IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
                        IN THE PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION
                                    HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURT
 
                                    BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP:

 HONOURABLE JUSTICE BUHARI SANI…….. JUDGE
 
                                                                         SUIT NO. NICN/PH/98/2023
 
                        ON THURSDAY THE 14^TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.
 
 BETWEEN:
 
 MR. LOUIS ORITSEGBEMI JEMIDE (for himself and as representing the Beneficiaries of the Estate of Late MR. OMATSEYE ORITSEMAJEMITE JEMIDE)……………………………………………………………CLAIMANT.
 AND
 CISCON NIGERIA LIMITED…………………………………..DEFENDANT.
 

 
JUDGMENT

 
 The Claimant commenced this action by way of a Complaint and accompanying processes filed on the 25th day of October, 2023. The Claimant also filed a Statement of Facts, Affidavit in Verification of Complaint, Witness Statement on Oath, and List of Documents to be relied upon at trial.
 
 By the Complaint and Statement of Facts, the Claimant sought the following reliefs against the Defendant:
 
i. A Declaration that the Defendant's act of withholding the Late Mr. Omatseye Oritsemajemite Jemide's accrued salary, and terminal benefits/entitlements for over 7 years now, is an unfair labour practice and illegal.
 
 ii. An Order of Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N516,547.04 being the aggregate of respective sums unilaterally deducted from the Late Omatseye Jemide's monthly salary of May, June, July, and August, 2015, same having been deducted by the Defendant without the Deceased's consent or authorization.
 
 iii. An Order of Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the total sum of N1,873,979.24 being 4 months' accrued salary owing to the Late Omatseye Jemide as at the date of his demise.
 
 iv. An Order of Court directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of N506,172.27 only, (computed at the Late Mr. Omatseye Jemide's one month's Basic Salary, plus one month's Transport Allowance) being the Deceased's annual Leave Allowance entitlement, with respect to year 2015.
 
 v. An Order of Court directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of N5,580,226.56 only, being the cumulative of the Late Omatseye Jemide's Long Service Compensation per the Defendant's Staff Manual, computed at the monetary equivalent of the Deceased's 2 months', 4 months', and 6 months' Basic Salary, for employees who reached the work milestones of 5 years, 10 years and 15 years in service, respectively.
 
 vi. An Order of Court directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of N16,740,679.68 only, being the Late Mr. Omatseye Jemide's terminal benefits computed as 36 months of the Deceased's Basic monthly salary (i.e. N465,018.88 X 36); the Late Omatseye Jemide having served the Defendant meritoriously for over 15 years before his demise, which sum is payable to the Deceased's estate.
 
 vii. An Order of Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N13,663,651.65 only, being Gratuity payable to the Late Omatseye Jemide, computed at 150% of the Deceased's monthly gross salary, multiplied by 15, the deceased having served the Defendant for over 15 years.
 
 viii. An Order of Court awarding damages in the sum of N10,000,000 against the Defendant for its failure to pay the Late Omatseye Jemide's accrued salaries/entitlements for over 7 years, contrary to its own Staff Manual, and despite repeated demands thereto.
 
 ix. An Order of Court awarding in the Claimant's favour, the sum of N19,966,330.08 only as damages/compensation for negligence, and or breach of the Claimant's employment contract to insure the Late Omatseye Jemide under the Defendant's Group Life insurance as statutorily required, and as stipulated in the Defendant's Staff Manual, and or for neglecting to ensure the said payout.
 
 x. The sum of N1,000,000.00 only, being cost for this action.
 
 xi. An Order of Court awarding a 10% interest on the emerging/cumulative judgment sum, till same is fully liquidated by the Defendant.
 
 The Defendant entered a Memorandum of Conditional Appearance on the 26th day of February, 2024. Subsequently, the Defendant filed a Motion on Notice dated 26th February, 2024, and a Statement of Defence dated 5th March, 2024. The Claimant filed a Reply to the Statement of Defence dated 13th March, 2024, and a Further Witness Statement in response to the Defendant's Statement of Defence.

The Defendant’s Motion on notice was argued by parties, and the Order of this Court, the ruling on the Motion was adjourned to be delivered along with the main judgment. This is because the Motion is challenging the jurisdiction of this Court. The procedural requirement that an issue of jurisdiction should be resolved first does not mean that it must be treated separately. It can be taken along with the arguments on the merits of a case. The important thing is that the Court should first express its views on the issue of jurisdiction before considering the merits of the case. The advantage of such proceeding is that in the event of, an appeal by any of the parties, it is easy by the appellate Court to express its views on the the decision of the lower Court as to jurisdiction and the merit of the case, and thereby remove the necessity for two appeals; the one as to the jurisdiction of the Court, and the other as to the merit of the case. Seed the case of Senate President V. Nzeribe (2004) 9 NWLR (pt.878) 251.

Accordingly, I shall proceed to first determine the issue of jurisdiction contained in the Motion on notice filed by the Defendant before deciding the substantive case.
 
 THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION ON NOTICE.
 
 The Defendant/Applicant filed a Motion on Notice dated 26th February, 2024, it was brought pursuant to Section 16 of the Limitation Law No. 7 Cap 80 Laws of Rivers State 1999; Order 18 Rule 2(2) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2016, and under the inherent jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
 
 The Defendant/Applicant sought the following relief:
 
 AN ORDER of Court dismissing this suit for want of jurisdiction as the action is statute-barred.
 
 In response to the Motion, the Claimant/Respondent filed a Counter-Affidavit dated 29th February, 2024, and a Written Address in support of the Counter-Affidavit. The Defendant/Applicant subsequently filed a Reply on Points of Law dated 4th March, 2024.
 
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION.
 
 From the Motion and the various processes filed, the sole issue for determination in the Motion is:
 
 Whether this suit is statute-barred having been commenced after the lapse of the period prescribed by statute for initiating such an action.
 
 SUMMARY OF WRITTEN ADDRESSES IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION.
 
 The Defendant/Applicant argued that by virtue of Section 16 of the Limitation Law of Rivers State, which provides that;

 "No action founded on contract, tort or any other action not specifically provided for in Parts 1 and 11 of this Law shall be brought after the expiration of five years from the date on which the cause of action accrued." 

The Claimant's action is statute-barred. Counsel referred to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Claimant's Statement of Facts and submitted that the cause of action accrued in March 2016 when the Order of Court obtained by late Mrs. Omawumi Jemide-Lawal was served on the Defendant, and the Defendant allegedly failed to pay the entitlements. The suit was filed on 25th October, 2023, a period of more than 7 years after the cause of action accrued. Counsel relied on Mercantile Bank of Nig. Ltd v. FETECO (Nig) Ltd (1998) 2 NWLR (Pt 540) 143 at 156-157, INEC v. Ogbadibo Local Government (2015) LPELR-24839 (SC) , and Frozen Foods (Nig) Ltd & Ors v. Estate of Oba John Agbola Ojomo & Ors (2022) LPELR-37813 (SC) to establish that where an action is statute-barred, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it.
 
 The Claimant/Respondent, on the other hand, submitted that limitation laws no longer apply to contracts of employment, relying on the decision in NRMAFC & 2 Ors v. Ajibola Johnson (2019) 2 NWLR (pt. 1656) 247 at 270-271, and the decisions of this Court in Lilian Nnenna Akumah v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc (Suit No. NICN/LA/402/2018) and Mr. Godson Ikechukwu Nkume v. First Bank of Nigeria Ltd (Suit No. NICN/LA/553/2018) .
 
 The Claimant also argued that Exhibit A to the Counter-Affidavit (Defendant's letter dated 18th November, 2021) constitutes an acknowledgment of debt, which revives the cause of action, citing National Universities Commission v. Oluwo (2001) 3 NWLR (Pt. 699) 90. Furthermore, the Claimant contended that gratuity and pension entitlements are protected by Section 173(1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), and limitation laws do not apply to such claims, citing Abdulrahman v. N.N.P.C. (2021) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1791) 405 and this Court's decision in Elfridah Asak v. Access Bank Plc & Anor (Suit No. NICN/PH/58/2019) .
 
 The Defendant/Applicant, in a reply on points of law. argued that in determining the issue of jurisdiction, the Court must look only at the originating processes (Complaint and Statement of Facts) and not at the Counter-Affidavit or Exhibit A attached thereto, relying on Nigeria Airways Ltd v. Mahdi (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt 1417) 32 and Lau v. PDP & Ors (2017) LPELR-42800(SC) .
 
 On the applicability of limitation laws to contracts of employment, the Defendant contended that NRMAFC v. Johnson (supra) decided that Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act does not apply to cases of contract, not that limitation laws generally do not apply to contracts of employment. The Defendant argued that the Limitation Law of Rivers State is a specific statute made for limitation of actions, and it applies to simple contracts.
 
RULING ON THE MOTION
 
 The facts giving rise to this Motion are not in serious dispute. The Late Mr. Omatseye Oritsemajemite Jemide was an employee of the Defendant from 1st March, 2000 until his demise on 22nd January, 2016. The Claimant is the younger brother of the deceased and the holder of Letters of Administration over the deceased's estate.
 
 In paragraph 7 of the Statement of Facts, the Claimant averred that the late Mrs. Omawumi Jemide-Lawal obtained a Customary Court Order on 23rd March, 2016, authorizing her to administer the estate of the deceased, and that this Order was served on the Defendant in March 2016. The Claimant further averred that the Defendant failed, neglected, and/or refused to pay the Late Omatseye Jemide's entitlements despite repeated demands.
 
 The present action was commenced on 25th October, 2023, which is over seven (7) years after March 2016 when the cause of action allegedly accrued.
 The Defendant contends that by virtue of Section 16 of the Limitation Law of Rivers State, any action founded on contract must be brought within five (5) years from the date the cause of action accrued. Since the cause of action accrued in March 2016 and the suit was filed in October 2023, it is statute-barred.
 
 The Claimant contends that limitation laws no longer apply to contracts of employment following the Supreme Court decision in NRMAFC v. Johnson (supra) , and that in any event, the acknowledgment of debt in 2021 revived the cause of action.
 
I must acknowledge that there have been decisions of this Court, such as Lilian Nnenna Akumah v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc SUIT NO. NICN/LA/402/2018, and Mr. Godson Ikechukwu Nkume v. First Bank of Nigeria Ltd SUIT NO. NICN/LA/553/2018, which held that limitation laws do not apply to contracts of employment. Those decisions were premised on the interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision in NRMAFC v. Johnson (2019)2 NWLR (Pt.1656) 247 .
 
 However, I critically examined the true ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court's decision in NRMAFC & 2 Ors v. Ajibola Johnson & Ors (2019) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1656) 247. In that case the Supreme Court was considering whether Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act (POPA) applies to cases of contract. At page 270, the Court stated:
 
"There is no doubt, a careful reading of the respondents' claim will show clearly that it is on contract of service. It is now settled law that section 2 of the Public Officers Protection Act does not apply to cases of contract."
 
 It is important to note that the Public Officers Protection Act is not a general limitation law; it is a special statute that provides protection to public officers for acts done in the execution of public duty, with a limitation period of three months. The Supreme Court merely reiterated the established exception that POPA does not apply to breach of contract cases. See also the cases of FGN v. Zebra Energy Ltd (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) 162; Nigeria Ports Authority v. Construzioni General Farsura Cage Far Spa (1974) 1 ALL NLR (Pt. 2) 463.
 
 The decision in NRMAFC v. Johnson (supra) did not purport to overrule or render inapplicable the general limitation laws of the various States of the Federation, including the Limitation Law of Rivers State, which specifically govern actions founded on simple contract.
 
 The Supreme Court has consistently affirmed the applicability of limitation laws to contracts of employment. In Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Prince Nwokocha Ezikpe & Anor (2026) LPELR-83353(SC) , the Supreme Court per GARBA, JSC, stated:
 
"Section 8(1)(a) of the Limitation Law of Lagos State provides that all civil actions to be filed, initiated or commenced in a Court of law which arose from or are founded on simple contract between the parties, shall not be filed, initiated or commenced after the expiration of six (6) years from the date the cause of action accrued to the claimant or party aggrieved. After the expiration of the period of the six (6) years from the date the cause or right of action accrued, the commencement or initiation of any such action is statutorily barred, prohibited and rendered invalid in law."
 
 See also Ethiopian Airlines v. Polaris Bank Limited (2025) 6 NWLR 451, where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that actions founded on simple contract are subject to limitation periods.
 
 On the issue of whether negotiation or acknowledgment of debt can revive a statute-barred action, Section 28(7) of the Limitation Law of Rivers State provides:
 
"Subject to subsection (6), a current period of limitation may be repeatedly extended under this section by further acknowledgements or payments, but a right of action once barred by the Law shall not be revived by any subsequent acknowledgement or payments."
 
 This provision is clear and unambiguous. Once a right of action is barred by the expiration of the limitation period, no subsequent acknowledgment or part payment can revive it. In this case, even if the Defendant's letter of 18th November, 2021 constituted an acknowledgment of debt, the cause of action had already become statute-barred by March 2021 (five years after March 2016). Therefore, the acknowledgment in November 2021 cannot revive the action.
 
On the argument that gratuity and pension entitlements are protected by Section 173 of the 1999 Constitution, that provision relates to pension rights in the public service of the Federation. The deceased was an employee of a private limited liability company, not a public servant. The Supreme Court in Okoronkwo v. INEC (2025) 8 NWLR 133 reiterated the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius the express mention of one thing is the exclusion of another. Section 173 expressly refers to "public service," and therefore does not apply to private employment. See Abdulrahman v. N.N.P.C. (supra) , where the employment in question was with NNPC, a public corporation.
 
 The law is well settled that in determining whether an action is statute-barred, the Court must look at the originating processes that is the Complaint and Statement of Facts alleging when the wrong was committed which gave the Claimant a cause of action, and compare that date with the date on which the action was filed. See Egbe v. Adefarasin (No. 2) (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 47) 1; Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Ezikpe (supra) ; Ethiopian Airlines v. Polaris Bank (supra) .
 
 From paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Statement of Facts, the cause of action accrued in March 2016 when the Customary Court Order was served on the Defendant and the Defendant allegedly failed to pay the deceased's entitlements. The suit was filed on 25th October, 2023, a period of over seven (7) years.
 
 Section 16 of the Limitation Law of Rivers State, Cap. 80, Laws of Rivers State 1999, provides:
 
"No action founded on contract, tort or any other action not specifically provided for in Parts 1 and 11 of this Law shall be brought after the expiration of five years from the date on which the cause of action accrued."
 
 This provision applies to contracts of employment. The decision in NRMAFC v. Johnson (supra) did not hold otherwise; it only held that the Public Officers Protection Act does not apply to breach of contract cases.
 
 The consequence is that the Claimant's action is statute-barred. A statute-barred action is dead, and the Court is robbed of jurisdiction to entertain it. As stated by Aniagolu, JSC in Lasisi v. A.G. Oyo State (1982) 4 SC at 56:
 
"What is there to try when the statute has provided that the period allowed for bringing an action in which those facts which have been in issue has expired? Absolutely nothing."
 
 Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Therefore the Motion on Notice dated 26th February, 2024, is hereby GRANTED. This suit is DISMISSED for being statute-barred.
 
 Having found that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit by reason of the action being statute-barred, this Court should not proceed to determine the substantive case on the merits. However, for the avoidance of doubt, and being a Court of first instance to which in case of appeal, an appellate Court would have the opportunity of both the ruling and merit of the case, this Court shall address the substantive claims.
 
 The Claimant's case as presented in the Statement of Facts and the Witness Statement of Mr. Louis Oritsegbemi Jemide is that his late brother, Mr. Omatseye Oritsemajemite Jemide, was employed by the Defendant from 1st March, 2000 until his demise on 22nd January, 2016. The deceased allegedly collapsed at the Defendant's office premises on 18th January, 2016, was treated at Shawand Medical Centre (the Defendant's sister company), and died on 22nd January, 2016.
 
 The Claimant averred that the deceased was on Grade Level GE/10 with a monthly gross pay of N607,273.41. The Claimant contended that the Defendant owed the deceased four months' accrued salary (October 2015 to January 2016) totalling N1,873,979.24; made unauthorised deductions from the deceased's salary in May, June, July and August 2015 totalling N516,547.04; failed to pay the deceased's annual leave allowance for 2015 in the sum of N506,172.27; failed to pay Long Service Compensation totalling N5,580,226.56; failed to pay terminal benefits of N16,740,679.68; failed to pay gratuity of N13,663,651.65; and failed to ensure the payment of Group Life Assurance benefit of N19,966,330.08.
 
 The Claimant tendered several documents in evidence, including the Letters of Administration (Exhibit C1), Death Certificate (Exhibit C2), Defendant's Staff Manual 2009 (Exhibit C8), Pay-slips (Exhibit C7), and the Defendant's letter of 5th April, 2016 (Exhibit C12).
 
 The Defendant, on the other hand, while admitting that the deceased was its employee, denied liability for the bulk of the claims. The Defendant contended that the Staff Manual 2009 (Exhibit C8) was amended by a Town Hall Meeting held on 27th May, 2014, as evidenced by the Minutes of Meeting (Exhibit D1). The Defendant argued that by this amendment, terminal benefits were to be calculated from the time of employment to 2012 using 60% of the staff basic salary.
 
 The Defendant further contended that the late Mrs. Omawumi Jemide-Lawal, the initial administrator of the deceased's estate, was paid part payment of N2,803,822.52, and that the total terminal benefit computed was N8,411,467.55, with a balance of N5,607,645.03. The Defendant argued that the deceased's representative signed the computation sheet (Exhibit D5) as full and final payment.
 
 The Defendant called one witness, Mr. Briggs Wali, the Administrative and Human Resources Supervisor of the Defendant, who testified in line with the Statement of Defence.
 
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION IN THE SUBSTANTIVE CASE.
 
 From the pleadings and evidence adduced, the following issues arise for determination in the substantive case:
 
 1. Whether the Claimant has the locus standi to bring this action on behalf of the estate of the deceased.

 2. Whether the Defendant's Staff Manual 2009 (Exhibit C8) was validly amended by the Town Hall Meeting of 27th May, 2014 (Exhibit D1).

 3. Whether the deceased's entitlements are governed by Exhibit C8 or as amended by Exhibit D1.

 4. Whether the Claimant has proved his entitlement to the reliefs sought.
 
 SUMMARY OF PARTIES' FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESSES.
 
The Defendant filed a Final Written Address contending that the suit is statute-barred, that the Claimant lacks locus standi, that the Staff Manual was amended, that the terminal benefits were fully computed and partly paid, and that the Claimant is estopped from claiming additional sums.
 
The Claimant filed a Final Written Address, argued that limitation laws do not apply to contracts of employment, that the Claimant has locus standi by virtue of the Letters of Administration, that the purported amendment of the Staff Manual was not communicated to the deceased and cannot have retroactive effect, and that the Claimant has proved his claims.
 
 COURT'S DECISION ON THE SUBSTANTIVE CASE.
 
 The central dispute in this case revolves around the proper construction of the contractual relationship between the deceased employee and the Defendant employer. The Claimant relies on the Defendant's Staff Manual 2009 (Exhibit C8) as the governing document. The Defendant contends that the Staff Manual was amended by a Town Hall Meeting in 2014.

On Locus Standi: The Claimant is the holder of Letters of Administration over the estate of the deceased, issued on 11th October, 2023 (Exhibit C1). By virtue of Order 11 Rule 1(a) & (b) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, the legal representative of a deceased person may bring an action on behalf of the estate. The Defendant's argument that the Claimant lacks locus standi because the late Mrs. Omawumi Jemide-Lawal authorized Miss Itse Jemide to deal with the matter is of no moment. The Letters of Administration supersede any informal authorization. The Claimant has locus standi. He holds valid Letters of Administration (Exhibit C1) over the estate of the deceased. The fact that the late Mrs. Omawumi Jemide-Lawal may have authorized another person to act does not invalidate the Claimant's subsequent grant of Letters of Administration by a competent court. The Defendant's argument on this issue is unmeritorious and is hereby dismiss.
 
 
 On Issue 2, the Amendment of the Staff Manual:

 The law is trite and therefore settled that parties are bound by the terms of their contract of employment. In Seven-Up Bottling Co. Plc v. Ajayi (2007) LPELR-8765(CA) , the Court held:
 
"It is well stated in many authorities that a condition of service is the bedrock upon which an aggrieved employee must found his case. Therefore, in a matter of contract of service the court will not look outside the terms as stipulated or agreed to therein to decide the rights of the parties."
 
 See also Katto v. CBN (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt. 607) 390; Ovivie & Ors v. Delta Steel Co. Ltd (2023) LPELR-60460(SC) .
 
  In Olusanya v. UBA Plc (2017) LPELR-42348 (CA) , the Court held that any modification of an employment contract, whether through collective agreements or other means, must be explicitly incorporated into the contract to be enforceable. Section 7(4) of the Labour Act stipulates that any change in the terms of employment must be documented and communicated to the employee.
 
 On Retroactive Application of Policy Changes: This Court in Ekeoma Ajah v. Fidelity Bank Plc (Suit No. NICN/LA/588/2017) held that the retroactive application of a policy variation will be ineffective against an employee where it divests the employee of accrued benefits because "the court does not protect retroactive action capable of denying accrued benefits."
 
 The Defendant relies on Exhibit D1, the Minutes of the Town Hall Meeting of 27th May, 2014, to argue that the Staff Manual 2009 was amended. This Court finds that Exhibit D1, even if it represented a decision of the Defendant, does not constitute a valid amendment of the employment contract between the Defendant and the deceased for the following reasons:
 
 (i) There is no evidence that the deceased attended the said meeting or was notified of the decisions taken therein.
 
 (ii) There is no evidence that the deceased consented to the said amendments.
 
 (iii) The purported amendment seeks to have retroactive effect, reducing benefits that had already accrued to the deceased based on his years of service before 2013.
 
 As held in Ekeoma Ajah v. Fidelity Bank Plc (supra) , the Court does not protect retroactive action capable of denying accrued benefits.
 
 On Issue 3: Since the purported amendment is ineffective, the employment relationship between the Defendant and the deceased is governed by the Defendant's Staff Manual 2009 (Exhibit C8). The provisions of Exhibit C8 are binding on both parties.
 
 On Issue 4: Having found that Exhibit C8 governs the employment relationship, this Court would have proceeded to assess the Claimant's claims based on the provisions of Exhibit C8. However, by reason of the earlier ruling that this suit is statute-barred, the Court does not proceed to make final determinations on the specific reliefs.
 
 Nevertheless, the Court observes that the Defendant's own letter of 5th April, 2016 (Exhibit C12) to the Agbarah District Customary Court listed the benefits due to the deceased as including:
 
 · Terminal Benefit due from CISCON Nigeria Limited - N8,411,467.55
 · Group Life Assurance Benefit - N19,966,330.08
 
 Furthermore, the Defendant's letter of 18th November, 2021 (Exhibit D2) acknowledged the outstanding terminal benefit of N5,607,645.03.
 
 These documents suggest that the Defendant itself acknowledged obligations to the deceased's estate. However, as the action is statute-barred, the Court cannot enforce these obligations.
 

In   Conclusion this Court finds in the substantive case that:
 
 (i) The Claimant has locus standi to bring this action.
 
 (ii) The purported amendment of the Staff Manual via the Town Hall Meeting of 27th May, 2014, is ineffective as against the deceased employee for want of communication and consent, and being retroactive in effect.
 
 (iii) The Defendant's Staff Manual 2009 (Exhibit C8) governs the employment relationship between the Defendant and the deceased.
 
 (iv) The Claimant, in the substantive case, is entitled to judgment based on the provisions of Exhibit C8, subject to proof of the specific computations.
 
 Finally for the reasons stated in the ruling on the Motion, this Court finds that the Claimant's action is statute-barred, having been commenced outside the five-year limitation period prescribed by Section 16 of the Limitation Law of Rivers State, Cap. 80, Laws of Rivers State 1999.
 
 The Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit. The suit is hereby dismissed and all other reliefs sought by the Claimant are accordingly refused.

Parties to bear their respective costs.
 
 This is the judgment of the Court.

                                  HON. JUSTICE BUHARI SANI.

                                                          JUDGE.
 
 
 

LEGAL REPRESENTATIONS:
 
 Innocent Egbetule, Esq., ………………………… for the Claimant.
 Osmond U. Nwanya, Esq.,………………………… for the Defendant.