His Lordship, Hon. Justice I. S. Galadima of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Owerri Judicial Division on Thursday 24th May in a ruling dismissed application challenging the jurisdiction of this court to hear the suit in case of MR. ISHMAEL NNA & Anor Vs. RIVERS STATE GOVERNMENT and 5 ORS
for being statute barred for lacking merit and ordered matter to proceed to hearing.
The Defendants, as Applicants, filed this application on the 19th of February, 2018 questioned whether this Court has jurisdiction to try a matter which is allegedly statute barred. In their opinion, this matter is statute barred because it was filed 14 years after the cause of action arose. Their Counsel, T.O. Ishmael – Fibs said that this action was filed on the 12th of November, 2013 whereas the action arose in 1999. That by Section 16 of the Limitation Law of Rivers State (Cap. 80) 2004, no action founded on contract, tort etc shall be brought after the expiration of five years from the date the said cause of action arose.
In their response, learned Counsel appearing for the Claimants responded to the sole issue raised by the Applicants by stating that the application is misconceived.
He said this case is distinguishable from the circumstances of those cases cited in that these Claimants never ceased working for the Defendants and it is impossible to say their employment was terminated thereby. He said that this Court should look at the originating processes filed before it in arriving at a decision one way or the other.
In particular, this Court is enjoined to consider that since July 1999 to date, these Claimants have not been paid their salaries and although they have made several entreaties to the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism to explain their predicament, they have been continuously assured that their situation shall be resolved.
From the facts of the case, it is accordingly easy to see that these Claimants’ salaries have been withheld since July 1999 and this means from thence up to the time their services will be terminated, the wrong done to them is continuous. That the burden of proving that the claimants’ individual contracts of employment were terminated, lie with the Applicants.
After reviewing the argument of the parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice I. S. Galadima expressed thus;
"I have considered the application and the response made against it. I have equally read through the entire processes and authorities relied upon by both Counsel. In deed, the question to determine is whether this action is time barred both under the Rivers State Limitation Law (Cap.80) 2004 and under Section 2 (a) of POPA. It is a matter that rocks the jurisdiction of a Court and thus its importance cannot be overemphasized.
I do not find any document indicating they were terminated formally by the Defendants and I find it quite un convincing to accept for now, that since their employment was temporary, there were deemed to have been dismissed from their employment when their salaries were stopped since July, 1999.
Given the above reasoning, I am more inclined to believe the Claimants/Respondents that their cause of action is not time-barred since the injury they complain of which is in the form of unpaid salaries, allowances and or benefits, is of continuous nature. It is therefore my pronouncement that their cause is not in infringement of Section 2 (a) of POPA or Section 16 of the Rivers State Limitation Law of 2004.
For the sake of clarity and based on the foregone premise, this application is hereby refused and the same is accordingly dismissed.
The matter shall continue with the hearing of the Claimants’ witnesses which is the stage so far reached in the determination of this here suit.
