The Principle of Proportionality in Damages Assessment Under Nigerian Tort Law: An Analytical Study

The proportionality principle, which requires that legal remedies be commensurate with the harm suffered and the culpability of the defendant, has gained increasing influence in international tort law discourse, yet its analytical status in Nigerian tort law scholarship and practice remains largely unexplored. This study examines the principle of proportionality in damages assessment under Nigerian tort law, evaluating its application in personal injury, defamation, and property damage cases decided by the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal between 2017 and 2024. Using a doctrinal and analytical research methodology, the research maps how proportionality reasoning has emerged implicitly in Nigerian judicial reasoning even where not explicitly articulated, and assesses whether a more formal adoption of the principle could improve the predictability and fairness of damages awards. The study draws on comparative analysis with proportionality in damages assessment in German, English, and South African tort law to provide a reform framework. Interviews with 20 senior tort law litigators in Lagos and Abuja provide practitioner perspectives on current damages practices. Findings reveal that Nigerian courts frequently award disproportionately low or inconsistent damages due to the absence of transparent proportionality reasoning and the reliance on outdated multiplier tables. The research provides an original analytical contribution to Nigerian tort law by proposing a formal proportionality framework for damages assessment. Recommendations include judicial guidelines incorporating proportionality, updated multiplier tables, and mandatory expert evidence requirements in complex damages cases. Keywords: proportionality, damages assessment, tort law, judicial remedies, personal injury