WD
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF
NIGERIA
IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT IBADAN
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE Y. M.
HASSAN
DATE:
06TH MAY, 2026. SUIT NO: NICN/IB/78/2024
BETWEEN
MRS.
RAJI AFUSAT FOLASADE ---------------------------------- CLAIMANT
AND
1. THE
EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE.
|
-- DEFENDANTS |
3.
CHAIRMAN, OYO STATE UNIVERSAL BASIC
EDUCATION BOARD (OYO SUBEB).
REPRESENTATION
-
Chief P.O. Alamu for the Claimant.
- A.O. Zubair-Sanni, Senior State
Counsel, Oyo State Ministry of
Justice for the Defendants.
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
1. The Claimant instituted this suit by a
General Form of Complaint, Statement of Facts and other originating process
dated 16th day of December, 2024 and filed on the 17th
day of December, 2024 claiming against the Defendants as follows:
1.
A DECLARATION by this Honourable Court that the
purported summary dismissal from duty of the Claimant with the Oyo State
Government contained in a letter with Reference No: SUBEB/G1680/212 and dated
the 24th August, 2017 addressed to the Claimant by one B.T. Ogunjimi
for Executive Chairman, the 3rd Defendant is null and void,
ineffectual and unlawful by reason of the natural justice and non-compliance
with the Oyo state Civil Service Commission Regulation part 6, Sections 36, 39,
41, 42, 44, 48, 49 & 56 Laws of Oyo State 2000.
2.
AN ORDER of this Honourable Court setting aside
the said letter with Reference No: SUBEB/G1680/212 and dated 24th
August, 2017 by which the Defendant purportedly dismissed the Claimant.
3.
A DECLARATION that it is only the office of the Head
of service that can exercise disciplinary and dismissal power on the Claimant
being a level 13 Officer as at the time of his unlawful dismissal and not the
office of the 3rd Defendant, thereby rendering the query issued by
the 3rd Defendant on the Claimant null, void, illegal, ultra vires,
Unlawful and does not have basis for being issued contrary to Section 030103 of
the Oyo State of Nigeria Public service Rules Volume I of 2013.
4.
A DECLARATION that the query which emanated from the
office of the 3rd Defendant was not precise and to the point, and
the length of time given to the Claimant was not a reasonable time within which
to respond to the query thereby not complying with Section 030307 and Section
030303 of the Oyo State of Nigeria Public Service Rules Volume I of 2013.
5.
A DECLARATION that the purported criminal allegation
of illegal promotion of teachers, issuance of fake/forged letters of promotion
and overloading of salaries levied against the Claimant, cannot be deliberated
upon by the Panel of Enquiry on Alleged Financial malpractices at Universal
Basic Education Board such that there exist a real likelihood of bias and the
Claimant will not get fair hearing.
6.
A DECLARATION that the Claimant is not saddled with
the responsibility of promotion of Teachers or increment of teachers’ salary
and therefore cannot be alleged and or dismissed for an offence which he cannot
commit.
7.
A DECLARATION that the Claimant is entitled to
remain and continue in the employment of the Oyo State Universal Basic Education
Board, (Oyo SUBEB).
8.
AN ORDER of this Honourable Court setting aside
the purported summary dismissal of the Claimant and restoring all her rights
and benefits including the right to collect all her outstanding salaries and
her right to continue in the employment of Oyo State Universal Basic Education
Board, (Oyo SUBEB) until she attains the age of retirement as prescribed by the
law or until she is otherwise earlier retired on ground of ill-health or other
lawful cause.
9.
AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the
Defendant to reinstate the Claimant to her rightful post and pay all her
outstanding salary arrears and allowances from the 24th August, 2017
when she was summarily dismissed.
10.
AN ORDER for the payment of General Damages to
the Claimant by the Defendants.
11.
AN ORDER for the payment of the cost of this
action.
2. The Defendants upon being served with
the originating processes, filed Statement of Defence dated 17th day
of June, 2025 together with other processes. In response, the Claimant filed a
reply to the Statement of defence of the Defendants dated 15th day
of July, 2025.
3. After the close of pleadings, trial
commenced on 22nd January, 2026 and concluded same day. The Claimant
called one witness and the Defendant did not call any witness but rested their
case on that of the Claimant.
CASE OF THE CLAIMANT
4. Claimant opened her case on 22nd
January, 2026 by adopting her statement on oath deposed to on 17th
day of December, 2024 as her evidence in chief and tendered 11 documents in
evidence which were admitted and marked as Exhibit A to K respectively.
5. Testifying under cross examination, CW1
stated inter alia that she was dismissed on 24th August, 2017 and
was not issued with any query before the dismissal. That she faced a panel
before she was dismissed. That her dismissal from service on 24th
August, 2017, she has not work for the State Government. That since her
dismissal, she has not been getting pay from Oyo State Government.
FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESSES
6. At the conclusion of the proceedings of
22/1/26, when the Claimant closed her case, learned counsel to the defendant,
A. O Zubair-Sanni (Mrs.), Senior State Counsel, Oyo State Ministry of Justice
representing the Defendants informed the Court that the Defendants would not
call any witness but rest their case on the case of the Claimant as presented.
Consequently upon which parties were directed to file their final written
addresses for adoption.
7. The Defendant’s final written address is
dated 29th day of January, 2026 and filed on 30th day of
January, 2026. In it, learned counsel to the Defendants, A.O. Zubair-Sanni
(Mrs) distilled two issues for determination as follows:-
1. Whether this Honourable Court possesses the
jurisdiction to entertain this suit, having been commenced outside the
statutory period.
2. Whether
the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendants was wrongful and
in breach of the applicable terms and conditions of service.
8. In arguing the issues, counsel submitted
on issue one that that this Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to
entertain the Claimant’s Suit as constituted because it is Statute Barred,
having been filed outside the period prescribed by the Limitation Laws of Oyo
State. That it is trite that a party who has a cause of action for an alleged
wrongful act committed against him/her can approach the Court for redress. In
this regard, such a party can exercise its constitutional right to invoke the
judicial powers of the Court to seek relief against the other party.
However, the right of a Claimant to
initiate an action can only be entertained by the Court where such action is
brought to Court within the period prescribed by law to commence the same. A
litigant will lose his rights to judicial intervention where a Suit is brought
outside the period prescribed for such a Suit under the relevant Limitation
Law. This is because the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the Suit would have
been irredeemably taken away. In support, Counsel cited the cases of TURAKI v. MAJOR OIL (NIG.) LTD. (2024) 6
NWLR (Pt.1933) p. 75 at 105, paras. C-E; OLAGUNJU v. P.H.C.N PLC. (2011) ALL
FWLR (Pt.582) p. 1635 at 1647, paras. B-C.
9. Counsel submitted that either the Court
or the Defendant may raise the issue of Limitation to restrain the Claimant
from exercising his right to invoke the adjudicatory powers of the court for
redress against the Defendant’s alleged wrongful act, if the Claimant fails to
seek for remedy within the period stipulated in the Statute of Limitation.
He contended that on the instant case,
the Defendants argue that the Claimant’s Suit bothering on Employment Contract
is Statute Barred and must be dismissed because the Cause of Action (as per the
Claimant’s Originating processes and as Evidence before the Court clearly
shows), arose in August 2017 when the Claimant was dismissed from the Service
of Oyo State. Notably, the Claimant only instituted this Suit on 17th
December, 2024 outside the period prescribed under the relevant Limitation
Laws. Consequently, Counsel stated that this Honourable Court lacks the
jurisdiction to entertain the same. Reference was made to the cases of BELLO v. YUSUF (2020) ALL FWLR (Pt.1057) p.
854 at 893-894; ATTORNEY GENERAL, ADAMAWA STATE v. ATTORNEY GENERAL, FEDERATION
(2005) 18 NWLR (Pt.958) 581.
10. Learned Counsel stated that in applying
the above position of law to the instant case, the Claimant’s right of action
is caught up by the Limitation Law of Oyo State. The Claimant’s contract of
employment and right to litigate thereon are impacted by the provision of
Section 18 of the Limitation Law of Oyo State 2000. He cited the case UNITY BANK PLC. v. S.P.C (NIG.) LTD. (2024)
NWLR (Pt.1921) p.1 at 29, paras. A-C.
11. On meaning of contract of Employment,
Counsel referred the Court to the cases of AKINYEMI
v. ODU’A INVEST. CO. LTD. (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt.1329); SHENA SECURITY CO. LTD. v.
AFRPAK LTD. (2008) 9 SCM p. 169 at 180.
12. Consequently, Counsel submitted that any
alleged wrongful act committed against the Claimant, relating to her contract
of service, must be initiated in Court within the time stipulated in the
Limitation Law of Oyo State. Thus, under Section 18 of the said Law, the
Claimant had five (5) years to initiate Court proceedings against the
Defendants for the alleged breach of contract, and the time started running
from the date the cause of action arose. That the Claimant could only have a
right of action against the Defendants by initiating an action in Court for the
alleged wrongful act of the Defendants between 24th August, 2017,
and 24th August, 2022, beyond which the Claimant’s right of action
becomes extinguished forever. In this regard, reliance was placed on the cases
of AGBON-OJEME v. SELO-OJEME (2020) ALL
FWLR (Pt. 1074) p. 1118 at 1167, paras. B-F; NICN/IB/52/2024 BETWEEN MR. BABALOLA
MATHEW OLOYEDE v. STATE UNIVERSAL BASIC EDUCATION BOARD AND ANOR.
13. In
another argument, Counsel stated that aside from the Claimant’s non-compliance
with Section 18 of the Oyo State Limitation Law, also by virtue of Section 2(a)
of the Public Officers Protection Law of Oyo State 2017, an action can only be
initiated against Public Officers or Agencies of the Oyo State Government
within three (3) months that the cause of action accrued. Reliance was place on
the cases of MICHAEL IDOCHABA & ORS.
v. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE MAKURDI & 4 ORS. (2021) 11 NWLR (Pt.1787) p.
209 at 228, paras. A-C; ANOLAM v. F.U.T.O. (2025) 5 NWLR (Pt.1984) at 673-676;
INEC v. OGBAIBO LOCAL GOV’T & ORS (2015 LPELR-24839(SC) (Pp.30-31, para. D)
(2016) 3 NWLR (Pt.1498) 167.
14. To
this end, Counsel submitted that having clearly established that the Claimant
failed to commence this proceeding within the prescribed period as stipulated
in the relevant Limitation laws, her cause of action against the Defendants is
Statute Barred, and this Honorable Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain
the same. He relied on the cases of OLAGUNJU
v. P.H.C.N. (2011 ALL FWLR (Pt.582) p. 1635 at 1650, paras. B-C; P.N. UDOH
TRADING CO. LTD. v. ABERE (2011) FWLR (Pt.57) at 900; TURAKI v. MAJOR OIL
(NIG.) LTD. (2024) 6 NWLR (Pt.1933) p.75 at 105, paras. C-E; ODUBEKO v. FOWLER
(1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.308) 637.
15. On issue two, Counsel submitted that the
Claimant, being an employee of the Oyo State Government before her dismissal,
is subject to the Laws and Regulations of the State and can be investigated for
any allegations relating to her conduct or the performance of her duties by the
Oyo State Government. In support of this contention. Reliance was placed on the
case of BUHARI v. INEC & ORS (2008)
12 SCM (Pt.2) pg. 237.
16. Arguing further, Counsel submitted that
that the Claimant was dismissed from the Service of Oyo State Government
following due process of the Law upon the findings that arose from the Audit
Report that was published by the Office of the Auditor General for Local
Government of Oyo State on the financial impropriety committed by some of the
Staff of the 3rd Defendant including the Claimant, that were posted
to the Universal Basic Education Offices within the 33 Local Government
Councils in Oyo State: That the Claimant herein was responsible for
administering the payment of salaries of Teaching and Non-teaching Staff in all
the Primary schools in Oyo State per the 1st Defendant’s directives.
Learned Counsel contended that while
performing her official duties, the Claimant was found to be guilty of
illegally promotion of Teachers, issuance of fake promotion letters to
teachers, and overloading of teachers’ salaries, which are in contravention of
Section 030401 of the Public Service Rule Vol. 1, 2013. Again, Counsel argued
that, having appeared before the Panel, Claimant was granted the opportunity to
defend the alleged misconduct which led to dismissal from the Public Service.
Reliance was placed on the cases of OVUNWO
v. WOKO (2011) ALL FWLR (Pt.587) p. 596 at 620-621, paras. D-B; OBAJE v.
N.A.M.A (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt.1366) 527; ADEDEJI v. C.B.N (2023) 5 NWLR (Pt.1878)
531; BAMGBOYE v. UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt.620) 290.
As such, Counsel stated that the
assertion that she unlawfully dismissed the Defendants, has not been proved by
the Claimant. In support of this, he refer to OMOWORARE v. OMISORE (2011) ALL FWLR (Pt.582) p. 1670 at 1731; OBAJE v.
N.A.M.A (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt.1366) 527 (SUPRA) at 150, para. D.
18. Furthermore, Counsel stated that the
Claimant has not shown that she suffered any prejudice or denial of fair
hearing as a result of the disciplinary process adopted. She was duly notified
of the allegations, responded to same, and was subjected to a disciplinary
procedure consistent with the PSR. That once fair hearing is established, the
decision of the disciplinary authority is unimpeachable. He cited the case of ADEDEJI v. POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION (1967)
1 ALL NLR 67.
Consequently, Counsel urged the Court
to hold that the procedure followed by the Defendants was proper, fair, and
lawful and further urged the Honourable Court to so hold and dismiss the
Claimant’s case in its entirety.
19. In the said Claimant’s final written
address, learned counsel to the Claimant, Chief P.A. Alamu ESQ, admits the issues formulated by the
Defendants’ counsel for determination as follows:-
(1) Whether
this Honourable Court possesses the jurisdiction to entertain this suit, having
been commenced outside the statutory limitation period.
(2) Whether
the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendant was wrongful and
in breach of the applicable terms and conditions of service.
20. In arguing these issues, counsel submitted
that from the totality of the evidence led by CW1, being the only witness
called at the trial, it is crystal clear that the weight of evidence tilts
towards the Claimant that she was not found wanting of the offences of illegal
promotion and issuance of promotion letter.
21. Counsel argued that out of the 11 Exhibits
admitted, none show that the Claimant was ever saddled in any of her duties
with the responsibility and involvement in her schedule of work with promotion
exercise and payment of salaries of staff of OYO-SUBEB. As such, Counsel
contended that Defendants, though not defending this matter also failed in
showing this Honourable Court any document wherein the Claimant is saddled with
the duty to promote and pay salaries of the staff. Also that, the Claimant
never issued any promotion letter (whether fake or genuine) before, during the
period of her appointment with the Defendant.
22. Consequently, Counsel stated that without
any prior evidence of involvement of the Claimant in issuance of any promotion
letters or overloading payment of salaries of staff in any way, Exhibit H was only
issued on the letter dated 24th day of August, 2017 to the Claimant
with a view to terminating her appointment, without proper procedural rule laid
down by the law for terminating the appointment of a senior officer as the
Claimant followed.
23. In his further submission, Counsel stated
that the Claimant by virtue of her post was never in position to either issue
promotion letter of overloading of salaries. That this fact has not been
controverted by the pleading of Defendants neither did the Defendant cross
examined the Claimant on that fact of non-involvement in the act of promotion
and salary payment, therefore, that the Claimant cannot be punished for an
offence she did not commit. He urged the Court to hold so. Reference was made
to the cases of OLUFEAGBA & ORS v.
ABDUR-RAHEEM & ANOR. (2009) 11-12 (Pt.1) SCM, 125; OLORUNTOBA-OJU & ORS
v. THE UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN (2009) 7 SCM, 118.
24 It is the submission of the Claimant’s
Counsel that the transaction between the Claimant and the Defendants in this suit
lingers until the 14th day of June, 2023, making it a time that is
less than five (5) years of Limitation Laws of Oyo State which was relied upon
by the Defendants counsel in her Written Address wherein she is relying on
Statute Barred and Limitation Law. Counsel contended that there was transaction
between the parties until the 14th day of June, 2023 as confirmed in
the letter of Appeal which is Exhibit K dated the 14th day of June,
2023 and the date of filing this paper was the 17th day of December,
2024 a period of less than two (2) years as against the provision of the
Limitation Law that stipulates five (5) years. That the Claimant is very much
within the time frame and never caught up with the Limitation Law as at the
time this case was filed. To this extend, Counsel urged the Court to so hold.
25. In addition, Counsel stated that the
defendant in her pleadings and defence during trial of this suit did not at any
point in time until the time of writing her Final Written Address, raised the
issue of Statute Barred, that the implication of this is that she has let go
the right of Statute Barred, if any at all. Reliance was placed on the cases of
INEC v. NNPP (2023) LPELR-59509(CA);
AKINGBOLA & ANOR v. INTERCONTINENTAL BANK PLC & ORS (2024)
LPELR-79939(SC).
26. In the light of the aforementioned facts
and cases prevalent, to this extend, Counsel urged the Court on one hand that,
it is too late in the day for the Defendants’ Counsel to capitalize on Statute
Barred and or Statute of Limitation to argue and canvass the wrongful termination
of appointment of the Claimant by the Defendant, so also, Counsel equally urged
the Court to hold on the other hand that, there are no sufficient and
contradicting evidence for terminating the appointment of the Claimant by the
Defendants, except the evidence led before this Honourable Court by the sole
witness (the Claimant) establishing the fact that there is no justification for
the termination of her appointment.
27. On the whole, Counsel submitted that in
the totality of the evidence before this Court, the weight of evidence tilts
towards the Claimant and that the Defendants were unable to sustain with
evidence, the allegations of illegal promotion and issuance of fake promotion
letter against the Claimant and urged the Court to so hold.
28. Finally, Counsel urged the Court to hold
that the Claimant has not been found wanting in the exercise of her duties and
that the Defendants should reinstate the Claimant and pay all her arrears of
salaries.
COURT’S DECISION
29. I have took my time and perused carefully
the General Form of Complaint, the Statement of Facts, the reliefs sought and
other accompanying processes of the Claimant. I have equally perused the
Defendants Statement of Defence and other processes filed. I have also gone
through the Claimant’s reply to the statement of defence. I have evaluated the
entire evidence adduced both oral and documentary by the Claimant in this suit.
In addition, I have gone through the Final Written Addresses filed and the
arguments of Counsel while adopting same. Having painstakingly done all these,
it is my humble view that the issues for determination are as distilled by the
Defendants’ Counsel in their Final Written Address and I adopt them here as
mine in determining this case. The issues are as follows:
1.
Whether
this Honourable Court possesses the jurisdiction to entertain this suit, having
been commenced outside the statutory limitation period.
2.
Whether the
termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendant was wrongful and in
breach of the applicable terms and conditions of service.
30. It is germane to briefly state at the
beginning that, from the facts and evidence led in this case, it is the case of
the Claimant briefly that she was employed by the 3rd Defendant as a
Personnel Accountant on Grade level 04 as shown in Exhibit A. That her
employment was confirmed by the Defendant as shown in Exhibit B. That she got
promoted several times as shown in Exhibits E, F and G respectively. That
sequel to all the promotions and good service enjoyed by her with the Defendants,
there was an allegation of financial malpractices against many workers in
OYO-SUBEB (Universal Basic Education Board), in which the Claimant was also
involved, a panel of enquiry was set up and in the letter issued to the
Claimant, it was stated that the
Claimant was found guilty of illegal promotion of teachers, issuance of
fake/forged letters of promotion and overloading of salaries which contravenes
a particular section of the Public Service Rules Vol. 1, 2013. That she was
therefore dismissed from work since 24th day of August, 2017 without
payment of salaries, other emolument, gratuity etc. as shown in Exhibit J. That
since then, she has been trying her best to reach out to her employers to
explain her part of the story which came to no avail. That she has written
several appeal letters wherein she tried to show her employers her innocence in
the allegation against her as shown in Exhibits H, I and K respectively. That
she has never been found wanting in any of the discharge of her duties, as she
has never received any warning or query from the Defendant until her dismissal.
That her schedule of work does not involve in promotion of teachers, issuance
of fake/forged letters of promotion and overloading of salaries. That she is
seriously contesting the act of this summary dismissal against her by the
Defendants hence, approached this Honourable Court seeking, amongst other
things, a declaration that her summary dismissal is null and void, ineffectual
and unlawful and an Order of reinstatement. In other words, the Claimant’s case
principally centres on challenging her summary dismissal from work and seeking
an Order of reinstatement.
31. Having pointed out these facts briefly
above, I will now turn to consider the issues for determination. On issue one
which is whether this Honourable Court possesses the jurisdiction to entertain
this suit, having been commenced outside the statutory limitation period. This
issue one is challenging the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court to hear and
determine the Claimant’s suit. Therefore, the law is settled that where
jurisdiction of Court is challenged, the Court must resolve it first one way or
the other before proceeding further.
32. It should be noted that the law is trite
that jurisdiction is the authority of the Court to adjudicate over the question
that give rise to the Cause of Action. It is fundamental and threshold issue
being the life blood and bedrock of all trials. Without jurisdiction, no doubt
the trial will amount to an exercise in futility and a nullity. Furthermore, a
Court is only competent to entertain a case when the subject matter of the case
is within its jurisdiction, there is no feature in the case which prevents the
Court from exercising its jurisdiction, and the case comes before the Court
initiated by the due process of law upon the fulfillment of any condition
precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. In this respect, see the cases of OKOLONWAMU v. OKOLONWAMU (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt.
1676) 1 at 21, para. A; GTB. v. TOYED (NIG.) LTD (2016) LPELR-4181(CA); ODOM v.
P.D.P (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1456) 527 at 548, paras. C-D; MADUKOLU v. NKEMDILIM
(1962) NSCC 374 at 379-380; OLORIODE v. YUNUSA (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1201) 80 at
101-102; HOPE DEMOCRATIC PARTY v. OBI (2011) 12 MJSC 67.
33. Furthermore, it is equally law that a
Cause of Action is said to be statute barred if in respect of its proceedings
it cannot be brought because the period laid down by the limitation law has
elapsed. I refer to the cases of EGBE v.
ADEFARASIN (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 47) 1 at 20; UDOH TRADING COP LTD v. ABERE (2001)
11 NWLR (Pt. 723) 114; FORESTRY RESEARCH INSTUTUTE OF NIGERIA v. GOLD (2007) 11
NWLR (Pt. 723).
34. In the instant case, learned Counsel to
the Defendants argued in their Final Written Address inter alia that this
Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the Claimant’s suit as
constituted because it is statute barred, having been filed outside the period
prescribed by the limitation laws of Oyo State.
35. He argued further that the Claimant’s suit
bothering on employment contract is statute barred and must be dismissed
because the Cause of Action as per the Claimant’s originating processes and the
evidence before the Court clearly shows that, it arose in August, 2017 when the
Claimant was dismissed from the service of Oyo State and the Claimant only
instituted this suit on 17th December, 2024, outside the period
prescribed under the relevant limitation laws. Consequently, that this
Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain same. He relied on the
provision of Section 18 of the Limitation Law of Oyo State, 2000.
36. It is germane at this juncture to take a
moment and refer to Section 18 of the Limitation Law of Oyo State, 2000. It
provides thus:
“No
action founded on contract, tort or any other action not specifically provided
for in parts 2 and 3 of this law shall be brought after the expiration of five
years from the date on which the Cause of Action accrued.”
37. It is clear like day light from the
wordings of the provision of Section 18 of the Limitation Law quoted above that
no action founded on contract shall be brought after the expiration of five
years from the date on which the Cause of Action arose.
38. Therefore, it is trite law that in
deciding whether a case is statute barred or not, the Court is to look at the
originating processes, in this instant case, the General Form of Complain and
Statement of Fact to ascertain when the alleged wrong was committed giving rise
to the Cause of Action and the date when the case was filed in Court. This
position was re-echoed by Supreme Court in the case of FROZEN FOODS (NIG.) LTD & ORS v. ESTATE OF OBA JOHN AGBOLA OJOMO
& ORS (2022) LPELR-57815, Per
JOHN INYANG OKORO, JSC, at page 21-22, paras. A-A where it was held thus:
“…what
the Court is enjoined to do to ascertain when the Cause of Action arose so as
to determine whether the action is statute barred or not is to look at the
originating processes filed by the Plaintiff which include the Writs of Summon
and averments in the Statement of Claim to ascertain therefrom when the wrong
giving rise to the enforceable claim was allegedly committed, and thereafter
comparing it with the date on which the suit was initiated. If the period of
persistence of the wrong from the date of accruals thereof exceeds the period
of limitation as provided by the statutes, then the suit is statute barred...”
See also the cases of KARSHI & ORS v. GWAGWA (2022)
LPELR-57544 (SC) 1; ABDULLAHI v. LOKO (2023) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1881) 445; LFS
INVESTMENT LTD v. BRAWAL LINE LTD & ORS (2020) LPELR-1610(SC); ELABANJO v.
DAWODU (2006) 6-7 SC 24; YAU-YAU v. APC (2024) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1941) 403(SC).
39. In the instant case therefore, before I
proceed, let me refer to paragraphs 5, 6, 12 and 13 of the Statement of Facts.
For clarity and ease of reference, I shall reproduce them hereunder.
Paragraph
5 reads thus:
“The
Claimant avers that she is an employee of the Oyo State Civil Service (Oyo
State Primary Education Board), via appointment letter dated the 24th
day of January, 2000 of which offer the Claimant the position of a Personnel
Assistant GL. 04. The said appointment letter is herein pleaded.”
Paragraph
6 reads thus:
“The
Claimant avers that her appointment was confirmed by the Defendants via a
letter of confirmation of service dated the 1st day of May, 2002.
The said letter is herein pleaded.”
Paragraph
12 reads thus:
“The
Claimant avers that sequel to all the promotions and good service enjoyed by
her with the Defendants, there was an allegation of Financial Malpractices
against many workers in OYO-SUBEB (Universal Basic Education Board), in which
the Claimant was also involved, a Panel of Enquiry was set up and in the letter
issued to the Claimant stated that the Claimant has been found guilty of
illegal promotion of teacher, issuance of fake/forged letter of promotion and
overloading of salaries which contravenes a particular Section of the Public
Service Rule Vol. 1, 2013. The said letter is herein pleaded.”
Paragraph
13 reads thus:
“The
Claimant further avers that sequel to Paragraph 12 above, the Claimant was
therefore summarily dismissed from work since the 24th day of
August, 2017, without payment of salaries, other emoluments, gratuity etc.”
40. From the averments in the paragraphs of
Statement of Facts reproduced above, it is apparently clear that Cause of
Action in this suit arose in 2017 when the Claimant was summarily dismissed
from the Service of 3rd Defendant as shown in Exhibit ‘J’ dated the
24th day of August, 2017. However, this suit was filed on 17th
December, 2024, over five years of the period that the Cause of Action arose as
stipulated by Limitation Laws of Oyo State. In other words, the Claimant did
not file this suit until after seven (7) years when the Cause of Action arose
over and above the five (5) years allowed by the law.
41. It should be borne in mind that in cases
of wrongful dismissal, the Cause of Action typically accrues on the date the
dismissal is communicated to the employee. In this respect, see the case of SAKI v. APP & ORS (2019)
LPELR-47703(CA). In the instant case therefore, as pointed out earlier,
from the facts and evidence led, the Claimant’s dismissal was communicated to
her via Exhibit ‘J’ dated the 24th August, 2017. This without doubt
was the date the Cause of Action arose.
42. However, the argument of the Claimant’s
Counsel in their Final Written Address particularly at paragraph 4:03 (i – j)
to the effect amongst other things, that the transaction between the Claimant
and the Defendants in this suit lingers until the 14th day of June,
2023 as confirmed in the letter of Appeal which is Exhibit K and that the date
of filing this suit being 17th day of December, 2024, a period of
less than two years as against the provision of limitation law that stipulates
five (5) years. That the Claimant is within the time frame and never caught up
with the limitation law as at the time of this suit was filed, is to say the
least, misconceived and that does not reflect the correct position of law. The
law is as restated in the case of SAKI
v. APP & ORS (Supra) where Court of Appeal explicitly held that:
“The
times spent to petition the Appeals committee of the party does not stop the time
from running.”
43. Therefore, the correct position of law is
that time begins to run from the moment the Cause of Action accrued and the
fact that a party chose to explore internal resolution mechanisms does not
suspend the statutory period unless a specific law provides otherwise. I so
hold.
Similarly, I refer to the case of UMTH MANAGEMENT BOARD v. HUSSEINI & ANOR (2022) LPELR-72815 Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, JCA at page 14-15, paras.
C-D, where it was held thus:
“Appellant
has argued that the provisions of the Act ought to have applied to prevent the
lower Court from assuming jurisdiction over this matter at trial, based on the
alleged date of accrual of the Cause of Action, which is 24th July,
2017, a date which renders the date the action was instituted, that is: 23rd
January, 2018, a period of six months, which is obviously outside the three
months provided by the Act. The 1st Respondent was however able to
satisfactorily counter this, by stating that the Appellant formally requested
that the 1st Respondent pause any legal action, which to my mind is
a form of admission, an act which pushed the accrual of the Cause of Action
over three months from 24th July, 2017. The foregoing is a
well-known exception to the running of time for the purpose of limitation
period, to the effect that where the tortfeasor admits wrongdoing, the Cause of
Action is revived and time would start running from the date of the latest admission.
This Court recently restated this principle of law in the case of ETIEMONE v.
APINA (2019) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1696) P.557 (Pp. 587-588, paras. G-C) (CA), thus:
“Negotiations do not stop time from running in limitation of action. But where
an admission is made in the cause of the negotiations, the admission revives
the Cause of Action and the period of reckoning would no longer be from the
date of the accrual of Cause of Action but rather from the date the admission
was made.”
See also the cases of OKPA v. OKPA (2013) LPELR 20396; IKOSI
IND. LTD. v. LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT (2017) LPELR-41867.
44. In the instant case, there is nothing
placed before this Honourable Court by the Claimant to prove that there was
negotiation and/or admission of wrongdoing by the Defendants for this case to
fall under the exception. I so hold.
45. In addition, the Claimant’s Counsel
equally submitted in their Final Written Address particularly at paragraph 4.03
(K, L and M) inter alia that the Defendant neither raise the issue of statute
barred in their pleading nor at the trial but only in their Final Written
Address. That the implication of this is that the Defendant has let go the
right of statute barred, if any at all. This submission I must say is
misplaced, as the issue of statute barred being a jurisdictional issue, can be
raised at any time even on appeal for the first time. In this regard, I refer
to the case of OOU v. SALAMI (2022)
LPELR-58116 per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM
ADUMEIN, JCA at pages 5-6, paras. E-C where it was held thus:
“I
wish to state that the issue of whether or not the respondent's action was
statute-barred was not raised in the trial Court. However, an assertion that a
suit is statute-barred is a jurisdictional issue. And the law is now clearly
settled that because of its fundamental nature, the question of jurisdiction
can be raised at any stage of proceedings in the adjudication process. It can
even be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court - the highest Court in
Nigeria. See ISAAC OBIUWEUBI v. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA (2011) 7 NWLR (pt.
1247) 465 AND SENATOR CHRISTIANA N.D. ANYANWU v. HON. INDEPENDENT C. OGUNEWE
& 2 ORS. (2014) 8 NWLR (pt. 1410) 337. To state the obvious, an issue or a
question of jurisdiction can be raised by any of the parties to a case or an
appeal or even suo motu by the Court seized of the case. See ISAAC OBIUWEUBI v.
CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA (SUPRA) AND SENATOR CHRISTIANA N.D. ANYANWU v. HON.
INDEPENDENT OGUNEWE & 2 ORS. (SUPRA).”
Similarly, in the case of NWAKA v. HEAD OF SERVICE, EBONYI STATE & ORS (2007) LPELR-8126 per SOTONYE DENTON-WEST, JCA at page 16-18, paras.
C-E, where court of Appeal again held thus:
“The
crux of the appellant’s argument in this appeal is that the preliminary
objection of the respondents was premature. The respondent on the other hand,
contended that the issue of limitation of action was a jurisdictional issue,
which could be raised at any stage in the proceedings. In the case of RALEIGH
INDUSTRIES (NIG.) LTD. v. NWAIWU (1994) 4 NWLR (pt. 341) 760 at 764, it was
held that once an action is caught up by the Limitation Act, the Courts lack
jurisdiction to entertain it. It is also trite that the issue of jurisdiction
is fundamental to the proper adjudication of any matter or cause before any
Court. Jurisdiction has been defined as the power of the Court to hear and
determine the subject matter in controversy between the parties. See BRONIK MOTORS
v. WEMA BANK (1983) 1 SCNLR 296; ALHAJI ATIKU ABUBAKAR v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF THE FEDERATION & ORS (2007) 6 NWLR (PT 1031) 626 at page 646, para. E;
EZE v. A.-G., RIVERS STATE (2001) 18 NWLR (pt. 746) 524. It is trite that any
pronouncement by a Court without jurisdiction is an act in futility. The
Supreme Court and indeed this Court have through several decided cases made it
clear that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the
proceedings. See EZE v. A.-G., RIVERS STATE (2001) 18 NWLR (pt. 746) 524. It
can also be raised by any of the parties or suo motu by the Court. See AWUSE v.
ODILI (2003) 18 NWLR (pt. 851) 116; FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA v. OSHIOMHOLE
(2004) 3 NWLR (Pt. 860) 305. Limitation of action when properly raised and
successfully proved affects jurisdiction. The appellant admitted this much when
he said: “It is admitted that limitation of action once it has been properly
raised and successfully proved affects the jurisdiction of the Court” I am
therefore of the firm view that limitation of action being an issue of
jurisdiction can be raised at any stage in the proceedings irrespective of
whether or not the action started by way of originating summons, It is also the
law that wherever a challenge is made to the competence or jurisdiction of the
Court to entertain a matter, the Court should deal with the issue at the
earliest opportunity. See TIZA v. BEGHA (2005) 15 NWLR (pt. 949) 616, UNILORIN
v. ADENIRAN (2007) 6 NWLR (pt. 1031) 498, PROF. OLUTOLA v. UNILORIN (2004) 18
NWLR (Pt. 905) 416, (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 245) 1151. I find the appellant's
argument that limitation of action has to be properly raised as misconceived.
So also is his contention that limitation of action “must be specifically
pleaded.” It is the law that limitation of action is matter of jurisdiction and
any act or determination by any Court without jurisdiction is null and void. It
follows, in my view, therefore that limitation of action being an issue that
affects the jurisdiction of the Court can be raise at any stage of the
proceedings irrespective of the nature of the proceedings. See BRONIK MOTORS v.
WEMA BANK (SUPRA); ADEYEMI v. OPEYORI (1976) 9-10 S.C. 31, SHELL BP PETROLEUM
DEV CO. (NIG.) LTD. v. ONASANYA (1976) 1 ALL NLR (Pt. 1) 425. I agree with the
learned counsel for the respondents that they were not obliged to file
counter-affidavit to the appellant’s affidavit in support of the originating
summons before raising their preliminary objection, I am also of the view that
Order 23 Rule 2 of the Imo State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules applicable
to Ebonyi State does not apply in the instant case. In view of the foregoing
therefore, I am obliged to resolve this issue in favour of the respondents.”
See also cases of CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION & ANOR v. AKWA IBOM NEWSPAPER LTD & ANOR (2013)
LPELR-21138 (CA); WAKEMA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, TARABA STATE & ANOR
(2012) LPELR-20853 (CA).
46. In view of the authorities cited above, it
is clear that issue of statute barred is a jurisdictional issue which can be
raised at any stage of the proceeding. Therefore, the argument of the
Claimant’s Counsel to the effect that because the Defendants did not raise
Statute of Limitation in their pleading, cannot do so at the stage of Final
Written Address is not the true position of the law and the said argument is
hereby discountenanced.
47. Before I drop my pen, let me say that from
the facts and circumstances of this case, all the Claimant was busy doing after
being served with Exhibit J, dismissing her from the service of 3rd
Defendant was writing one appeal letter or the other. Of all these letters of
appeal, none was replied by the Defendants. Most especially that letter dated 25th
August, 2017 (Exhibit H) which was received by the 3rd Defendant and
no reply to same. At that time, the Claimant ought to have seen the red flag
and read the handwriting on the wall and act appropriately by approaching this
Honourable Court instead of writing appeal letter to the extent that time ran
out on her. The Claimant, to say the least, was not diligent. She slept over her
right to seek redress. I will say no more but, I sympathize with the Claimant
honestly.
48. To this end, I refer to the case of USENI v. ATTA (2023) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1887) 519
at 560, paras. A-C where Supreme Court held per His Lordship Jauro, JSC
delivering the lead judgment, held thus:
“Where
a suit is statute barred, the Court is prohibited from considering its merit
irrespective of how genuine the Plaintiff’s complaint may appear to be, as the
essence of Limitation Law is not in the lack of a right action, but in the
extinguishing of that right. It follows therefore, that no matter how promising
the case of the Plaintiff may appear to be, once it is statute barred, it is
dead and buried forever. Such a Plaintiff is left with an empty Cause of Action
that is rendered unenforceable.”
See also the cases of AROYANE v. GOV. EDO STATE (2003) 1 NWLR
(Pt. 1866) 549; TOYIN v. MUSA (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1676) 22.
49. In the light of the above, it is my
considered opinion that this suit is statute barred. Consequently, this
Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine same. On that note, I
without further ado, resolve issue one in favour of the Defendants and against
the Claimant. To that extend, I cannot proceed from this stage to consider
issue two, having held that this Court lacks jurisdiction. In the
circumstances, I hereby dismissed this suit in its entirety for being statute
barred.
50. No Order as to cost.
51. Judgment is entered accordingly.
____________________________
Hon. Justice Y. M. Hassan
Presiding Judge.