Flash: Industrial Court Dismisses Suit Against Minister of Communication & 2 ORS for Statute Barred

• 1916 Thursday 22nd March 2018

 

His Lordship, Hon. Justice Sanusi Kado of Abuja Judicial division of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria in a rulling/judgment delivered on Thursday 22^nd March, 2018 dismissed suit against The Hon. Minister Of Communication & 2 ORS for being statute barred.

 

The Claimant AKPANSONUSONG UDOUK commenced this action via a Complaint dated 12^th day of August 2017 and filed on 11^th day of August 2017, at the Registry of this Court in Abuja Judicial Division.

 

Upon being served with the Originating Court processes, the 1^st Defendant filed a notice of Preliminary objection dated and filed on 29/8/2017, praying for an order striking out this suit for being incompetent and for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the Originating Processes is not in conformity with the Rules of this Honourable Court and the action is statute barred by reason of section 2(a) of the Public Officers (Protection) Act, 2004.

 

It is to be noted that the Claimant separately filed counter-affidavit to each of the two notices of preliminary objections.

 

Counsel to the defendants contended that the Claimant could not be expected to complain when there was no act, neglect or default done to him. Because there is no way the Claimant would have known that his appointment has been terminated when there was no letter conveying such development to him.

 

However, Claimant Counsel contended that the letter dated 9 February 2016, in which the Claimant was directed to 'stop work' without any justifiable cause and against Public Service Rules of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is not the main act, neglect or default being complained of.

 

According to Counsel it is the letter of stop work that culminated in the act, neglect, default being complained of in the present action. Counsel submitted that the substratum or the fulcrum of this action is the termination of the claimant's appointment which took effect on 12^th May, 2017. Counsel submitted that the cause of action accrued on 12^th day of May 2017 when the Claimant signed and collected the letter of termination.

 

After reviewing the arguments of both parties, the presiding judge, Hon. Justice Sanusi kado expressed thus;

 

I have carefully considered all the processes filed and the submissions of Counsel for the parties in respect of the objections of the Defendants to the competency of this suit. Some of the issues raised by Counsel for the parties coincide with each other.

 

However, it is to be noted that no matter how well intentioned, zealous or highly desirous a court may be to do substantial justice to the parties; it can only do so within the confines and limits of the law. In other words the court cannot go out of its way as circumscribed by the relevant and applicable law to do what it may consider substantial justice.

 

Any party approaching the Court for determination of his right or alleged violation of right must ensure that he complied with well-established principles of law. It is in this wise that I hold that the objections of the Defendants are not on technicality.

 

The essence of pre-action notice, is to notify the person or agency entitled to it of grievance of the person concerned. However, it must be understood that its non-compliance does not abrogate the right of a plaintiff to approach the court or defeat his cause of action.

 

In law, in determining the date when time begins to run in respect of statute of limitation it is the pleading of the Claimant that the Court is bound to consider and not extraneous evidence. In this case the date as provided in the pleading of the Claimant is 31^st day of March 2017, see paragraph 8 of the statement of claim and this action was instituted on 11^th day of August 2017. If time is calculated from 31^st day of March 2017 to 11^th day of August 2017, is four Months eleven days.

 

This clearly shows that this action was instituted outside the three Months allowed by section 2(a) of the Public Officers (Protection) Act. The letter attached to counter-affidavit cannot be relied upon in determining date when time starts to run. This is due to the fact that in an application of this nature it is the claim as contained in the originating processes commencing the suit that the Court is allowed to consider in determining the application, since the objection is based on law and not facts. This suit is therefore statute barred. I so hold. This suit is hereby ordered to be dismissed for being statute barred.

 

Click Here… to read full Judgment.

 

Share Via WhatsApp