Media
- Home
- Details
Kaduna---His Lordship, Hon. Justice E.D.E. Isele of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Kaduna Judicial Division on Thursday 5th July 2018 in a ruling dismissed suit filed by INSPECTOR BAITA DUNIYA (Rtd) against POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION and 3 others for being statute barred in accordance with public officer protection act.
The claimant commenced this suit by way of complaint dated the 22nd day of September, 2017. By the complaint and statement of facts, the claimant is seeking the following reliefs among others; A DECLARATION that the claimant having been retired on medical ground is entitled to all medical benefits as approved in the 2nd defendant’s letter No. SB.4770/DFAT.4/256 dated 11-8-1994. A DECLARATION that the claimant is entitled to injury compensation in accordance with the 2nd Defendant’s directives in his letter No. SB.4770/DFAT.4/256 dated 11-8-1994 having been retired as a result of injury sustained while on duty.
The fact of the case from the statement of facts is that the claimant was with the Nigerian Police Force since 8th day of October, 1961 and rose to the rank of Inspector. He was posted to Sabon Gari Division Headquarters and was detailed as a specie escort with the defunct Savannah Bank.
However, on the 27th day of August, 1986, the claimant while on duty with some other police men and 4 staffers of the bank, they were conveying money from Ideal Flour Mills, Kaduna Bye-pass to the bank’s branch at Ali Akilu Road, Kaduna when they had an accident.
The claimant was eventually retired on health ground as a result of the accident.
The defendants filed a motion on notice praying for AN ORDER of this Honourable Court dismissing the suit on the ground of it being statute barred/stale as it did not comply with the Statute of Limitation in respect of preliminary objection.
On whether the applicants’ NPO is not defective, counsel submitted that the applicants’ application is defective because the stamp used expired on the 31st day of March, 2016, citing Rules 9(1), (2) and (3) of Rules of Professional Conduct, 2007 CAP 211 LFN, 2004. It is the respondent’s contention that it is upon fulfillment of the above provision that will give a counsel a right to be heard in a court of law urged the court to dismiss the applicants’ NPO.
After reviewing the argument, processes filed and the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice E.D.E. Isele expressed thus;
“It is clear from the case file, that the claimant filed this suit on the 25th day of September, 2017. Between when the cause of action arose (11th August, 1994) and when this complaint was filed is a period of 23 years.
“The claimant waited for over 23 years to act; to say that he was indolent is an understatement.
“The exception canvassed by the claimant/respondent’s counsel will therefore not avail him. And I so hold.
“Based on the above statement and judicial authorities, I find and hold that this suit is statute barred, having been caught by the provisions of Section 2a of POPA.
“The NPO has merit, it succeeds and this suit is hereby dismissed.”
For Full Ruling, Click here
