA AIRLINES LIMITED & ANOR (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994).
On Purpose of award of general damages
General damages, as a recognised head of compensatory damages, are intended to indemnify a claimant for losses that flow naturally from the wrongful act or omission of the defendant. The damages are awarded to address harm that is not readily quantifiable in monetary terms, such as pain, suffering, loss of companionship and emotional distress. General damages are presumed by law to arise naturally from the wrongful act and need not be specifically pleaded or proved. The purpose of such damages is to assuage the loss caused by the adversary and restore the claimant, as far as money can, to the position they would have been in but for the harm suffered. It arises by reference of law and may be availed generally. They are compensatory damages for harm that so frequently results from the tort for which a party has sued, such that the harm is reasonably expected and need not be alleged or proved. They need not be specifically claimed. They are also termed damages; necessary damages. [Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu (2011) 4NWLR (Pt. 1238) 512; Mekwunye v. Emirates Airlines(2019) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1677) 191 referred to.] (Pp. 415-416, paras. G-A; 433, paras. C-F)
MR. FEMI ANIBABA V. DANA AIRLINES LIMITED & ANOR (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994).
On the Purpose of award of general damages
General damages are awarded to compensate for non-pecuniary losses, which are intangible and subjective in nature. Such damages aim to provide compensation for the pain, suffering and emotional distress experienced by a claimant. They are distinct from economic losses, which are quantifiable and objectively verifiable. The law recognises the inherent difficulty in quantifying non-economic losses, but it does not deny the right to compensation for such losses where they are established. (P. 428,paras. G-H)
MR. FEMI ANIBABA V. DANA AIRLINES LIMITED & ANOR (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994).
On Distinction between general damages and punitive or exemplary damages
The distinction between compensatory damages, such as general damages, and punitive or exemplary damages lies in their purpose. While compensatory damages aim to restore the claimant to their original position, punitive damages are designed to punish the wrongdoer and deter similar conduct in the future. Punitive damages apply only where the defendant’s conduct is egregious, involving fraud, malice, or recklessness. By contrast, compensatory damages, including general damages, address the actual harm suffered by the claimant without any element of punishment. [Eliochin (Nig.) Ltd. V .Mbadiwe (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 14) 47 referred to.] (P.416, paras. A-C)
MR. FEMI ANIBABA V. DANA AIRLINES LIMITED & ANOR (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994).
On the Nature of Compensatory Damages
Compensatory damages are the same as general damages, which are damages recovered in payment for actual injury or economic loss, and do not include punitive damages. It is a sum of money awarded in a civil action by a court to indemnify a person for the loss, detriment or injury suffered as a result of the unlawful conduct of another. Compensatory damages provide a plaintiff with the monetary amount necessary to replace what was lost and nothing more. General damages are compensatory damages. General damages are different from punitive damages as while general damages or compensatory damages provide the claimant with the monetary amount necessary to replace what was lost, while punitive damages punish a defending party for his or her conduct as a deterrent to the future commission of such acts. What is required of the claimant or plaintiff to qualify for the award of compensatory damages is to prove that he or she has suffered a legally recognisable harm that is compensable by a known amount of money that would be objectively determined by a judge.[Mekwunye v. Emirates Airlines (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt.1677) 191 referred to.] (Pp. 417-418, paras. F-B)
MR. FEMI ANIBABA V. DANA AIRLINES LIMITED & ANOR (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994).
On Nature of damages for pain, suffering, loss of companionship and affection
Damages for pain, suffering, loss of companionship affection fall within the ambit of general damages, which are compensatory in nature. The heads of damages address non-economic harm naturally arising from the wrongful act of the defendant. Such awards are distinct from punitive or exemplary damages, which seek to punish the defendant rather than compensate the claimant.[Mekwunye v. Emirates Airlines (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt.1677) 191 referred to.] (P. 418, paras. C-D)
MR. FEMI ANIBABA V. DANA AIRLINES LIMITED & ANOR (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994).
On whether punitive, exemplary or non-compensatory damages are recoverable as compensation for loss arising from international carriage by air
By the explicit wording of article 29 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, 1999, punitive, exemplary, or any other non-compensatory damages shall not be recoverable. Consequently, the rights of individuals entitled to bring a claim under Article 29 are subject to the limitation. While domestic law may grant dependants or other persons the right to pursue claims, this does not override the fact that any action brought to enforce the rights outlined in articles 17 and 21 of the Convention must adhere to the restriction. (Pp. 414-415, paras. H-A)
MR. FEMI ANIBABA V. DANA AIRLINES LIMITED & ANOR (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994).
On whether punitive, exemplary or non-compensatory damages are recoverable as compensation for loss arising from international carriage by air
Article 29 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, 1999, as domesticated explicitly prohibits claims for punitive, exemplary or other non-compensatory damages in matters governed by the Convention. However, a holistic reading of Article 29, particularly in the context of the entire Convention, reveals that the prohibition applies strictly to damages that are punitive in nature and do not serve to compensate the claimant for actual harm suffered. This is consistent with the principle that general damages are distinct from non-compensatory damages such as punitive or exemplary damages. In the instant case, the respondent’s counsel was not correct in its argument that damages for pain, suffering, loss of companionship, and affection fall under the category of non-compensatory damages prohibited by Article 29 of the Montreal Convention. (P. 415,paras. D-F)
POLARIS BANK PLC (FORMERLY SKYE BANK PLC) V. MRS CAROLINE O. PINHEIRO (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994) 197
On Need to prove entitlement to award of damages when claimed
Damages are not awarded as a matter of course or for any sentimental consideration. Damages must be earned from the breach of some duty by a defendant or from the unwholesome act of a defendant. Where the plaintiff is asking for damages, he must in all respects prove his entitlement to the damages.(Pp. 227-228, paras. H-A)
POLARIS BANK PLC (FORMERLY SKYE BANK PLC) V. MRS CAROLINE O. PINHEIRO (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994) 197
On Principles governing award of damages
Damages are money claimed or monies ordered to be paid to a person as compensation for loss or injury. They are the sum of money which a person wronged is entitled to receive from the wrongdoer as compensation for the wrong. The object of an award of damages is to give compensation to the plaintiff for the damage, loss or injury which he has suffered. However, before damages can be recovered by a plaintiff, there must be a wrong committed. In other words, damages recoverable by a plaintiff must be attributable to an act of the defendant or the breach of some duty by the defendant.[U.B.N. Plc v. Chimaeze (2014) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1411) 166 referred to.] (Pp. 217-218, paras. G-A)
POLARIS BANK PLC (FORMERLY SKYE BANK PLC) V. MRS CAROLINE O. PINHEIRO (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994) 197
On Categories of damages that can be awarded
Damages are varied and ubiquitous, namely: common law damages, compensatory damages, consequential damages, nominal (contemptuous) damages, general damages, special damages, hedonic damages, liquidated damages, restitution damages, etc, etc. The various categories of damages are distinct from one another with different principles governing their award or refusal. In the instant case, the type of damages being questioned was the special damages as well as the general aggravated damages as endorsed on the respondent’s originating processes and granted by the Court of Appeal.[Toyinbo v. Union Bank Plc (2023) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1865) 403 referred to.] (P. 218, paras. B-D)
POLARIS BANK PLC (FORMERLY SKYE BANK PLC) V. MRS CAROLINE O. PINHEIRO (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994) 197
On What amounts to special damages
Special damages refer to a class of damages that must be specially pleaded and strictly proved. Due to their nature, special damages are not awarded arbitrarily by the court or granted as a matter of course but upon being specifically proved by the party seeking same.(P. 218, paras. E-F)
POLARIS BANK PLC (FORMERLY SKYE BANK PLC) V. MRS CAROLINE O. PINHEIRO (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994) 197
On What amounts to special damages and when may be awarded
Special damages are those damages which are actual and proximate consequence in the particular case. Thus, special damages must be specially pleaded and proved and the court is not entitled to make its own estimate of the same.In the instant case, the respondent claimed, inter alia, a sum of N50,000 weekly as special damages. From all the records and the evidence before the trial court, the respondent never effectuate the specifics of how that N50,000 per week was earned by her. It was therefore, gratuitous or arbitrary for the Court of Appeal to indulge in granting the respondent’s head of claim.[Ahmed v. C.B.N. (2013) 2 NWLR (Pt.1339) 524; Osuji v. Isiocha (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 111) 623; Alhaji Otaru & Sons Ltd. v. Idris (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 606) 330 referred to.] (P. 228, paras. A-D)
POLARIS BANK PLC (FORMERLY SKYE BANK PLC) V. MRS CAROLINE O. PINHEIRO (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994) 197
On Meanings of general damages and exemplary damages and propriety of lumping them together in a relief
General damages and exemplary damages are two different classes of damages which cannot be lumped together, as the respondent did in her claim.Whereas general damages are such that flow naturally from the wrong complained of and which can be assessed by the court in making an award using its discretion, exemplary damages, also known as aggravated damages, are usually awarded whenever the defendant’s conduct is sufficiently outrageous to merit punishment, as where it discloses malice, fraud, cruelty, insolence, flagrant disregard of the law and the like.They must be claimed and proved before they can be awarded. Where a claim of aggravated damages is not pleaded and proved, it is not for the court to descend into the arena and speculate on the nature of the party’s actions which deserved to be punished, without any pleadings and evidence whatsoever in support of same.In the instant case, there was evidence placed before the court of pending proceedings in respect of the ownership of the Bulldozer before another court. The issue of the ownership of the Bulldozer should have been allowed to be determined before it can be determined whether or not the respondent was entitled to any exemplary damages in respect of the same Bulldozer which was still the subject of a dispute in another court.Consequently, there being no evidence to prove the special damages claimed, by the same token the respondent was not entitled to the general/exemplary damages claimed.[Odogu v. A.-G., Fed. (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt.456) 508; Eliochin (Nig.) Ltd. v. Mbadiwe (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 14) 47 referred to.](Pp. 226-227, paras. G-E)
POLARIS BANK PLC (FORMERLY SKYE BANK PLC) V. MRS CAROLINE O. PINHEIRO (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994) 197
On Distinction between general and aggravated damages and how each may be proved
General damages and aggravated damages are distinct legal concepts that cannot be lumped together.General damages are intended to compensate the plaintiff for the direct consequences of the defendant’s wrongful conduct. They are quantified based on the harm suffered by the plaintiff, such as lost income, medical expenses, or pain and suffering.Aggravated damages, on the other hand, are awarded to punish the defendant for particularly egregious or high-handed conduct. They are not based on the extent of the plaintiff’s losses, but rather on the nature of the defendant’s actions.The two types of damages serve different purposes and must be considered separately. Lumping them together would undermine the distinct functions they serve within our legal system. General and aggravated damages should be pleaded, proven and awarded independently to ensure that the plaintiff is fully and properly compensated.By lumping general and aggravated damages in a single relief, the respondent appears to be uncertain as to the specific specie of damages it requires from the court. It is not the function of the court to assist the respondent in the manner it presents its case or to identify the specific damages sought from the appellant.In the instant case, the general and exemplary damages lumped by the respondent in a single relief were incongruous and not coterminous with one another. Having regard to the respondent’s uncertainty in the specific damages sought from the court, the Court of Appeal ought not to have granted the general/aggravated damages claimed.[Usang v. Hanseatic Int’l Ltd. (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1153) 522 referred to.](P. 221, paras. A-G)
POLARIS BANK PLC (FORMERLY SKYE BANK PLC) V. MRS CAROLINE O. PINHEIRO (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994) 197
On Distinction between general and special damages and how to prove each
Special damages must be pleaded, particularized and proved. If the damages are special in nature, credible evidence will have to be called in order that the amount pleaded may be proved. Without such proof, no special damages can be awarded.On the other hand, the quantum of general damages need not be pleaded or proved, for it is the loss which flows naturally from the defendant’s act and it is generally presumed by law. The manner therefore in which general damages is quantified is by relying on what would be the opinion and judgment of a reasonable person.In the instant case, from the facts on record, it was apparent that the respondent completely failed to particularize her claim on special damages. Also, no evidence whatsoever was placed before the trial court to prove and justify the special damages claimed in the sum of N50,000.00 weekly categorized as loss of earnings or anticipated profits from the operations of the Bulldozer, the subject matter of the dispute between the parties.It was thus difficult to decipher how the Court of Appeal came to make such an award to the respondent. The onus of proof was on the respondent as plaintiff, and she failed to discharge that. Therefore, the award made by the Court of Appeal was based on conjecture and was without basis in law.[Ibrahim v. Obaje (2019) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1660) 389; Iyere v. Bendel Feed & Flour Mill Ltd. (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 300; Gonzee (Nig.) Ltd. v. NERDC (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt 943) 634 referred to.](P. 226, paras. A-G)
POLARIS BANK PLC (FORMERLY SKYE BANK PLC) V. MRS CAROLINE O. PINHEIRO (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994) 197
On Distinction between general and special damages and how to prove each
General damages refer to losses that naturally and inevitably flow from the defendant’s wrongful act. They are presumed to arise and do not require separate proof.In contrast, special damages are losses that do not necessarily result from the defendant’s wrongful conduct. They are consequential in nature and must be specifically claimed and substantiated by the claimant. The burden is on the claimant to demonstrate the existence and quantum of any special damages claimed.The claimant must provide detailed evidence to establish the causal link between the defendant’s actions and the special losses incurred. Mere assertions or general allegations are insufficient to recover special damages. Courts are cautious in awarding special damages, as they go beyond the normal or expected consequences of the defendant’s actions.Special damages are only granted when the claimant successfully proves they are the direct and natural result of the defendant’s wrongful conduct.(P. 220, paras. B-E)
POLARIS BANK PLC (FORMERLY SKYE BANK PLC) V. MRS CAROLINE O. PINHEIRO (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994) 197
On Principles governing award of special damages and when may be refused
Evidence ought to be led before an award for special damages is granted. To succeed in a claim for special damages it must be claimed specially and proved strictly. The fact that it appears to be admitted does not relieve the party claiming it of the requirement of proof with compelling evidence. Special damages are exceptional in character and so there is no room for inference by the court.It is unreasonable to consider a claim for special damages reasonable in the absence of proof. A claim for special damages succeeds on compelling evidence to justify it and not on the sums claimed appearing reasonable to the court.[N.N.P.C. v. Klifco (Nig.) Ltd. (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 209 referred to.] (P. 224, paras. E-H)
POLARIS BANK PLC (FORMERLY SKYE BANK PLC) V. MRS CAROLINE O. PINHEIRO (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994) 197
On Principles governing award of special damages and when may be refused
Special damages, unlike general damages, are not granted on the principle of cause and effect or based on the natural consequence of an event; neither is it given as of right flowing from a wrongful act or even on admission. Where special damages are pleaded and there is an opening or lacuna for surmises or assumptions or inferences or general calculations or wishful imaginations and conclusions, without specificity and strictness or inevitable proof, leaving no other guess work or assumptions, the plea must fail. Unlike general damages, special damages are not subject to general rules but based on circumstances of every case.In the instant case, although the respondent headed and particularized the loss of N50,000 on weekly basis on account of the seizure of the bulldozer by the appellant, payable by the appellant from 16/10/1995, it was still within the realm of general damages. Proving ownership of a bulldozer was not enough to make it automatically generate a weekly income of N50,000.The respondent had the burden and onus of proving: whether the bulldozer was for business or company use; whether it was hired before it was seized; how much it was fetching; the nature of work/business it was doing to generate such an amount on a weekly basis; whether the bulldozer was functional or spoiled when it was seized; the financial records of its weekly earnings of N50,000.The evidence led by the respondent was too weak to earn her award of special damages.(Pp. 223-224, paras. G-D)
DANGOTE CEMENT PLC V. AGER [2024]10 NWLR (PT. 1945) 1 SC
ON MEASURE OF DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT
The measure of damages an employee is entitled to in a claim for wrongful termination of employment on ground of failure to give the requisite notice or payment in lieu of the notice is, by law, the salary the employee would have earned had the employment been rightly and properly terminated by giving the requisite notice or payment in lieu thereof by the employer.
SKYE BANK PLC V. ADEGUN (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1960) 1
ON QUANTUM OF DAMAGES AWARDABLE WHERE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT IS TERMINATED BY EMPLOYER CONTRARY TO THE TERMS AGREED
Where a contract of employment is brought to an end by the employer contrary to the terms agreed, the quantum of damages awardable cannot be based on the remuneration of the employee during the period of notice prescribed in the agreement for either party to terminate the agreement. The quantum of damages awardable to the employee in such a situation should be in accordance with the general law on contract on award of damages for breach of contract, which would involve a consideration of the consequential loss that has arisen or would arise from the breach of the contract of employment having regard to the monthly wage, current age of the employee and the due date of retirement. In the instant case, since the appellant breached the terms of agreement, the damages payable to the respondent could not be restricted to one month salary in lieu of notice. (Pp. 29-30, paras.G-E).
SKYE BANK PLC V. ADEGUN (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1960) 1
ON QUANTUM OF DAMAGES AWARDABLE TO AN EMPLOYEE WHOSE WRONGFUL DISMISSAL STIGMATIZES THE CHARACTER OF THE EMPLOYEE
Per OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C. at page 48, paras. D-F:
“I subscribe to the view that in awarding damages in this type of cases, it cannot be limited to one month salary in lieu of notice which would be applicable where the wrongful termination of employment is as a result of summary dismissal without one month’s notice or salary in lieu of notice. In this case, as stated earlier, the termination carries with it the toga of dishonorable and fraudulent practices attached to the respondent. That stigma on the character of the respondent is completely unproved and thus unwarranted in the circumstances of this case. The evidence led by the respondent at trial show that no one would employ him with that type of letter of dismissal. It is safe to say that even if he wanted to go into private work with anybody, he would be rejected out of hand because of the wordings of the letter of dismissal.”
SKYE BANK PLC V. ADEGUN (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1960) 1
ON QUANTUM OF DAMAGES AWARDABLE TO AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS WRONGFULLY DISMISSED
The measure of damages to be awarded to an employee who is wrongfully dismissed is prima facie the amount the employee would have earned had he continued with the employment. Where the employer has a right to terminate the contract before the end of the term, damages will only be awarded to the end of the earliest period at which the employer could have terminated the contract. [Nigerian Produce Marketing Board v. Adewunmi (1972) 11 SC 111 referred to.] (P. 44, paras. E-H).