Media
- Home
- Details
Owerri---His Lordship, Hon. Justice O. O. Arowosegbe of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Owerri Judicial Division on Friday 22nd June 2018 in a Judgment delivered dismissed suit filed by CHIEF DR FRIDAY ONUKWUE & 149 ORS against GOVERNOR OF ABIA STATE for being statute barred in accordance with limitation law.
This suit was commenced by way originating summons on 19/06/2017. Later, an undated Amended Originating Summons was filed on 16th February 2018. The reliefs sought in the Amended Originating Summons among others is A DECLARATION that the claimants are entitled to their salaries and allowances for their unexpired tenure of 23 months as elected chairmen, deputy chairmen and councilors of Abia State Local Government Councils for their unexpired tenure 23 months as their colleagues in similar position were adjudged to be entitled to same by the Supreme Court in appeal No. SC.209/2010.
The counsel OGUNBUNKA, DCL admitted that the claimants/respondents were elected for a fixed period of three years running from 2004-2007, and the GOVERNOR OF ABIA STATE (1st defendant) dissolved them on 16th June 2006 and appointed a caretaker committee in their stead. Counsel stated further that some of the dissolved people filed a suit and fought the suit up to the Supreme Court, which gave judgment in their favour on 11th July 2014; and that the present claimants/respondents sat by and did not file any suit challenging their dissolution and were not parties to the one decided by the Supreme Court, and that now, they intend to use the suit won by those who challenged their dissolution as a springboard for their suit. Counsel submitted that as it is, the cause of action arose from the dissolution on 16th June 2006; and as such, the action is statute barred by virtue of sections 18 and 42 of the Abia State Limitation Law, Cap. Counsel finally urged the Court to uphold the NPO and dismiss the suit.
Counsel to the claimant argued that the withholding of the claimants’ 23 months unexpired salaries and allowances is still continuing, and as such, the limitation law did not catch this action.
Counsel argued that, since they claimants have established through credible evidence that they are entitled, like their colleagues, to their salaries and allowances for 23 months, as their colleagues were adjudged to be entitled, the Court is urged to so hold.
Furthermore, the defendant argued further that no pronouncement was made by the Supreme Court on the sums due as allowances and salaries for the unexpired period of the appellants’ tenure and no sum was adjudged as the salaries and allowances due in the Supreme Court’s judgement in issue. On the basis of the above, counsel finally urged the Court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.
After reviewing the argument, processes filed and the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice O. O. Arowosegbe expressed thus;
“…In whatever way one looks at it, the cause of action herein is not a continuing one. Computing the five-year limitation period, the cause of action arose and ceased either on the anniversary of 16th June 2006 on 16th June 2011 or at the anniversary of their assumption of office 2004 at 2009.
“It is not in dispute that the present claimants were not parties to the suit, the judgment of which this present action is allegedly based. It is also not in dispute that this action is claiming salaries and allowances, forming part of the consequential orders in the Supreme Court’s case in issue. However, it is not correct law that a judgment cannot give rise to a cause of action as submitted by the counsel to the objectors.
“The present suit is purely one brought to litigate rights that inhered in the claimants and had been left in limbo till they were caught up in the web of limitation law. The suit is not one brought on any judgment or to execute any judgment as it were to attract the provisions of Part 3 of the LLAS. It follows that Part 3 of the LLAS is not relevant to this case.
“The present claimants are claiming exactly the same rights as those of the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court’s case; so, their rights of action arose from the same set of facts and time. The present claimants and the plaintiffs/appellants in the Supreme Court’s case all had their tenure truncated the same day and without being paid off.
“This means the cause of action of the present claimants relates back to the time the cause of action of the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court’s case arose. So, in whatever way one looks at it, the present suit, which is instituted well above the five-year limitation period, is caught by section 18 of the LLAS; and therefore, statute-barred.
“On the final note, the NPO succeeds in part. I hereby dismiss this suit for being statute barred.
For Full Judgment, Click Here
