RETHINKING THE NUMBER OF YEARS PURCHASE IN FATAL

ABSTRACT

The primary remedy for a tort is damages, the purpose of which is normally to compensate the plaintiff for the harm he has suffered as a result of the defendant’s tortuous conduct. This paper is concerned principally with the measure (assessment) of damages i.e. with the methods by which the court calculates the amount (quantum) of compensation[i] to which the plaintiff is entitled in a fatal accident which leads to death. This paper reveals the inadequacy of the current method, which breeds a lot of inconsistency in judicial decisions which ultimately translates to hardship on the dependents. In conclusion this article suggests legal reforms and samples other jurisdictional changes to recommend a legislative re-evaluation.

Key words: Death, compensation, Tort law

INTRODUCTION

A fatal accident claim is one arising from the demise of a person whose life was suddenly snuffed out, unprepared, due to the negligence of the defendant in the suit. There are many losses arising therefrom which cannot easily be expressed in terms of money or its quantum. This notwithstanding, the courts still undertake some valuation in money terms. This enables the courts to approve some remedy to ameliorate the loss and suffering of dependants, usually helpless women, children and old people who suddenly lost their bread winner.[ii]

In Nigeria damages for Fatal accidents are typically based on the multiplier-multiplicand approach. The multiplicand here is an estimation of the annual value of the dependency i.e. the amount which the deceased would have spent on his family. The number of years’ purchase is the multiplier. To get the lump sum, the number of years’ purchase is used in multiplying the annual value of the dependency. The annual value of dependency is arrived at by subtracting from the annual income and the annual amount required for the deceased’s personal upkeep, such as feeding and clothing expenses and money spent on things like drinks and cigarettes, etc.

The number of years’ purchase, or multiplier, is affected by many factors. Usually, most important factor is the age and expectation of life or working life of the deceased himself. Tax and even possibility for remarriage in the case of the dependants widow.

In Ekrebe v. Efeizomor II[iii] the court stated In assessing the measure of damages to be awarded under the Torts Law there is no question of sentimental damage, bereavement or pain and suffering. It is a hard matter of monetary value, subject to the elements of reasonable future probabilities. The starting point is the amount of wages which the deceased was earning, the ascertainment of which to some extent may depend on the regularity of his employment. Then there is an estimate of how much was required or expended, for his own personal and living expenses. The balance will give a datum or basic figure which will generally be turned into a lump sum by taking a certain number of years’ purchase. That sum, however, has to be taxed down having due regard to uncertainties, for instance, that the widow might have remarried and thus ceased to be a dependent, and other like matters of speculation and doubt. This paper is a critical evaluation of the compensation system in cases of fatal accident leading to death, it contends that the current method is outdated and is in urgent need for reformation.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This work adopts a doctrinal research method, relying on both primary legal materials such as the English Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934, the Fatal Accident act and secondary legal method such as the law of tort by Ifeoma P. Enemuo. Information on this work was gathered through a review of statues, judicial decisions and academic journal. This paper analyses this sources to lay out a full evaluation of the compensation level in cases of death in our tort laws.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

At common law the general rule was at the death of either party the right to action was extinguished and this was expressed in the maxim “actio personalis moritur cum persona”[iv] as the death of a person in civil courts could not be considered as an injury, this rule was set by Lord Ellenborough[v]. This rule was first altered by the Fatal Accident Act or (Lord campbell’s Act) 1846, Then came the English Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934. Currently the Tort law of various states in Nigeria guard this situation, for example section 110 Enugu State Torts Law[vi], is to the effect that upon the death of any person, “all causes of action subsisting against or vested in any person on his death, except causes of action for defamation,” shall survive against, or, as the case may be, for the benefit of his estate. With the exception of defamation.

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION

The Need of Rethinking the Number of Years Purchase

The society seems not fully satisfied with recovering damages especially in a fatal accident claim. Parties quickly settle both criminal and civil disputes arising from accident without recourse to court. The reason is not far-fetched. The courts have been viewed by some as a bundle of technicalities where tortfeasors go scot-free on technical grounds without consideration of justice for victims or their relatives. In Chukwu v Makinde [vii], It was a case of negligent and reckless (indiscriminate) parking of trailer which 1^st respondent collided with causing 1^st and 2^nd respondents some degree of injuries. The second respondent lost some teeth and had permanent scars, permanent disability, loss of life expectancy and earnings. The total damages court awarded for both respondents was N196, 084, 64, pain and suffering inclusive. The suit was commenced in Akure High Court with Suit No. ALC/173/88, in 1988. Judgment was delivered on 8/6/1995, 8 years after commencement of the suit. Appeal was entered in same suit in 1997 by Appeal No: CA/B/246/97. The Appeal judgment was delivered on 7/2/07 after 11 years. A total of 21 years were wasted in pursuit of a personal injury claim where permanent disability was suffered. In the whole judgment there was no mention of passage of time or inflation and its effect on the claim. The award of N169,084:64 as compensation after 8 years of instituting the claim where permanent disability was suffered makes nonsense of the claim and essence of justice. It took another 13 years to determine whether the victims of the accident could actually receive the sum awarded

In Owolabi v Akinwumi Motors and Anor[viii] , the court awarded N307,490:00 as damages in favour of the University lecturer who was completely paralyzed in a motor accident due to negligent driving of first defendant’s servant. The compensation appears well to be substantially reasonable at the time, but did the court consider how many years the victim would have worked before retiring? Or whether he may have achieved the status of professor and started earning more thus taking more care of his family. These issues are very important in arriving at a just decision.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

This approach is often times leveraged by the discretion of the courts in calculating the factors. To fully understand this, two Nigeria cases will be put side by side. In  Owolo v. Olise[ix] where having considered the above factors held the number of years purchase using the multiplier approach as 14 years. While in the case of Osholake v. Lagos City Council[x] where the court applied a multiplier of 12 Years of purchase. In another court a multiplier of 10years may be applied. Legal certainty is a vital element of the rule of law, it is one of the central argument for the operation of judicial precedent. With no legislative backups, fatal accident claims will be totally unpredictable.

The basis on which the life expectancy is calculated is outdated and undermined as many factors such as economic inflation. Let’s assume a 35 year old electrician who earns about 50,000 naira per annum dies in a ghastly accident. The courts in a bid not to over compensate subtracts from the annual income, the amount required for the deceased’s personal upkeep, such as (feeding and clothing expenses and money spent on drinks and cigarettes) and tax on income or wages and other factors, but no fuss is made about undercompensating the victim whom just lost their life support. In Nigeria’s current socioeconomic reality inflation seems to ever be on the rise, boxing to a corner his two parents who are uneducated and young children who may not have any financial literacy on investment. The assumption that the dependants will investment in on a very low balance of probability.

The need to rethink the ‘Number of Years Purchase’ (multiplier) in Nigerian fatal accident claims is necessary because the current calculation often fails to adequately satisfy the principle of “restitutio in integrum” (restoring the victim to their original position), which in this will be to put the dependent back in the position he would have been if the accident had not occurred. Failing to account for prevailing economic conditions and the possibility of future economic hardship for dependents.

A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE: A LOOK IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS

Malaysia

Malaysian courts fix the retirement age of the deceased as 55 years. The multiplier was determined by deducting the deceased’s age from the retirement age and scaling down the difference by a further one-third for normal contingencies and other factors. It was possible for the court to deduct more than one-third where special circumstances warranted a higher deduction, for example, where the deceased was in poor health before the accident which caused his death. Again, where there was a likelihood that the deceased, had he lived, would have ceased his support for the claimant after a number of years, the multiplier may be reduced considerably. The 1984 Amendment Act replaced the old practice by providing fixed multipliers, or “years of purchase”, for dependency claims in a new section 7(3)(iv)(d). For example, section 7(3)(iv)(d)(i) provides that for a deceased aged 30 years or below “the number of years of purchase shall be 16”[xi]. The new section ignores the Common Law rule that in a dependency claim, the age of the dependant or claimant and the marital status of the deceased are important. Taken by itself the new provision would give a dependant mother of 75 years claiming in respect of the death of a 29-year-old son, a multiplier of 16 years. Had Parliament taken away the discretion of the court to select an appropriate multiplier in special cases, for example, in a claim by a mother of advanced years in respect of the death of her bachelor son?

In Chan Chin Ming v Lim Yok Eng[xii] peh Swee Chin SCJ, who delivered the majority judgment of the Supreme Court, referred to pre-amendment cases on the subject and held that the new provision had not altered all aspects of the Common Law position. His lordship held that a mother of a 25-year-old deceased bachelor was only entitled to a multiplier of seven years and not the 16 years as mentioned in the new provision. Edgar Joseph Jr SCJ, delivered a powerful dissenting judgment. Referring to the proposition that the court had the discretion to select a suitable multiplier, his Lordship said:

This proposition is, in my view, quite untenable, and has only to be stated to be rejected, bearing in mind that when a question of statutory interpretation arises, the duty of the court is simply to give effect to the will of Parliament as expressed in the law.

South Africa

South African courts also employ the multiplier multiplicand method but place strong emphasis on actuarial evidence. In Southern Insurance Association Ltd v. Bailey NO[xiii], the Appellate Division held that actuarial calculations should guide courts, though judges may adjust figures to reflect contingencies and fairness. This approach reduces arbitrariness while balancing precision with discretion.

India

India has undertaken significant reform through the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and judicial interpretation. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[xiv], the Supreme Court introduced a standardised table of multipliers according to the age of the deceased, thereby harmonising inconsistent practices across the country.  This was further clarified in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi[xv], where the Court reaffirmed Sarla Verma and provided guidance on uniform heads of damages, including future prospects, funeral expenses, and consortium. These developments demonstrate how judicial and statutory intervention can reduce inconsistency in fatal accident awards.

PROPOSED REFORMS

1. Adoption of actuarial tables (like the Ogden Tables in the UK)

Nigeria can develop official actuarial tables similar to the Ogden Tables used in England. These tables are prepared by actuaries and show, for each age and gender, how many years of support can reasonably be expected. This approach removes guesswork, ensures fairness, and allows courts to rely on evidence-based. A committee of statisticians, actuaries, and judges can prepare a “Nigerian Fatal Accidents Table” using local life expectancy and employment data, updated every 3–5 years. Reference can also be made to the Ogden Tables as a model.

2. Incorporating an inflation proof method

A major problem in Nigeria is inflation. A lump sum awarded today may lose value quickly over time. Multipliers should therefore be adjusted for inflation, either by using “real” discount rates or through index-linked payments, ensuring that awards reflect true economic value. Alternatively, courts could order payments every year or every few years, adjusted to match inflation. This ensures dependants receive compensation that remains meaningful over time for example the UK Damages Act 1996, provides for periodical payments indexed to inflation, offering a model for Nigeria.

3. Enactment of Federal legislation

While some states, have enacted the Fatal Accidents Law, there is no uniform federal framework. Comparable guidance exists in the UK through the Damages Act 1996, which made new provision in relation to damages for personal injury, including injury resulting in death. Other propositions include Standardization of life expectancy and dependency ratios.

CONCLUSION

There is a pressing need for ensuring fairness to the defendant’s while not looking away from justice to the dependents. An updated approach is needed to ensure fair compensation, potentially by legislating clearer guidelines for judges, incorporating current economic realities, and considering factors like the deceased’s remaining potential working life and dependents’ future needs a more comprehensive look.

Reference(S):

[i] CJ Okoye Lawvie “Assessment of Damages” https://cjokoyelawview.com/law-323-law-of-tort-i/topic19-assessment-of-damages Accessed 9 January 2026.

[ii] Adeleke v. Anike (2006) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1004) 131 (P. 177, paras. D- G)

[iii] (993) 7 NWLR (Pt.307) 588

[iv] Prof. Enemuo I.P The Law of Tort, First published(2007) (2^nd edn chenglo limited, 2020) 297

[v] Baker v. Bolton 170 ER 1033 (1808) 1 Camp 493 [1808] EWHC KB J92

[vi] Torts Law Cap 40 Laws of Enugu State

[vii] (2007) 9 NWLR pt. 1038 p 195

[viii] (1980) HIF/7/79 Judgment delivered 7/3/80

[ix]  (1967) FNLR 179

[x] (1972) 12 CCHCJ 56

[xi] Dato’ P Balan “Damages for personal injuries & causing death: A critical survey” (2004) Journal of Malaysian and comparative law https://share.google/eUBqZ6FD4eJGII7MF accessed 10 January

[xii] (1994) 3 MLJ 233

[xiii] 1984(1) SA 98 (Appellate Divison)

[xiv] Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Supreme Court of India).

[xv] National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranav Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 (Supreme Court of India).