Employment Law Update: Courts Reinforce Protection Against Oppressive Dismissals

Introduction

The right of an employer to terminate an employment contract is not absolute—it must be exercised with fairness and respect for the dignity of the employee. This edition of Legal Illumination by Akintunde Esan (The Legal Adviser Online) highlights the recent shift in which the National Industrial Court (NIC) has consistently awarded substantial damages for non pecuniary losses when the manner of termination was deemed “outrageous, insolent, vindictive, oppressive, or malicious.” This shift means employees whose dismissals involve high-handed conduct, character defamation, or significant psychological harm can potentially receive compensation beyond just salary in lieu of notice.

The Shift

1. Mrs. Tamar Adigbonun v. Eko Electricity Distribution Plc (Suit No: NICN/LA/546/2014, judgment delivered on July 17, 2017)
The Court strongly condemned her employer (Eko Electricity Distribution Plc) who reported her to the police, only to dismiss her even after she was exonerated. Such conduct was deemed harsh, oppressive, and degrading, highlighting the principle that termination cannot be used as a tool of punishment or humiliation, the Court held that:

“The defendant … cannot be allowed to hide under the cloak of ‘hire and fire’… The Defendant went further to ensure the Claimant’s arrest, detention and prosecution … I hold that the defendant exercised its right to terminate the claimant’s appointment in a harsh, oppressive and degrading manner.”

2. Mrs. Nkechi Catherine Ogbonnah v. NNPC Suit No.: NICN/LA/178/2019:
The Court awarded N 50 million as general damages for “financial, physical, psychological, and emotional trauma” resulting from a sudden termination, including specific mentions of depression, anxiety, and loss of sleep.

3. Mr. Zephaniah Ishie v. MTN Nig Comm Ltd Suit No: NICN/LA/356/2015 the NIC: per Peters J.
The Court awarded N 5 million as general damages for “injury, emotional trauma mental and physical torture” suffered by the claimant due to the defendant’s breach of contract and wrongful termination.

4. Mr. Abdul-Hakeem A. Olasewere v. Airtel Networks Limited: Suit: NICN/LA/90/2014 delivered on April 7, 2022,
The NIC awarded N100 million as exemplary damages and an additional N 60 million as general damages for wrongful termination, in part due to the alleged malicious intent behind the dismissal.

5. Mr. Emmanuel John v. Rock King Limited: Suit No: NICN/BEN/29/2019
The NIC per Adewemimo J. held that an accusation of crime carries a stigma, and the resulting loss of livelihood and hardship justified an award of substantial damages beyond just the notice period:
“In the instant case, the claimant led evidence that he was detained for four days by the Police based on the allegation of stealing levied against him by the defendant, but was not charged to court. He further led evidence that he was denied access to resume work, and was neither issued a notice of termination nor a letter of termination. These facts according to him, caused him and his family hardship, for which he seeks general damages.
I have given due consideration to the above facts, and find that an accusation of crime carries a stigma and the subsequent loss of livelihood implies that the claimant has suffered damages as a result. I find that the claim for damages is therefore justified under these circumstances. On this see BRITISH AIRWAYS vs. MAKANJUOLA (1993) 8 NWLR (PT 311) 276 at 288 per Ubaezonu, JCA. The court of appeal in that case upheld the award of two years’ salary as damages by the trial court. The court held that the quantum of damages recoverable by an employee depends on whether the wrongful termination was as a result of the failure to give the required notice, or whether the termination carries a stigma, in which case, the employee shall be entitled to substantial damages far beyond the payment of salary in lieu of notice.”

6. In A.C.B. Ltd v. Ewarami (1978) 4 SC 99, the Supreme Court held that where an employee is dismissed in a manner that suggests misconduct, the employer must justify the dismissal.

7. In Abalogu v. Shell Petroleum (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt. 837) 308, it was emphasized that dismissal must not be done in a way that tarnishes the employee’s reputation without due process.

8. The case of Ogunyade v. Adebayo (2005) 12 NWLR (Pt. 937) 1 emphasizes that an employer must provide a valid reason for termination, especially when the employee has been in a managerial position.

Conclusion

The evolving jurisprudence of the National Industrial Court underscores a clear message: termination of employment must be carried out with fairness, dignity, and respect for the individual. By awarding substantial damages for non pecuniary losses in cases where employers act in an outrageous, insolent, or oppressive manner, the Court has reinforced the principle that workplace justice extends beyond financial entitlements.

Employers must therefore recognise that the manner of dismissal is as important as the decision itself. As highlighted in this edition of Legal Illumination by Akintunde Esan (The Legal Adviser Online), the law continues to illuminate the boundaries of employer authority, ensuring that justice and humanity remain at the heart of employment relations.

Whether you are an employer or employee you can contact or chat with Akintunde Esan (The Legal Adviser Online) for further legal illumination or legal advice on employment law issues in Nigeria