Media
- Home
- Details
Abuja – His Lordship, Hon. Justice Sanusi Kado of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Abuja, has dismissed the suit filed by Mrs. Miriama Okparaeke against Attorney-General of Enugu State and 3 others for being statute barred, incompetent and un-maintainable in law.
The court held that it took the claimant 21 years to bring the matter against the period of 5 and 6 years within which an action founded on contract or recovery of sum can be instituted in line with the provisions of section 18 of Limitation Law of Imo State and section 20 of Action Law of Enugu State.
Vide a general form of complaint filed on 18th April 2018, the claimant claimed against defendant among others; An order setting aside the purported dismissal of the plaintiff by the 1st defendant pursuant to the letter of disengagement of staff dated 10thMarch 1997 as unlawful, irregular and a flagrant violation of the plaintiff’s right of employment until the mandatory retirement age.
Likewise, An order of this court compelling the defendants to pay to the claimant all her retirement benefits which include her pension and gratuities calculated from 1971 when she commenced her service to 2006 being the year she attained the mandatory retirement age of 35 years.
The defendant filed a notice of preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the matter, dismissing the suit for being statute barred and for non-disclosure of any reasonable cause of action against the Attorney General Imo State -2nd defendant on the grounds that By the provision of section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act that the action has become stature barred.
It was the submission of counsel that nowhere in the statement of facts or witness statement on oath did the claimant show that 2nd defendant or any agency of Imo State Government did any wrong that led to her disengagement from the service of Enugu State Government on 10th March 1997 as alleged.
It was the submission of counsel that from 10th March 1997 when the act complained of in this suit was done to the 18/4/18 when this action was instituted is a period of more than three Months as provided in section 2(a) of the Public Officers Act.
In reply, counsel contended that the 2nd defendant was joined to ensure he is bound by the outcome of the suit that claimant was in the service of the 2nd defendant for 13 years before she was transferred to the Attorney-General of Enugu State -1st defendant.
Counsel submitted that the provisions of section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act do not operate in glaring disregard to the rights of persons as enshrined in the constitution that the provision cannot protect a public officer who acted in abuse of his office.
After careful evaluation of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides, the Court presided by Hon. Justice Sanusi Kado held that claimant has disclosed cause of action against the 2nd defendant regarding the number of years in which the claimant served Imo State.
“Based on the foregoing decisions of the apex court of the land, I am left with no option than to hold that since this is an action based on the contract of service, the provision of the Public Officers Protection Act is not applicable to this case.
“The provisions of section 2(a) of Public Officers Protection Act, laws of the federation relied upon by the 2nd defendant in raising this objection does not apply to the 2nd defendant being a state functionary. In the case at hand, it is the Imo state Public Officers Protection law that applies to public officers of the state.
“The provisions of section 18 of Limitation law of Imo State and section 20 of Action Law of Enugu State clearly prescribed 5 and 6 years period within which an action founded on contract should be instituted or an action for recovery of any sum under any enactment.
“It will be seen that it took the claimant 21 years to institute this action this is clearly in violation of the provisions of section 18 of Limitation Law of Imo State and section 20 of Action Law of Enugu State.
“The claimant in this suit has by her refusal to timeously bring an action, thereby allowing her rightful claim to become stale. This is sad as there is nothing the court could do to assist the claimant due to her own delays.” Justice Kado rules
The court dismissed the suit for being statute barred.
