Media
- Home
- Details
Kano ---His Lordship, Hon. Justice E. D. E. Isele of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Sitting in Kano on Wednesday 31st October 2018 in a judgment dismissed the suit filed by MALLAM HANNAFI MUSA MORIKI against ECOBANK NIGERIA LIMITED challenging his dismissal from work for being statute barred.
The Claimant commenced his action by the Writ of complaint filed on the 18th of July 2018 sought against the defendant among others; A Declaration that the dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant from its services vide its letter of dismissal is in violation of the contract between the parties, it is therefore invalid, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. A Declaration that the Claimant was not given fair hearing, and An Order of this Honourable Court setting aside the letter of dismissal of the Claimant.
It is the case of the Claimant that he was a staff of the defunct Gamji Bank of Nigeria Plc and at all times material to this action was at the Sokoto Market Branch of the said Bank. That with the recapitalization of Bank in Nigeria Gamji Bank was merged with/was taken over by the defunct International Trust Bank plc, which later merged with/taken over by the defunct Oceanic Bank Plc. And that the defunct Oceanic Bank Plc later merged with/was taken over by the Defendant Ecobank Nigeria Limited.
It is the case of the Claimant that with the merger/take over the Defendant carried the assets and liabilities of the defunct Bank. That he was an employee of the Defendant and was it’s Sokoto Market Branch Manager until when his appointment was wrongly terminated by the Defendant.
He averred that shortly after commendation the Defendant served him with a letter of query which he replied, which the Defendant admitted that it was a mistake on the part of the Claimant and dismissed him without inviting him to appear before the committee that reviewed the case. He maintained he was not given fair hearing by the Defendant and his dismissal, not in accord with the contract between the parties and therefore null and void.
The Defendant in denying the claim of the Claimant admitted the face in the series of mergers/takeovers leading to the Defendant Bank. But insisted that it did not acquire the assets and liabilities of Gamji Bank neither did it have any link with the said bank.
In the written address of the Defendant, the Defendant raised a preliminary objection that the suit is statute barred and ought not to be entertained by the court but should be struck out. That employment is a simple contract and by law, any action arising from a perceived or actual breach of simple contract must be commenced within 6 years when the cause of action arose. That the applicable limitation law to Sokoto State, where the cause of action arose according to the pleadings of the claimant is the provision of the limitation law 1966 claims of Northern Nigeria.
In response to the preliminary objection, the claimant conceded that any action that is statute barred robs the Court of Jurisdiction to hear same as it was the law. The claimant also conceded further that he was dismissed in 1992. That the question now was having admitted the claim of the claimant could the Defendant now turn round to raise a preliminary objection?
After reviewing the argument of both parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice E. D. E. Isele expressed thus;
“Where a party admits a claim that is statute barred, the defence is no longer available to him. Here I found that the claimant did not submit any legal authorities to back up his submissions. I hold that this failure did not help his case. I would even go further to state that failure to cite the authorities by the claimant on those points might be due to the fact that none on the points may exist in the face of authorities.
"No doubt for more than 25 years or even 19 years given the 6 years period within the limitation law to have filed this action.
"The action I find and do hold is one that had become stale. It is the law that the main purpose of the limitation period is to protect a defendant from the injustice of having to face a stale claim.
"In the premises of the above reasons and authorities, I hold that the suit is statute barred and is hereby dismissed." Justice Isele Ruled
