PER AGIM, J.S.C. at page…

“Where a contract of employment is brought to an end by the employer contrary to the terms agreed therein, the quantum of damages awardable therefore 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 employer cannot enjoy the benefit he would have enjoyed if the contract had been brought to an end in accordance

with the contract. Having brought the contract to an end in breach of the contract, the damages payable by it cannot be restricted to only one month’s salary in lieu notice, which is what it would have been liable to pay if it had terminated the employment as prescribed in the contract. To limit the damages payable by the employer to one month’s salary in lieu of notice in this case, would amount to enabling it to benefit from its wrongful act in breach of the contract. It is an inveterate rule of equity of great antiquity that equity will operate to prevent a party from benefiting from his or her wrongful act. It would be oppressive and unjust to the employee to award him or her damages on a basis prescribed in the contract of employment for termination of his employment in breach of that contract. Having brought his employment to an end outside the terms of the contract the employer cannot restrict the quantum of damages awardable to the employee to the terms prescribed in the contract. 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.”

(Supreme Court of Nigeria in Skye Bank Plc v. Adeogun – SC.406/2018 delivered 27 Feb 2024).