His Lordship, Hon. Justice O. O. Arowosegbe of the National Industrial Court sitting at Owerri on 6th day of February 2018 dismissed a preliminary objection on jurisdiction in the case of PROFESSOR ALOYSIUS UKACHUKWU AWUZIE v. THE GOVERNOR OF IMO STATE & 3 others.
The suit commenced on 28th August, 2017 via a Complaint. This was accompanied with a Statement of Facts. The reliefs sought among others in the Statement of Facts is A DECLARATION that the 1st Defendant’s Letter dated 17th October, 2015 and Referenced SGI/S.0928/II/X titled TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENT AS VICE CHANCELLOR, IMO STATE UNIVERSITY OWERRI is null and void, invalid, illegal and of no consequential effect whatsoever having been issued without complying with Imo State University Law, the 1999 Constitution and other existing legislations and best Labour practices. [sic]
Against the above, the 2nd and 3rd defendants/applicants brought a motion on notice raising preliminary objecting [PO] to the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the matter. The grounds on which this objection was brought are as listed hereunder:
i. The action as presently constituted is statute barred having been brought outside the time prescribed under Section 2(a) of the Public Officers (Protection) Act, Laws of The Federation, 2004 and contrary to the provisions of section 22(2) of the Imo State University law No. 5 of 2004 as amended.
ii. The Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
After reviewing the argument of both parties, the Court presided by Hon. Jutice O.O. Arowosegbe had this to say:
“However, I must observe that this is a preliminary objection fought strictly on affidavit evidence. Since there is no challenge against the 30/06/17 deposed to as the date the pre-action notice was received in the Vice-Chancellor’s office, I am bound by that date. Based on the above data, the cause of action took effect on the delivery of the termination letter on 26/10/16. The three months stipulation was supposed to expire on 26/01/17, so, the suit struck out, which was filed 16/01/17, was filed within time by a margin of 10 clear days. This suit was struck out on 22/06/17. The second suit, which is the present one, was filed on 30/06/17, being the date the pre-action notice was served; and by section 22(2) of the ISUL, the effective date of any action commenced subsequent to the pre-action notice. When 10 clear days, which the claimant had in his favour, is reckoned with 22/06/17, when the limitation period resuscitated, this action would have become statute barred by 02/07/17. So, when the second action [this action] was commenced on 30/06/17, the claimant was still within time by a margin of two clear days. Arising from my reasoning above, I hold that the suit is not statute-barred by virtue of section 22(2) of the ISUL. Therefore, Issues 2 & 3 are also resolved in favour of the claimant/respondent and against the defendants/applicants.
In consequence of the above, the POs lack merits and are accordingly dismissed in their entirety. The suit of the claimant/respondent is properly before the Court and the jurisdiction of the Court remains intact. The suit shall therefore be heard on the merit, and I so order
For full Ruling, Please click here
