Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Representation: <o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">K.C.O. Njemanze SAN with N.C. Ohakwe, B.A. Ajonumah and U. C. Njemanze (Miss), for the Claimants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">S.E. Ibechem, Deputy Director Civil Litigation, Ministry of Justice Imo State, for the Defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:8.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">RULING<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the 4th day of February 2015 the Claimant filed this complaint against the Defendants seeking the following reliefs: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The sum of <s>N</s>80,110,912.5 (Eighty Million, One Hundred and Ten Thousand, Nine Hundred and Twelve Naira, Five Kobo) being unpaid severance gratuity, accommodation and security allowances due and payable to the Claimants from the Defendants as members of the Imo State House of Assembly between May 2007 and June 2011, which the Defendants have failed, refused and/or neglected to pay despite repeated demands.</span><o:p></o:p></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Interest on the aforesaid sum at the rate of 10% from the date of judgment until the judgment debt is liquidated.</span><o:p></o:p></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Defendants/Applicants on the 23rd day of </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">September 2015, filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection brought pursuant to Section 2 of the Public Officers Protection Act and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, challenging the Court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate on the present suit and urging for the dismissal of the Claimants’ suit. The grounds for the objection are as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.75in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">i.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">This suit is statute barred.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.75in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">ii.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">This suit does not disclose any reasonable cause of action.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.75in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">iii.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">This suit is speculative, frivolous, vexatious and therefore an abuse of process of <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.25in; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.25in;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.75in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">iv.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">The Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain same.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">The Notice of preliminary objection was supported by a 5-paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Queen C. Unas, a civil servant in the Imo State Ministry of Justice. In the written address in support, Counsel to the Defendants proposed three issues for determination, namely:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Whether this suit is not statute-barred and therefore incompetent, having regard to Section 2(a) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Whether by their pleadings the Claimants disclosed any valid cause of action against the Defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Whether this suit is not speculative, frivolous, vexatious and therefore an abuse of process of Court.<o:p></o:p></span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.25in; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">In arguing Issue No 1, the Defendants contended that this suit as initiated is statute-barred on the ground that it was commenced after the time prescribed by Section 2 of the Public Officers’ Protection Act. By this section, any suit against public officers shall be commenced within three months next after the act, neglect, or default complained of. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Citing the authority of <b>CBN vs. Ukpong (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt. 998) 555</b> and <b>Ibrahim vs. JSC Kaduna (1998) 14 NWLR (Pt.548) Pg. 1 at 44</b>, counsel submitted that a Public Officer has been held to include an artificial person, public body or body of persons, corporate or incorporate, statutory bodies or persons. From the above submission, counsel argued that all the Defendants on record are public officers. Counsel further argued that the subject matter of this suit borders on the alleged non-payment of severance gratuity, accommodation and security allowances. Counsel further argued that the payment of these allowances constitutes part of the public functions of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> defendants. It is the opinion of counsel that it is common knowledge that the allowances paid to public workers are usually built into their monthly salaries. Furthermore, the alleged reviewed accommodation and security allowances were for the months of June 2007 to May 2011 when the Claimants were members of the House of Assembly, and the severance gratuity allegedly due at the end of their tenure which ended in June 2011. Also, the Claimants alleged that the security allowances claimed was captured in the 2011 Appropriation Law of Imo State which lasts for one fiscal year January-December 2011.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The cases of <b>Okenwa vs. Military Governor Imo State (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt. 507) 157 at 167</b> and <b>IKURIE vs. EDJERODE (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 745) 446</b> were cited by Counsel to buttress the principle that it is the Claimant’s claim that determines the question of the Court’s jurisdiction. From the Statement of facts in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11, the alleged entitlements of the Claimants were due at the end of May 2011 while the suit was filed on 4 February, 2015, more than four years after the cause of action arose. See <b>Adigun vs. Ayinde & ors (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 313) 516 at 534</b>. It is counsel’s further submission that this action was not commenced within three months of the alleged act, neglect, or default complained of by the Claimants as prescribed by </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Section 2 of the Public Officers’ Protection Act. It is therefore statute barred and incompetent. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The court was therefore urged to so hold, and dismiss this suit on the authority of <b>Egbe vs. Adefarasin (No.2) (1987)1 NWLR (Pt. 47) 1</b> and <b>Owners of the MV Arabella vs. NAIC (2008) 11 NWLR (Pt.1097) 182 at 219.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In arguing issue No 2, it was the submission of counsel on the basis of the decisions in <b>Adepoju vs. Afonja (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt. 363) 437 at 453-454</b> and <b>Bello vs. A.G. Oyo State (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 45) 282</b> that a cause of action is the factual situation that gives rise to a judicial relief. He argued that it is the writ of summons and statement of claim that are considered by the court in determining whether the present suit discloses a reasonable cause of action. See <b>A.G. Federation vs. Abacha (2011) All FWLR (Pt.566) 445 at 467-468</b> and <b>Arabambi vs. Advance Beverages Industries Ltd. (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 295) 581</b>. Counsel submitted that the Claimants’ Statement of Facts as well as the Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission Remuneration Package (subsequently referred to Remuneration Package) do not disclose a reasonable cause of action in the Claimants’ favour. It is Counsel’s further submission that the Remuneration Package is a mere recommendation on expenditure of state funds subject to its possibility of being passed into law. Therefore, no relief can be validly based on such recommendation without same being enacted into law as the legitimate entitlements of the Claimants. See Section 120(4) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Further, counsel referred to pages 52 to 55 of the Remuneration Package. In particular, at paragraph 6.5 of page 53 the said Remuneration Package provides as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">“The total cost may still be less since the state and local government tiers are also empowered to approve the recommendations of the Commission to them based on their ability to pay” <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel submitted that the Claimants did not aver in their pleadings that the said Remuneration Package has been enacted into Law to show that they are entitled to the allowances as required by the law. See <b>Amobi vs. Nzegwu (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 297) 1087</b>. From the foregoing arguments, counsel is of the opinion that the Defendants have not breached any of the Claimants’ rights. Thus, there is no cause of action accruing to the Claimants against the Defendants. Furthermore, the Claimant’s averment in paragraph 10 of their Statement of Facts that they are entitled to the sum of Seven Million Naira (<s>N</s>7,000,000) each, relying on the Remuneration Package. At page 40 of the Remuneration Package under “security” were stated the letters “TBP” which were interpreted at the foot of the table to mean “to be provided in kind”. Counsel submitted that the Claimants did not disclose in their pleadings that the alleged security allowance claimed in this suit was determined and recommended by the Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission. The Claimants did not indicate that the amount claimed as captured in the 2011 Appropriation Bill did not exceed the amount determined by the Commission. On the basis of the foregoing, Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Defendants and dismiss this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On issue three, counsel submitted that the allowances are built into their salaries and the details are reflected in their pay slips between the months of June 2007 and May 2011 to show as they were entitled to the allowances claimed. Counsel adopted his earlier submissions and further submitted that this suit is speculative, frivolous, vexatious and therefore an abuse of court process. Counsel urged the Court to dismiss this suit with exemplary cost. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In opposition to the notice of preliminary objection, the Claimant on the 16<sup>th</sup> day of October 2015 filed an 8-paragraph counter affidavit and a written address wherein three issues were raised for the determination of the court: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether this Honourable court has the jurisdiction to entertain and determine this matter having regard to the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether the Claimant’s action discloses a reasonable cause of action.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether this suit constitutes an abuse of court process.<o:p></o:p></span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In arguing issue one, the Claimant submitted that before the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act can avail a person, two conditions must be met:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.75in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(i)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The person must be a public officer<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.75in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(ii)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The act done by the person in respect of which the action was commenced was an act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of law or public duty or authority. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Relying on the authority of <b>Hassan vs. Aliyu (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1223) 547 at 621</b>; <b>Ibrahim vs. JSC Kaduna State (1998) 14 NWLR (Pt. 584) 1 at Pg. 32</b> and <b>Moyosore vs. Gov. Kwara State (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1293) 242 at 284-285</b> the Claimant submitted that in certain circumstances, the limitation law will not avail the public officer. Where for instance the public officer acted without legal justification or acted unlawfully or in bad faith or abuse of office or indeed outside the colour of his office, the protection would not avail such an officer. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">To the Claimant, the failure or refusal to pay him his legitimate entitlements for work done as determined by the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission, a body set up by the constitution, cannot be said to be an act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of a law, public duty or authority. It was submitted further that the Defendants are constitutionally bound to pay remuneration of public office holders, and the Defendants have not shown any legal justification for the failure or refusal to pay the entitlements as fixed by the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission. The acts of the Defendants are therefore clearly outside the scope or colour of their office, as well as unjustifiable, illegal and unconstitutional.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant submitted further citing <b>FGN vs. Zebra Energy Ltd. (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) 162 at 196-198</b>, <b>Osun State Government vs. Dalami Nigeria Ltd (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1038) 66</b> and <b>NPA vs. Construzioni Generali (1974) All NLR (Pt. 2) 945</b>, that the Public Officers’ Protection Law does not apply in cases of recovery of land, breaches of contract or for claims for work and labour done. And that the Claimants’ claim is for work and labour done as a legislator, and therefore cannot be caught up by the statute of limitation.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In arguing issue two, the Claimant defined cause of action to mean a bundle or aggregate of facts which the law recognizes as giving the Claimant a substantive right to make the claim for the reliefs or remedy being sought. He referred to the authorities of <b>Adepoju vs. Afonja (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt. 363) 437 at 453-454</b>; <b>Akilu vs. Fawehinmi No. 2 (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 102) 122</b> and <b>Unijos vs. Ikegwuoha (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1360) 478</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">To determine whether a suit discloses a cause of action, he submitted that the court has to look at the writ or complaint and the statement of claim or facts alleging the wrong or breach, when the wrong or breach was committed which gave rise to the cause of action. He submitted further that the statement of facts show that the severance gratuity and allowances are due and payable by the Defendants; and that the Defendants failed, refused and neglected to pay despite repeated demands, therefore the Claimant has a right of action. Even if the Claimant has a weak case, it will not mean that he does not have a cause of action. See <b>A.G. Federation vs. A. G Abia State (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 725) 689</b>. The court was urged to hold that this suit discloses a reasonable cause of action.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In arguing issue three, the Claimant submitted that an abuse of court process is said to exist when a party improperly uses the judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent; such as instituting multiplicity of actions, or when the process of court has not been used bona fide or properly. See <b>UITH vs. OROBOKO (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt. 434) 36.</b> The Claimant’s Counsel submitted that this suit was instituted in a proper court, as the NIC is empowered by Section 254C (1)(a) of the Constitution to handle matters of this nature. Counsel concluded by urging the court to dismiss the objection.<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Court Decision<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">The Defendants have urged this court, in the preliminary objection, to dismiss this suit for being statute barred. In the affidavit in support, it was averred that the sum claimed by the Claimant in this suit was due for payment between June 2007 and May 2011 and the severance gratuity was alleged to be captured in the 2011 budget of Imo State. The 2011 budget was for one financial year which is the period between January 2011 and December 2011. That the Claimants filed this suit 4 years after their cause of action arose. In his written address, the learned counsel for the Defendants submitted that the Defendants are public officers and this action was not instituted against them within 3 months from the date of the cause of action as required by Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act. The suit is as a consequence statute barred and should be dismissed. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Claimants in opposition to the Notice of Preliminary Objection, the Claimants did not deny the fact that their suit was not filed within the period prescribed in the Public Officers’ Protection Act. The fact averred by the Claimants in defence of the objection is that the Claimants’ suit is simply for debt recovery which debt the Defendants have not denied owing to the Claimants. Based on these averments, the Claimants counsel submitted in his written address that the Public Officers’ Protection Act does not apply to the Claimants’ suit as their claim is for work or labour done and the Defendants cannot be protected by the Public Officers’ Protection Act because they acted outside the colour of their statutory office when they refused to pay the sum to the Claimants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Section 2 (a) of POPA is to the effect that an action against a public officer in respect of any act done in pursuance or execution of any Act or law or of public duty or any default in respect same must be commenced within 3 months from the accrual of the cause of action except in the case of continuance of the damage or injury in which the complainant must institute the action within 3 months after the cessation of the damage or injury. Where the suit is not commenced within 3 months from the date of the cause of action, the action will be statute barred and the court will no longer have jurisdiction on the suit. See <b>IBRAHIM vs. JSC KADUNA STATE (1998) 14 NWLR (Pt. 584) 1 at 36; EGBE vs. ALHAJI (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 128) 599; NTUKS vs. N.P.A (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1051) 392. <o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:red"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">In this application, it is not disputed that the Defendants are public officers and it is not also disputed that this suit was filed more than 3 months from the date the cause of action arose. For the avoidance of doubt, this suit was filed on 4<sup>th</sup> February 2015 while it is disclosed in the Claimants’ statement of facts, particularly paragraphs 6, 7 and 14 (i) that the sum they claim in this suit accrued to them between 2007 and 2011 when they were members of the Imo State House of Assembly. Therefore, the Claimants’ cause of action accrued in 2011 when they left office but were not paid the sums. On these facts, the Defendants are right to contend that the Claimant’s suit is statute barred. The Claimants position however is that their claim, being a claim for work or labour done, is not caught up by Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the Claimants, it has been settled in plethora of judicial authorities that the Public Officers’ Protection Act does not apply to cases of contract, recovery of land, breaches of contract or claims for work and labour done. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Supreme Court, per Katsina-Alu JSC, in the case of <b>OSUN STATE GOVERNMENT vs. DALAMI (NIG) LTD. (2007) NWLR (Pt.1038) 66 </b>held<b> </b>that <i>“the Public Officers’ Protection Act does not apply to cases of contract, recovery of land, breaches of contract or claims for work and labour done”</i>. See also the case of <b>F.G.N vs. ZEBRA ENERGY LTD. (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 891) 162 at 197</b> where the Supreme Court held that: <i>“The Public Officers’ Protection Act does not apply in cases of recovery of land, breaches of contract and or for claims of work done.” </i>See also <b>UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR TEACHING HOSPITAL vs. JULIET KOKO BASSEY (2008) LPELR-8553(CA); WURO BOGGA NIGERIA LTD & ANOR vs. HON. MINISTER OF FCT & ORS (2009) LPELR-20032. </b>These authorities have created exceptions to the applicability of Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act. This court too, in a number of its decisions, has maintained the position that claims for salaries or gratuity or allowances relating to work or labour performed is not affected by Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act. Once it is shown that the claim is for payment of entitlements for work or labour done, the Public Officers’ Protection Act will not operate to bar the action. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">The Claimants claim in this suit is for payment of their unpaid severance gratuity, accommodation and security allowances due to them as members of the Imo State House of Assembly between May 2007 and June 2011. T</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">aking into consideration the relief sought by the Claimants in this suit, it is my view that the case of the Claimants clearly falls into the permissible exception to statutes of limitation. I therefore hold that Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act does not apply to this case. This suit is not statute barred.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">The other grounds of the Defendants’ Notice of Preliminary Objection are that that the suit does not disclose any reasonable cause of action against the Defendants and that the suit is speculative and an abuse of court process. These facts were also averred in the affidavit in support of the Notice of Preliminary Objection. I have examined these grounds of the Notice of Preliminary Objection against the facts of the Claimants’ case and I find that the grounds have no merit. The facts of the Claimants’ case disclose a cause of action against the Defendants. The claim of the Claimant is specific as to unpaid gratuity and allowances which they said accrued to them by virtue of their election as members of the Imo State House of Assembly between 2007 and 2011. There is nothing speculative or abuse of court process in this claim. In his arguments on this issue, the Defendants counsel submitted that this suit is speculative and an abuse of court process because the Claimants did not exhibit their payslip between 2007 and 2011 to show that they were entitled to the allowances they claim. With respect to the Defendants counsel, I hope he is not confused as to the stage of this suit. By the submission of counsel, he is already contending that the Claimants have not proved their case. The Claimants have only filed pleading yet. They have not adduced any evidence. It is only when they have called evidence but failed to prove their claim that the Defendants can canvass this point. One would expect such point to be used as a shield in the main case rather than as a sword at preliminary stage. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">In the result, the Preliminary Objection fails and it is accordingly dismissed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><a name="_GoBack"></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:105%; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The case shall now proceed to hearing. I make no order as to cost.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:105%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Ruling is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:105%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Judge<o:p></o:p></span></p>