Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><u><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">REPRESENTATION</span></u><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Tunde Alade-Dauda with Olamilekan Martins for the Claimants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Jerome Okoro for the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">RULING<o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimants in this case approached the Court via their <i>General Form of Complaint </i>on 2/9/15 for a grant of the following reliefs against the Defendant -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. A declaration that the termination of the claimant employment by the defendant is breach of the claimant contract of service with the defendant and same is illegal, unlawful and void.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. And order that the defendant pay the five months salaries of each of the engaged staff of Federal Internal Revenue i.e. for the months of August 2013 to December 2013 being the unexpired terms of their employment as contained in the MOU.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3. An order directing the defendants to pay to each of the claimant compensation in the sum of N7,500,000.00 (Seven Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only for the unlawful termination of their employment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">4. An order directing the defendant to pay to the claimant their full entitlement as contained in the condition of service.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">5. An order directing the defendant to disclose to the claimant the scale of computation of the claimant entitlement.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The processes filed by the Claimant included statement of facts, witness written deposition, list and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial. On 12/10/15, the Defendant entered into its defence, filed a statement of defence and all requisite accompanying processes. The Defendant also filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection to the suit as instituted by the Claimants. It was brought pursuant to Section 2(a) of <i>Public Officers Protection Act, 2004,</i> Section 55 of the <i>Federal Inland Revenue Service (Establishment) Act 2007</i>, <i>cap P41 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria </i>and under the inherent jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. In that application learned Counsel to the Defendant/Applicant sought the following orders -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> 1. An order dismissing (or striking out) this Suit for lack of jurisdiction of this Honourable Court to entertain same. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> 2. And for such further or other Order(s) as this Honourable Tribunal may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this matter.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The grounds for the application are that -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. this Honorable court as presently constituted lacks the Jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. this action is statute barred as provided for by the Public Officer’s Protection Act. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3. the subject matter of the Claimants' suit has been extensively considered and determined by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (MOU) dated 25<sup>th</sup> July, 2007, whereof proper payment of severance benefits of all the Claimants has been duly paid by the Defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">4. Equity frowns against double portion.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Notice of Preliminary Objection was supported by a 10-paragraph Affidavit in support dated 12/10/15 deposed to by one Bintu Satomi a Legal Practitioner in the employment of the Defendant/Applicant and a written address. When this objection was heard on 14/4/16, learned Counsel to the Applicant relied on all the averments in the affidavit in support of the <i>NPO</i> and adopted the accompanying written address as his oral submission in support of the Objection. In the written address, learned Counsel set down 3 main issues for the determination of this case as follows -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. Whether this action was statute barred as at the time the suit was instituted by the Claimant by virtue of Section 2(a), <i>Public Officer's Protection Act, 2004 </i>(hereinafter referred to as <i>POPA</i>) and section 55 of the <i>Federal Inland Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, 2007 </i>and therefore robs this Honourable Court of the jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. Whether the Defendant is a Public Officer within the meaning of section 2(a) of the <i>Public Officer's Protection Act, 2004.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3. Whether the 1st Defendant can claim the protection of offers by section 2(a) of the <i>Public Officer's Protection Act, 2004.</i> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Arguing issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that from paragraph 14 of the witness statement on oath of Mr. Salami Adeyemi Sulaiman, the cause of action of the Claimants arose on 15/7/13; that for reason not normally accepted by the Court, the Claimants waited till 2/9/15 before instituting this suit and that by section 2(a) of the <i>Public Officer's Protection Act, 2004, </i>the suit ought to have been instituted within 3 months. According to learned Counsel the legal consequence of not instituting the within 3 months allowed by the statute is that the section has removed the right of action, the right of enforcement and the right of judicial relief of the Claimants, citing <i>Forestry Research Institute of Nigeria v. Gold (2007)11 NWLR (Pt. 1044) 24. </i>Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Applicant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that the Defendant/Applicant is a Public Officer within the meaning of section 2(a) of the <i>Public Officer's Protection Act. 2004.</i> Counsel referred to the definition given to <i>Public Officer </i>by the Supreme Court in <i>Ibrahim v. Judicial Service Commission (1998) 14 NWLR </i>where the Court stated that ''It is beyond dispute that the word 'person' when used in a legal parlance such as in a legislation or statute connotes both a 'natural person' that is to say a 'human being' and an artificial person such as a corporation, public bodies corporate or incorporate''. Learned Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Defendant/Applicant is a public officer within the meaning of section 2(a) of the <i>Public Officer's Protection Act, 2004 </i>and is thus entitled to the privileges and protection provided under the said Act.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Issue 3 is whether the Defendant can claim the protection offers by section 2(a) of the <i>Public Officer's Protection Act, 2004. </i>Arguing this issue, learned Counsel contended that the Applicant is entitled to the protection of the Act. This, according to learned Counsel is because this action was filed in contravention of the 3 months period provided for by section 2(a) of the Act and that the Defendant/Applicant is a public officer within the meaning of the Act. Citing <i>Sanni v. Okee (2005)14 NWLR (Pt. 994) 60 at 74 & Olagunju v. PHCN (2011)10 NWLR (Pt. 1254) 113</i>, learned Counsel submitted that the main purpose of limitation period is to protect the defendant from the injustice of having to face a stale claim. Cousel thus prayed the Court to resolve all the issues in favour of the Defendant/Applicant and dismiss the case of the Claimants/Respondents.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In opposition, learned Counsel for the Claimants/Respondents filed a 24-page Counter Affidavit and a written address. Counsel relied on all the averments in Counter Affidavit dated 2/3/16 and adopted the written address as his oral submission in opposition. In his written address dated 2/3/16, learned Counsel set down the followinf 3 issues for the just determination of this case -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. Whether section 2(a) of the <i>Public Officers Protection</i> is applicable to cases grounded on contract and/or claims for work and labour done.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. Whether the Defendant acted within the Civil Service Rules in the light of the memorandum of understanding signed by parties in relation to the provision to section 7 of <i>Federal Inland Revenue Service (Establishment) Act 2007 </i>without necessary approval does not amount to abuse of office and the Defendant has not acted outside of their office.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3. Whether the act of depriving the Claimants of adequate pension does not amount to continue damage.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that both section 2(a) of the <i>Public Officers Protection Act & Section 55, Federal Inland Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, 2007 </i>are not at large and cannot operate as a magic wand with capacity to oversee the funeral of every case brought against public officers in the Court of law; that the statute does not apply to contract cases, recovery of land, claims for work and labour done citing <i>CBN v. Adedeji (2005)26 WRN 38, NPA v. Construzioni Generali Farsupra Cogefar SPA & Anor. (1974)All NLR 945 at 955, Federal Govt. of Nigeria v. Zebra Energy Limited (2002)12 S.C (Pt. 11) 136. </i>It is the argument of learned Counsel that none of the cases cited by the Counsel to the Applicant made any pronouncement on the issue or overruled the decisions in <i>Salako v. L.E.D.B 20 NLR 196 & Federal Government of Nigeria v. Zebra Energy Limited (supra). </i>Learned Counsel further cited <i>Dr. Aina Simeon Abiodun & Ors v. The Governing Council, Oyo State College of Education Suit No: NIC/LA/46/2009 </i>Judgment of<i> Kanyip, PJ delivered on 8/2/11 </i>and submitted that on that authority issues bordering on labour and employment rights are not covered by the limitation laws. Counsel prayed the Court to hold that the <i>Public Officers Protection Act </i>does not apply to the case at hand. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On issue 2, learned Counsel argued that the approval of the Hon Minister of Finance was not sought for the retirement of the Claimants under section 63, <i>Federal Inland Revenue Service (Establishment) Act 2007</i>; that no document shows the direct approval of the Hon Minister of Finance; that in every case where immunity is sought based on the provision of the <i>Public Officers (Special Provision) Decree No. 17 of 1984, </i>it must be shown that the decision to remove the public servant was taken by the appropriate authority and that the Act does not avail protection to an officer who abused his office or acted maliciously citing <i>Unilorin v. Adeniran (2007)6 NWLR (Pt. 498) 506 & Adedeji v. N.B.N Limited (1989)1 NWLR (Pt. 96) 212. </i>Learned Counsel urged the Court to not allow the Applicant take advantage of the protection of the <i>Public Officers Protection Act </i>and that the Court should dismiss this Preliminary Objection raised.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I have read with understanding all the processes filed for preliminary objection. I also heard the oral argument of learned Counsel on either side. Having done all this, I narrow the issue for the just determination of this case down to one thus -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> Whether the <i>Public Officers Protection Act </i>bars the suit of the Claimants/Respondents.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">A challenge based of statute of limitation constitutes a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine a cause or matter. Issue of jurisdiction once raised, it is imperative that it be resolved one way or the other. Jurisdictional issue is a fundamental and critical issue. It is a challenge that can be raised at any point in the cause of the proceedings. It may even be raised on appeal. In any event, jurisdiction is not an issue of fact. It is one of law. That being the case, it can even be raised by a trial Judge <i>suo motu </i>the only proviso being that a trial Judge must allow parties to proffer their addresses on same before delivering a Ruling. The reason being that a challenge of jurisdiction goes to the very root and foundation of the case before the Court and where jurisdiction is absent every effort dissipated in hearing a case amounts to efforts in futility. This is irrespective of the genuine intention, diligence and erudition of the trial Judge.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">A case is said to be barred by the statute if it is not brought and instituted within the time limit statutorily allowed to institute such an action. In a scenario as this, though the right of a party suing is there, it can however not be enforced through the judicial process. To determine whether or not a case is or is not barred by a statute, two critical points must be established. Firstly, the provision of the statute must be established as to the class of suits and the duration or time limit permitted. Secondly, the time when the suit concerned is instituted must be established so as to determine whether or not it comes outside the time limit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Now section 2(a) of the <i>Public Officers Protection Act, Cap. P 41, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 </i> provides as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> 'Where any action, prosecution, or other proceeding is commenced against any person for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of any Act or Law or of any public duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such Act, Law, duty or authority, the following provisions shall have effect -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> a. the action, prosecution, or proceeding shall not lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within three months next after the act, neglect or default complained of, or in case of a continuance of damage or injury, within three months next after the ceasing thereof'.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The purport of the above provision is that all actions against public officers must be instituted within three months failure to do which the right to ventilate same through the judicial process is extinguished, see <i>Christiana Yare v. National Salaries, Wages and Income Commission (2013) LPELR 20520 (SC).</i> Where an action is instituted outside the time allowed by the statute, the Court which hitherto had jurisdiction to hear and determine same is automatically divested of that adjudicatory power. In much the same vein, the right available to a Claimant or Plaintiff in such a situation is one that cannot be enforced through the judicial process.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Now, the next critical point to consider is whether or not this suit is caught by the said statute being a statute of limitation. In determining whether or not a case is not caught by a statute of limitation, the starting point is the examination of the date the cause of action arose vis-a-vis the date the suit was instituted. The appropriate focus is certainly the statement of facts in the instant case. Now, when did the cause of action in this case arise? A cause of action arises the day a party is entitled under the law to approach the Court for redress against an alleged wrong committed by the other party. By the statement of facts filed by the Claimants and dated 2/9/15, paragraph 8 of same states thus -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">''8. However and in conversation of the sinister intention of the defendant the defendant through a letter dated 15 July 2013 terminated the claimants employment with effect from 31st July 2013. This was a period of five months before the deadline giving to the claimants for attaining the academic qualification as contained in the circular mentioned above''.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is apparent that the right of the Claimants/Respondents to approach the Court arose on the day they were issued letters of termination dated 15/7/13. Within the provision of the relevant statute, the Claimants/Respondents had 3 months from that date to seek judicial intervention in their matter. Unfortunately, this suit was filed on 2/9/15. In other words, the Claimants in this case did not approach the Court for redress until about 19 months after the accrual of their cause of action. The suit of the Claimants, is unfortunately outside the time limit as allowed by the <i>Public Officers Protection Act, 2004. </i>It is trite law that a major consequence of not instituting an action within the time as prescribed by a statute expressly is that the right of action is removed and lost by the Claimant and while the wrong may be there, judicial process cannot be commenced for its enforcement. I find the suit of the Claimants caught by the <i>Public Officers Protection Act, 2004. </i>I uphold the preliminary objection raised and dismiss the action of the Claimants/Respondent accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Before I draw a curtain on this Ruling, it is important that I address one of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Claimants/Respondents. Learned Counsel to the Claimants/Respondents has submitted that the <i>Public Officers Protection Act</i> does not apply to this case being one for work and labour done. In this respect Counsel cited the decisions of this Court in <i>Dr. Aina Simeon Abiodun v. The Governing Council, Oyo State College of Education & ors Suit No. NIC/LA/46/2009 delivered on 8/2/11 & John Ovoh v. The Nigerian Westminster Dredging & Marine Co. Limited (2008)14 NLLR (Pt. 37) 68 </i> in support. In <i>John Ovoh v. The Nigerian Westminster Dredging & Marine Co. Limited (2008)14 NLLR (Pt. 37) 68, </i>this Court had held that labour rights are not caught by the limitation laws: for to think otherwise would mean that even rights as to salaries and entitlements of an office would be time-barred. This reasoning was followed in subsequent cases such as <i>Captain Tony Oghide & Ors. v. Shona Jason (Nigeria) Limited Unreported Suit No. NIC/3/2008 </i>the Ruling of which was delivered on 18/7/08 and <i>Captain Tony Oghide & ors. v. Jason Air Limited Unreported Suit No. NIC/LA/12/2009. <o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">However in <i>Hon. Runyi Kanu (JP) & Ors. v. The Attorney-General & Commissioner for Justice, Cross River State & ors. (2013)32 NLLR (Pt. 91) 63, </i>the Court per <i>Kanyip, PJ </i>attempted a rationalisation of the authorities as follows - <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> ''In cases of claims for salary and allowances, the decisions of this Court in <i>John Ovoh v. The Nigerian Westminster Dredging & Marine Company Ltd </i>and <i>Captain Tony Oghide and ors. v. Shona Jason Nig. Ltd </i>would appear to be good law if the test on ''continuance of damage or injury'' laid down in the recent Supreme Court decision in <i>AG, Rivers State v. AG, Bayelsa State & Anor (2013)3 NWLR (Pt. 1340) 123 at 144-150 </i>is met. In that case at pages 148-149, the Supreme Court held that the case for deprivation of allocation, which the plaintiff was entitled to every month and same has not ceased, was ''a situation continuance of damage or injury which has not ceased''; and so the defence of Public Officers Protection Act would not avail the 1st Defendant who had raised it ... In any event, the definition of the phrase ''continuance of the injury'' by case law authorities to mean continuance of the ''act which caused the injury'' and not the injury itself presupposes that this Court's stance in cases such as <i>John Ovoh v. The Nigerian Westminster Dredging & marine Company Ltd </i>and <i>Captain Tony Oghide and ors v. Shona Jason Nig. Ltd </i>must be understood qualifiedly''.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">My lord <i>Obaseki-Osaghae J</i> following the position of the law as aptly put above had no hesitation in applying same and held in <i>Hon. Uwanabasi Sunday Udo & ors. v. Mkpat Enin Local Government </i>Suit No: NICN/CA/90/2013 delivered on 24/9/14 that the <i>Public Officers Protection Act </i>is applicable to employment matters. From the foregoing, the judicial authorities cited by learned Counsel to the Respondents were probably good proposition at the time they were delivered. The truth of the matter is that they no longer represent the state of the law at the moment. I have not been sufficiently convinced as to why this Court should depart from its previous decisions as highlighted in this Ruling. I thus hold that the <i>Public Officers Protection Act </i>is applicable to this case. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Finally and for the avoidance of doubt, the preliminary objection brought by the Defendant/Applicant succeeds. Claimants' suit is caught up and barred by the <i>Public Officers Protection Act, 2004. </i>Claimants' case is thus dismissed. I make no order as to cost. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Ruling is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" align="center" style="margin-left:0in; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">____________________<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" align="center" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Hon. Justice J. D. Peters<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Presiding Judge<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>