IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT IBADAN

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J. D. PETERS

 

DATE: 13^TH MAY 2026           

SUIT NO: NICN/IB/12/2025

 

BETWEEN

Mr. Afonja Babatunde Richard                                                    -                              Claimant         

                                                                        

AND

1. The Executive Governor of Oyo State

2. Head of Service, Oyo State Government

3. Chairman, Oyo State Universal Basic Education 

    Board, (OYO SUBEB)                                                                       -                   Defendants

REPRESENTATION 

Chief P. O. Alamu with O. R.  Ajayi for the Claimant

K. B. Ayangbade SSC with A. S. Alao, SC MoJ, Oyo State for the Defendants

 

 

RULING

1.         Introduction

1.         The Claimant approached this Court by his General Form of Complaint on 21/2/25 along with his statement of facts, witness statement on oath, list and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial and sought the following reliefs –

1. A Declaration by the Hon Court that the purported summary dismissal of duty of the Claimant with Oyo State Government contained in a letter with Reference No: SUBEB/G1680/246 and dated the 24^th August 2017 addressed to the Claimant by one B. T. Ogunjimi for Executive Chairman, the 3^rd Defendant is null and void, ineffectual and unlawful by reason of the effusion of time, gross irregularity, lack of reasonable cause, denial of natural justice and non-compliance with the Oyo State Civil Service Commission Regulation Part 6, sections 36, 39, 41, 48, 49 & 56. Laws of Oyo State, 2000.
2. An Order of the Honourable Court setting aside the said letter with Reference No: SUBEB/G1680/246 and dated the 24^th August 2017 by which the Defendants purportedly dismissed the Claimant.

 

 

3. A Declaration that it is only the office of the Head of Service that can exercise disciplinary and dismissal power on the Claimant being a Level 12 Officer as at the time of his unlawful dismissal and not the office of the 3^rd Defendant, thereby rendering the query issued by the 3^rd Defendant on the Claimant null, illegal, ultra vires, unlawful and does not have basis for being issued contrary to Section 0300103 of the Oyo State of Nigeria Public Service Rules Volume 1 of 2013.
4. A Declaration that the query which emanated from the office of the 3^rd Defendant was not precise and to the point, and the length of time given to the Claimant was not reasonable time within to respond to the query. Thereby not complying with section 030307 and section 030303 of Oyo State of Nigeria Public Service Rules Volume 1 of 2013.
5. A Declaration that the purported criminal allegation of illegal promotion of teachers and overloading of teachers’ salaries levied against the Claimant, cannot be deliberated upon by the Panel of Enquiry on Alleged Financial Malpractices at Universal Basic Education Board such that there exists a real likelihood of bias, and the Claimant will not get fair hearing.
6. A Declaration that the Claimant is not saddled with the responsibility of illegal promotion of Teachers and overloading of Teachers’ salary and therefore cannot be alleged and or dismissed for an offence which he cannot commit.
7. A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to remain and continue in employment of the Oyo State Universal Basic Education Board (OYO-SUBEB).
8. An Order of this Honourable Court setting aside the purported summary dismissal of the Claimant and restoring all his rights and benefits; including the right to collect all his outstanding salaries and his right to continue in the employment of Oyo State Universal Basic Education Board, (OYO-SUBEB) until he attains the age of retirement as prescribed by the law or until he is otherwise earlier retired on ground of ill-health or other lawful cause.
9. An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendants to reinstate the Claimant to his rightful post and pay all his outstanding salary arrears and allowances from the 24^th August 2017 when he was summarily dismissed.
10. An Order for the payment of General Damages to the Claimant by the Defendants.
11. An Order for the payment of cost of this action.

2.         The Defendants entered an appearance and filed their defence processes to this suit on 10/6/2025 including statement of defence, list of witnesses, witnesses’ statements on oath as well as list and copies of documents to rely on at trial. After the parties settled their pleadings, the Court on 23/7/2025 directed them to address it on its jurisdiction to hear and determine this case.

 

2.         Addresses of learned Counsel

3.         In response to the direction of the Court for parties to address it on whether this suit is competent, learned Counsel to the Claimant filed a 6-page address in which he set down 2 issues for determination thus –

 

1.         Whether this matter has been caught by Limitation Act.

2.         Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain this matter.

 

4.         In arguing the first issue, learned Counsel submitted that this case is not caught by Limitation Act; that Limitation Act is not applicable to contract of appointment in civil service and that the contract of service in a civil appointment is actionable at any point in time citing NRAMFAC v. Ajibola Johnson (2019) NWLR (Pt. 1656); that the transaction between the parties is continuous one where there has been continuous negotiation and political maneuvering between the parties. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to resolve this issue in favor of the Claimant.

5.         On the second issue, learned Counsel submitted that this Court is clothed with jurisdiction in a matter when there is a cause of action and the Court is competent; that this Court is properly constituted, and the Judge is not disqualified for any reason citing Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1062)2 SCNLR 341. Counsel added that this case commenced with due compliance with process and procedure. Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favor of the Claimant and assume jurisdiction in this matter.

 

6.         K. B. Ayangbade of Counsel to the Defendants filed a 12-page address as directed by the Court. It was dated and filed on 9/12/2025. In it, Counsel set down a lone issue for determination thus – 

 

Whether in the circumstances of this suit, this Honourable Court has the jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit.

 

 7.        In arguing this issue, learned Counsel submitted that jurisdiction is the legal capacity of a Court to hear and determine judicial proceedings citing Nsirim v. Amadi (2016)15 NWLR (Pt. 1504) 42 & Britania U. (Nig.) Ltd v. Seplat Petroleum Development Co. Ltd (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 1503) 541 at 602; that it is trite that where the law provides for the commencement of an action within a specified period after the cause of action has accrued proceedings shall not be brought after the prescribed period has elapsed citing Ibeneme v. Bayelsa State Government (2020)5 NWLR (Pt. 1717) 189 at 201 & Sylvia v. INEC (2015)16 NWLR (Pt. 1486) 576.

 

8.         Learned Counsel submitted that this case is barred by section 18, Limitation Law of Oyo State Cap 76 Vol. III, Laws of Oyo State, 2000; that the word used in that section of the statute is shall indicating its mandatory nature citing Agip (Nigeria) Ltd v. Agip Petroleum International (2015)5 NWLR (Pt. 1187) 348 at 419 & CIL Risk & Asset Management v. Ekiti State Government (2020)12 NWLR (Pt. 1738) 203. Counsel stated that the cause of action of the Claimant accrued on 24/8/2017 while he filed his suit on 21/5/2025and that the limitation period of 5 years provided by section 18, Limitation Law of Oyo State has elapsed; that in recent times, the Supreme Court has held in a number of cases that statutes of limitation is applicable to contracts of employment citing Michael Idochaba & Ors v. University of Agriculture, Makurdi & 4Ors (2021)11 NWLR (Pt. 1787) 209, Anolam v. FUTO (2025) (Pt. 1984) 673-676 & Okoronkwo v. INEC (2025)8 NWLR (Pt. 1991) 131; that an action barred by the statute becomes extinct and cannot be revived citing Useni v. Atta (2023)8 NWLR (Pt. 1887) 519 and that the proper order for the Court to make in the instant is one of dismissal. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss this suit.

3.         Decision

9.         The case of the Claimant as revealed by his pleadings is that he was employed by a letter dated 25/2/2000 as Higher Executive Officer and rose in rank to the position of Principal Executive Officer; that certain allegations of financial malpractices were levelled against him for which he was issued a query and also appeared before a Panel of Enquiry and was subsequently dismissed by a letter dated 24/8/17 and that his letters of appeal were not favorably considered. The Defendants, on the other hand, denied any liability to the Claimant. The Court, on 3/12/2025, directed the parties to address it on the competency of this suit.

 

10.       I read and understood the address filed by Defendants. Jurisdiction is an essential component for the Court to exercise its adjudicatory powers over a cause or matter. By jurisdiction it means the legal capacity to activate the adjudicatory power of a Court to make intervention in a cause or matter. It is either a Court has jurisdiction to act as such or it does not have it. Jurisdiction is conferred usually by a statute. Parties cannot confer power on a Court to hear their matter if that Court is not conferred with the power to act as such. Thus, it is imperative for a Court to be sure it has power to preside over the parties as well as their dispute before doing so. If a Court does not have jurisdiction whatever efforts dissipated by the Judex becomes efforts in futility irrespective of the erudition and the genuine desire of the presiding Judicial Officer to dispense justice between the parties. Where therefore a Court is apprehensive as to whether it has jurisdiction over a cause or matter or parties, the most appropriate step to take is to direct the parties to address the Court accordingly.

 

11.       When a litigant contends that the suit against him is barred by the statute, it raises question as to the competency of the suit before the Court. It is also a challenge to the Court before which the suit is filed to exercise its judicial power over the parties and the suit. The point was made earlier on, and I repeat same here that once a Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine a cause or matter, it is immaterial the erudition and the genuine intention of the Judex, any effort dissipated in resolving same is an effort in futility. Now in a matter of this nature, it is imperative for the Court to first find out when the cause of action arose. This is determined by looking at the date when the Claimant’s cause of action accrued; find out the date when the Claimant filed his suit and compare same with the period allowed by the statute. By paragraph 11 of his statement of facts and paragraph 13 of his witness deposition, Claimant attested to the fact that he was disengaged from service by the 1^st Defendant by a letter dated 24/8/17. This fact is also reflected in the reliefs sought against the Defendants. It means therefore that from the date Claimant was served the letter of dismissal, the cause of his action against the Defendants had arisen. It means also that the period began to count from that date within which he was to approach the Court for redress. Now, how long did the Claimant have to file his action within the confines of the statute? Learned Counsel to the Defendants cited Section 18, Limitation Law of Oyo State, 2000. The legislation provides that –

“No action founded on contract, tort or any other action not specifically provided for in Parts 2 and 3 of this Law shall be brought after the expiration of five years from the date on which the cause of action accrued”.

 

12. I have read all the submissions of learned Counsel, especially on the prevailing state of the law on the application of the statute of limitation to employment matters. The position of the prevailing leading appellate decisions is that the statute of limitation applies to a case of this nature. The Supreme Court so held in Micheal Idachaba & Ors v University of Agriculture, Makurdi & 4 Ors (2021) LPELR- 53081 (SC). Again, the apex Court maintained and reaffirmed the same position in Dr. Moses U. Anolam v. The Federal University of Technology Owerri (FUTO) & Ors (2025) LPELR-80027(SC) delivered on 17/1/25. The facts which were not contested were that in 1989, the Appellant became a Lecturer in the 1^st Respondent's institution established by the Federal University of Technology Act. In the course of his employment, the Appellant was alleged to have without authorization levied a fee of =N=500 (Five Hundred Naira) on all the students of his Department. The 1^st Respondent discovered same and queried the Appellant and was subsequently asked to appear before two administrative Panels set up by the 1^st Respondent. The Appellant was indicted for gross misconduct hence his employment was terminated on the 21^st day of February 2003.

 

13.       Dissatisfied with the termination of his employment by the 1^st Respondent, the Appellant having lost in the 2 Courts below appealed to the Supreme Court. One of the issues the Court had to consider was whether the Statute of Limitation, such as the Public Officers Protection Act, is applicable to contract of employment with statutory flavor. The Court per Stephen Jonah Adah JSC considered the provisions of the relevant legislation and held quoting Aba Aji JSC in Mr. Michael Idachaba & Ors. v. The University of Agriculture, Makurdi (2021) LPELR-53081 (SC) inter alia -

“By the above provision, they appellants were by law supposed to institute their grievances, if any, within 3 months of the purported termination of their employment. It is noted that the cause of action arose supposedly on 30/4/1999. Thus, the appellants' action was maintained only within 3 months after the cause of action arose. In all actions, suits and other proceedings at law and equity, the diligent and careful actor or suitor is favoured to the prejudice to him who is careless and slothful, who sleeps over his rights. The law may therefore deny relief to a party who by his conduct has acquiesced or assented to the infraction of his rights or has led the opposite party responsible for or guilty of such infringement to believe that he has waived or abandoned his right. See Per GALADIMA, JSC, in INEC v. Ogbadibo Local Govt. & Ors. (2015) LPELR - 24839 (SC) (PP. 30 -31, Para. D). It is therefore trite that where the law prescribes a period for instituting an action, proceedings cannot be instituted after the prescribed period." This decision makes it settled that the Public Officers' Protection Act is applicable to issues of employment with statutory flavour such as the employment of the appellant in the instant case."

 

14.       Again, in Chukwuka Okoronkwo v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2025) LPELR-80425(SC) delivered on 7/2/25 the Appellant was employed by the Respondent in 1989 as an Administrative Officer. In January 1997, he was appointed an Electoral Officer by the Respondent and posted to Anambra State. On September 13, 1997, he was suspended from work by the Respondent. In an action commenced at the Federal High Court in April 2000 challenging his suspension, the Claimant had sought inter alia (i). Declaration that the purported suspension of the plaintiff and confirmed in Defendant's correspondence Ref NECON/AN/P.59/90 of 13^th September 1997 from the service of the Defendant is wrongful, ultra vires, null and void and of no effect whatsoever, (ii). Declaration that Plaintiff is entitled to be continued in his employment in the service of the Defendant uninhibited by the letter of suspension and (iii). Declaration that Plaintiff is entitled to his salary, promotion and other emoluments and benefits from 13^th September 1997. By an Amended Statement of Defence thereof, the Respondent denied the claim and equally raised a preliminary objection, thereby challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit.

 

15.       The trial Federal High Court entered Judgment in favour of the Appellant, thereby granting all the reliefs sought. On an appeal the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. In a further appeal to the Supreme Court, the apex Court was to determine among others (i). Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in law to have discountenanced the fact that in the circumstances, the Appellant's suspension was a continuing injury or damage as stipulated under Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act Cap 379 Laws of Federation of Nigeria 1990 and not limited to the date of the letter of suspension - 13^th day of September, 1997 only, and in so doing held that the Appellant's cause of action is statute barred & (ii). Whether the Public Officers Protection Act Cap 379 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 applies to a cause of action founded on breach of contract of service/employment and as a corollary, whether the failure/omission of the Court of Appeal to determine the application or otherwise of the said limitation law did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.

 

16.       The Supreme Court per Jummai Hannatu Sankey, JSC held emphatically that by the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, 1990 (which has replica provisions as Section 18, Limitation Law of Oyo State under consideration). His lordship held that –

 

“…it is mandatory for any action commenced against any public act by a public officer to be so commenced within three months from the date of which the cause of action arose. In juxtaposition to the instant case, the Appellant commenced this action at the trial Court in April of the year 2000, essentially challenging his suspension by the Respondent. The said suspension occurred on 13-09-1997. Contrary to the argument of the Appellant that the cause of action is one that is continuing in nature, the cause  of action apparently arose on the 13-09-1997. Thus, the Appellant's suit ought to have been commenced three months from that date and not beyond. In other words, the action is statute barred."

 

17.       The Claimant chose to file this action outside the five-year period of accrual of his cause of action. The position of the law is that where a Claimant who might have had a legitimate cause of action brings such an action outside a limitation period created by statute, the action is statute barred and he loses his right to enforce the cause of action by Judicial process because the period of time laid down by the limitation law for instituting such action has lapsed. It is worthy of note, as the Court of Appeal pointed out in Bernard Nwobele & Ors v. Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (2023) LPELR-60151(CA) that the importance of statute of limitation which is founded on the principles of equity and fairness is to prevent a sleeping or an indolent Plaintiff to wake up at his own peril to commence a suit or action against a Defendant. In the case of Abdulrahman v. NNPC (2020) LPELR-55519 (SC) where the apex Court of the land had to consider Section 12 (1) of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Act, the Court had espoused that -

 

“Statute of limitation is a law that bars claim after a specified period. It is a statute which establishes a time limit for swing in civil cases based on the date the claim accrued. The purpose of such a statute is to require diligent prosecution of known claims thereby providing finality and predictability in legal affairs. The purpose of limitations, like equitable doctrine of lashes, in their conclusive effects are designed to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber”.

 

18.       The cause of action of the Claimant arose in 2017. Claimant has 5 years within which to seek judicial intervention. For reasons best known to him or his Counsel or both, he waited for almost 8 years before approaching this Court for intervention. This action is barred by the statute and unfortunately this Court cannot help the Claimant. The effect of an action that is statute barred is that it renders the action barren, sterile, incompetent and the Court is robbed of the exercise of its judicial powers. 

 

19.       The sole issue for determination is whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this case. I resolve same against the Claimant and in favor of the Defendants. I hold that the case of the Claimant is caught by the Limitation Law, Laws of Oyo State.  Having been filed outside the period allowed by the statute this action becomes incompetent, barred by the statute and the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain same. I thus dismiss the case of the Claimant for lack of jurisdiction.

4.         Conclusion

20.       Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Ruling, the case of the Claimant is dismissed. 

 

21.       I make no order as to cost.

  

22.       Ruling is entered accordingly.

 

___________________

Hon. Justice J. D. Peters

Presiding Judge