Media
- Home
- Details
Abuja---His Lordship, Hon. Justice Z. M. Bashir of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Abuja on Friday 22nd June 2018 in a ruling/judgment struck out suit filed by ADENIYI OLUSOLA OJONGBEDE against INDEPENDENT CORRUPT PRACTICES AND OTHER RELATED OFFENCES COMMISSION for being statute barred in accordance with Public Officers Protection Act.
This suit was commenced by a general form of Complaint filed on 1st July, 2015. The Claimant sought against the Defendant among others; A DECLARATION that the Defendant’s refusal or failure to recall or direct the Claimant to resume work after he had been discharged by a Court of competent jurisdiction of criminal allegations levelled against the Claimant by the Defendant is unlawful, unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect whatsoever likewise AN ORDER directing the Defendant to immediately compute and pay to the Claimant all his salaries, emoluments, allowances, bonuses and all other benefits due to him from November 2003 till date.
The Defendant counsel I.S. Ezeana Esq. filed a notice of preliminary objection for An order of this Hon. Court striking out the suit of the Plaintiff/Respondent for lack of jurisdiction to entertain same by the Hon. Court On The grounds that the entire reliefs sought in this suit are statute barred and the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Counsel contended that in the exercise of its mandate to fighting corruption. Somewhere along the line, even before the confirmation of the appointment of the Plaintiff/Respondent, the Defendant/Applicant received a complaint that the Plaintiff/Respondent was making demands of bribe in order to compromise a case he was handling. The Defendant/Applicant arranged a “sting operation”, and the Plaintiff/Respondent was caught red handed in the mission to collect bribe. He was charged to Court and the case was firmed out to an external solicitor to prosecute on behalf of the Defendant/Applicant.
Counsel further stated that from the Claimant’s position, as can be clearly seen from his complaint and statement of facts filed before this Court, his cause of action against the Defendant arose from activities that took place between 2003 and 2009 and having failed to bring this action within 3 (Three) months of the accrual of the cause of action, the action is time barred by virtue of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act.
Counsel argued that it is also of utmost importance to state that contrary to the Claimant’s assertions, the criminal charge against him has not been terminated, since he was only discharged for want of diligent prosecution, and not acquitted on the merits.
In addressing the sole issue, Learned Counsel A.I. Aderogba Esq. foremost submitted that the law is settled beyond peradventure that the limitation of action in Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act does not apply to contracts, breach of contracts, and, recovery of land or land related matters and claims for work and labour done.
Upon a careful consideration of the foregoing and after examining the grounds of the Preliminary Objection and painstakingly considered the submissions of both Counsel in their respective written addresses and the reply on point of law. the Court Presided by Hon. Justice Z. M. Bashir expressed thus;
“…In this regard, I have stated clearly that the cause of action was the disallowance of the Claimant from resuming work or refusal to recall the Claimant by the Defendant. Consequent upon that, the first opportunity to perform the act of recalling by the Defendant came up on the 8th of December, 2009. This means that from the day the Claimant informed the Defendant that he has been discharged by the High Court of FCT and the Defendant disallowed him from working, the cause of action accrued and the opportunity to approach this court arose. The refusal can only happen once, it has no capacity for a renewal or a continuance and I so hold that the injury is not a continuous one within the provision of section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act.
“In the final analysis, I find the preliminary objection as raised by the Defendant to be competent and same is hereby upheld. Consequently, this suit is hereby struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
For Full Ruling/Judgment, Click Here
