Download PDF
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><u><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Representation</span></u></b><b><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Ngozi Ukweni (Mrs.) for the Claimant/Respondent<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">C. O. Osuji for the Defendant/Applicant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">JUDGMENT/RULING</span></u></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">This action was commenced by way of complaint dated and filed on the 18<sup>th</sup> day of December 2014 wherein the Claimant claimed against the Defendant as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">1.<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"; mso-bidi-language:HE">A declaration that having not reinstated the claimant or retired him formally for 8 years, it is unlawful and has resulted in injustice and the claimant has suffered greatly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">2.<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"; mso-bidi-language:HE">An order compelling the defendant to either reinstate the claimant or retire the claimant formally, to enable him process his retirement benefits.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">3.<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"; mso-bidi-language:HE">Arrears of salary from 2006 to 2007 when he was promoted to Grade level 7 at <s>N</s>60,000.00 monthly, which amounts to <s>N</s>720,000.00.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">4.<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"; mso-bidi-language:HE">Arrears of salary from 2008 i.e. last promotion at <s>N</s>80,000.00 monthly to 2014 when this suit was instituted amounting to <s>N</s>7,680,000.00.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">5.<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"; mso-bidi-language:HE">Arrears of salary from 2014 at <s>N</s>80,000.00 monthly till the final determination of this suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">6.<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"; mso-bidi-language:HE">Special and general damages of the sum of <s>N</s>5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) in that the claimant has suffered mental, physical and emotional trauma.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">By a motion on notice brought pursuant to Order 11 Rules 1, 2, 3 and 8<i> </i>of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court; the Defendant/Applicant’s counsel sought the following relief, an Order of the Honourable Court dismissing this suit for want of jurisdiction. The ground for this relief is that the suit is statute barred and that it discloses no reasonable cause of action. This application was supported by a 10 paragraph affidavit deposed to by Festus Nosa Esangbedo. In the accompanying written address, counsel identified one issue for determination, which is: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 114%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Whether this Suit is </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">not statute Barred. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel submitted that this suit is statute barred having been brought in contravention of Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act which is to the effect that where a person is aggrieved over the conduct of a Public Officer in the performance of' his public duties and he intends to commence proceedings challenging such conduct as in the instant case, the proceedings must be commenced within three months of the occurrence of the conduct complained against. In view of the above, counsel submitted that the Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this suit, the suit having been commenced after three months from the day the cause of action arose. See <b>ESSIEN vs. CROSS RIVER STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION & ANOR. (2014) LPELR-23527 CA</b>. Counsel submitted further that where a statute provides for the institution of action within a prescribed period, the action shall not be brought after the time prescribed by such statute. Any action that is instituted after the period stipulated by the statute is totally barred as the right of the plaintiff or the injured person to commence the action would have been extinguished by such law. See <b>A.G. RIVERS STATE vs. A.G. BAYELSA STATE (2012) 7 KLR 2519 at 2529</b> and <b>SULGRAVE vs. FGN (2014) 12 KLR at 4567</b>.<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Similarly, counsel argued that it is trite law that for a person who seeks the protection of the Public Officers’ Protection Act must establish the following: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">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"; mso-bidi-language:HE">That he is a Public Officer.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">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"; mso-bidi-language:HE">That he acted pursuant to his duties as Public Officer <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">iii.<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"; mso-bidi-language:HE">That the act or duty complained of must have taken place three months before the <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent: .25in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">commencement of the action challenging it. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">On this note, counsel submitted that the defendant on record is a Person in Law vested with statutory powers to carry out public duties assigned to it by law. The defendant carries out these statutory duties ' using its personnel who are Public Officers. The Cause of Action in this suit which is failure to reinstate the Claimant occurred in 2006 and the communication between the claimant and defendant ended on 20/02/2014. Thus, the defendant/applicant has met the requirements of the law for the grant of this application and is therefore entitled to the grant of same. See: <b>SULGRAVE vs. FGN (supra)</b>. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Furthermore, it is counsel’s argument that in determining whether an action is statute barred, the courts look at the averments in the statement of claim and writ of summon and compare the date of filing the suit with the date the cause of action arose. See <b>MULIMA vs. USMAN (2014) 12 KLR (Pt. 355) 3889 at 3914</b>. In view of the above, counsel urged the Court to take a cursory look at the writ of summons and statement of facts filed by the claimant and conclude that this suit is statute barred. It is counsel’s further argument that upon a finding that this suit is statute barred, the court lacks jurisdiction to determine it. See <b>ANACHEBE vs. IJEOMA (2014) 6 KLR 2363 at 2368</b>. In conclusion, counsel urged the Court to dismiss this suit for want of jurisdiction, and for being incompetent as it discloses no reasonable cause of action. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In opposition to this motion, the Clamant/Respondent filed a 17 paragraph Counter Affidavit deposed to by the Claimant/Respondent and supported by a Written Address, where Counsel adopted the issue in the defendant’s written address. Arguing this issue, counsel stated that the Public Officers’ Protection Act must be read and interpreted as a whole and not in part. Counsel submitted further that the protection of the Public Officers’ Protection Act does not apply “in case of a continuance of damage or injury, within three months next after the ceasing thereof.” It is the submission of counsel that in this suit, the act or neglect of the defendant has not ceased but has continued in that the Defendant/Applicant has not issued the Claimant/Respondent any letter of reinstatement or dismissal or termination to know his true position and this has made it impossible to access the benefits accruable to him. Further, counsel is of the opinion that a contract of employment is generally bilateral in nature and so the determination of the contract of employment takes effect when the letter determining the relationship has been served on the employee. It is from this event that the employee becomes aware that his employment has come to an end and the need to challenge the decision against him arises. Thus, the date of the accrual of the cause of action in <br> matters of this nature does not arise with reference to the date of the letter determining the employment, but on the date when the employee became aware of the contents of the letter and this would usually be when he received the letter. Counsel argued that in this instant case, there is no letter to that <br> effect. The claimant/respondent in the instant case has asked that the employer officially release him as required by statute to enable him access his benefits because failure to do so tantamounts to denying him his right which is unlawful. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Similarly, counsel contended that by virtue of the provisions of Sections 3(2)(a) and 4(2) of the Pensions Act Cap. 346, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990,<b><i> </i></b>for a public servant to qualify for pension, he must have been in the service for 15yrs and aged 45yrs at his retirement. In this case, the claimant at the occurrence of this event had worked 23years and so entitled to pension. Also, counsel’s contention is that the defendant/applicant’s refusal to issue to the claimant either a letter of dismissal or retirement is unlawful. Counsel’s authority for this contention is the case of <b>OLANIYAN vs. UNILAG (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599</b>.<b> </b> More so, counsel argued that Learned Counsel for the defendant/applicant in paragraph 4.06 of his written address stated that “the cause of Action in this suit which is "failure to Reinstate or Retire the Claimant", took place in 2006 and the communication between the Claimant and Defendant ended in 20/02/2014”,<b><i> </i></b>thereby admitting that there is a cause of action.<b> </b>It is<b> </b>counsel’s opinion that the defendant’s counsel having admitted this cause of action, cannot turn around and say there is no cause of action. Counsel urged the court to hold in favour of the claimant/respondent that there is a cause of action in this suit. Again, counsel submitted that the contract of employment can only end when the claimant/respondent has been issued a letter of dismissal or termination or retirement. Then only then will time begin to run. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Again, counsel submitted that the Claimant is not contending unlawful termination or retirement. Rather, the Claimant is asking for an official re-instatement, retirement or termination of appointment to enable him access the benefits accruable to him having served the Establishment meritorious for 23years. It is counsel’s submission that the Public Officers’ Protection Act does not apply here because the act, neglect or default complained has not ceased. Counsel submitted that the legal authorities cited by the defendant’s counsel are not applicable to the instant case. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the submission of the Defendant's Counsel and hold that the Claimant has a right to enforce his fundamental human right of right to work as entrenched in Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Counsel also urged the court to dismiss this application as lacking merit and hold that this suit has a cause of action, is not statute barred and so the court has the jurisdiction to entertain this suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">The defendant/applicant filed a further affidavit of 16 paragraphs. In the supporting Reply on Points of Law, counsel submitted that the submission of learned counsel to the claimant that the act or neglect complained of by the claimant has not ceased but has continued is misconceived considering the nature of claim made by the claimant in this suit. Counsel submitted further that the summary of the facts contained in paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 of the statement of facts is that on 18/04/2006, claimant applied for Compulsory Retirement and the said application was received on 10/05/2006. On 23/06/2006, he wrote a letter appealing for Withdrawal of Voluntary Retirement but the letter was not responded to. In July 2006, his Salary was stopped and on 23/07/2006, he re-appealed for the withdrawal of voluntary retirement. It is as a result of these events that he sought the reliefs in paragraph 34 (a) of his statement of facts. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Similarly, counsel submitted that the issue of what constitutes Continuance of Injury or damage in the contemplation of the Public Officers Protection Act has been laid to rest by this court in its well-decision delivered on 28/04/2014 in <b>Suit No. NICN/OW/38/2013: UGOALA CHIDINMA JOY (MRS) vs. ABIA STATE UNIVERSAL </b></span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">BASIC EDUCATION BOARD (UNREPORTED) </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">where it was held that continuance of injury or damage has been held in plethora of cases to mean the continuance of the act which caused the injury or damage and not merely continuance of the injurious effect of the legal injury. It does not mean the concomitant effect of the damage or injury.<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">I</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">n view of the above decision, counsel submitted that the Claimant/Respondent has not made out a case of continuance of injury or damage. The acts of the Department of National Civic Registration (DNCR) of failing to respond to the claimant's letter dated 23/06/2006 and 23/07/2006 as well as the stoppage of the Claimant's salary in July 2006 which amounts to retirement or termination of appointment were completed in 2006. These said actions are not continuing. It is counsel’s opinion that for the continuance of injury exception to apply, the claimant ought to have remained in his employment working and then sue to complain that the salaries he worked for were not paid. In the instant case, the claimant applied for voluntary retirement and when his application was granted following the stoppage of his salaries, he stopped going to work which is a confirmation that the contractual relationship between him and his employer ended in 2006. Thus, when a person's employment is terminated or disengaged or suspended, the injuries following the loss of the job can be said to be continuing but the act of terminating the employee's employment, in the instant case, the stoppage of the claimant's salary and the refusal to re-instate him" which is the act complained of, is not continuing. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">Counsel </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">urged the court to hold that the continuance of injury exception canvassed by the claimant is not applicable to this case.</span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Also, counsel is of the opinion that the argument of learned counsel for the claimant/respondent that the determination of the contract of employment takes effect when the letter determining the relationship has been served on the employee is misconceived. Though contract of employment is bilateral in nature, either the employer or employee can determine the contract and parties can be aware of the determination without letters written to that effect. A party can also waive his right to be given notice. See Section 11 (5) & (6) of the Labour Act. It is the further argument of Counsel that once a letter of resignation is tendered, it becomes effective to terminate the contract of employment. It does not require letter of acceptance. See <b>YESUFU vs. GOVERNOR OF EDO STATE (2001) 6 SC 56</b>. Counsel submitted that the arguments of learned counsel to the claimant/Respondent in paragraph 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 of his written address are misconceived. Counsel urged the court to discountenance same in the consideration of this application because they are <i>non sequitur </i>in so far as this application is concerned. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Furthermore, counsel contended that it is trite law that where a contract of employment has been severed, the fact that there has been communication between the employer and employee does not extend the life of the cause of action. In the instant case, the communication between the plaintiff and defendant even ended 10 months before the commencement of this action. Thus, the reliefs sought by the Claimant/Respondent are not sustainable in law and are bound to fail. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">At this juncture, counsel sought the leave of the court to argue a second issue for determination which was raised in the motion paper but was not argued, which is: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">Whether this suit discloses reasonable cause of action in view of the fact that the claimant does not have locus standi</span></i></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic">Counsel contended on this issue that t</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">his issue takes precedence over the first issue already argued because where the court finds that the Claimant/Respondent lacks the locus to institute this action, the suit ends. It is counsel’s further contention that a<i> </i>challenge to the competence of a suit on ground that the claimant lacks locus to institute the action is a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court. Thus this challenge can be raised at any stage even on appeal. See <b>N.D.I.C vs. CBN (2002) 95 LRCN 389 at 400-401</b>. Counsel submitted that the term <i>locus standi</i> has been defined by the court in <b>ITEOGU vs. LPDC (2010) VOL 178 LRCN 21</b>, as standing to sue. It is counsel’s further contention that it is the plaintiff's statement of claim and writ of summons that determines whether a plaintiff has locus to institute an action or not. See <b>AJILOWURA vs. DISU & ORS. (2006) VOL 140 LRCN 1930 at 1957 JJ</b>. Thus it is a settled principle that the plaintiff must, in the statement of claim disclose sufficient interest or threat to injury to enable him to invoke the judicial process. Counsel argued that from pleadings filed in this suit, on 18/04/2006 the claimant applied for voluntary retirement and routed his application to the Permanent Secretary Ministry of Internal Affairs. On 23/06/2006, he applied for withdrawal of the voluntary retirement and routed his application to the Director DNCR. In July 2006, the Ministry acting on his letter of 18/04/2006 stopped his salary. Counsel argued further that at this juncture, the contractual relationship between the claimant, the FMIA and DNCR ended. What was left was for the claimant to pursue his retirement benefits. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The defendant was established by an Act of the National Assembly in 2007 and upon establishment it was given the power to inherit the assets and liabilities of the defunct DNCR. In complying with this law, the defendant issued all the DNCR staff it inherited with Offer of Appointment. Thus as at the time the defendant inherited the assets and the liabilities of the defunct DNCR in 2007, the claimant was no longer in the service of the defunct DNCR and therefore was not part of the assets and liabilities inherited by the defendant. Thus he was not issued with any Offer of Appointment by the defendant. In order to achieve the status of locus standi, the claim of the plaintiff must reveal the following: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[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"">A legal or justifiable right <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[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"">Sufficient or special interest adversely affected. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">iii.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">A justifiable cause of action. See <b>BASINCO MOTORS LTO vs. WOEMANN-LINE <o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent: .25in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">(2009) VOL 179 LRCN 169.</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Similarly, counsel argued that the defendant has successfully challenged the locus<i> </i>of the plaintiff to sue him, as in the instant case by filing a statement of defence which will meet the averments </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">in the statement of claim head long and disclose the plaintiff's incompetence to file the suit. See <b>AJILORUWA vs. DISU & ORS (2006) Vol. 140 LRN 1930 at 1944.</b> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">On the strength of this, counsel urged the court to hold that the defendant has successfully challenged the locus of the claimant to bring this suit against her and that this suit is <a name="_GoBack"></a>bound to be dismissed. <b>ADETONA vs. ZENITH BANK PLC (2012) VOL. 203 LRCN 29 at 41</b>. Also, counsel is of the opinion that where the issue of locus standi is raised; the attitude of the court is to consider first whether the Claimant has the locus to institute the action because it is a challenge to the court's jurisdiction. See <b>DANIEL vs. INEC (2015) 3 KLR (Pt. 360)</b>. The Court was urged to dismiss this suit for being incompetent. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In reply to the new issue of locus standi raised by the defendant/applicant’s counsel in his reply, counsel for the claimant having sought and obtained leave of court to reply verbally to same, submitted that the claimant was one of the liabilities the defendant inherited from the defunct DNCR, therefore he had locus standi to bring this action. Counsel went further that the claimant was promoted by the defendant in 2007 by a letter dated 17<sup>th</sup> July 2007, and that as at that date, the defendant had taken over DNCR; therefore they cannot turn around to claim that they had no liability towards the claimant. According to counsel, Exhibits L, M, N, O, P and Q attached to the Statement of Facts, it is clear that there were correspondences between the Claimant and the Defendant through their Human Capital Management department, and the defendant owes the claimant a duty either to retire him formally or reinstate him. This according to counsel, is what gave the claimant locus standi to bring this action. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel submitted further that the effect of non-response of the defendant to the Claimant’s letter of voluntary retirement is that the claimant was still in employment. The Claimant’s salary was stopped in July 2006, and has not been paid up till now. Thus, he is not certain of his status with the defendant. Also, he has not been able to access his pension. He therefore has locus standi to bring this action. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the application.<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:2.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: .5in"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">COURT’S 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 defendant’s prayer in the Notice of Preliminary Objection is for the court to dismiss this suit for want of jurisdiction. Two grounds were advanced for the defendant’s objection to the suit. They are:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">i. The suit is statute barred. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">ii. The suit discloses no reasonable cause of 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;">In the affidavit in support of the Notice of Preliminary Objection, it was deposed that the acts complained of by the claimant was carried out by the defendant in the performance of its official duties and that the said acts or inactions complained of took place in the year 2006. The suit is statue barred and it discloses no reasonable cause of action which makes this court to lack jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In the claimant’s counter affidavit, he averred that the act of the defendant commenced in 2006 and it is still ongoing because the Defendant up till date has not officially terminated nor retired the Claimant making it impossible for him to access his statutory benefits. The suit is not statute barred and it discloses a reasonable cause of action. The claimant concluded that this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In response, the defendant filed a further affidavit where it was deposed that the wrongful act complained of by the claimant, took place on 23/06/2006 and July 2006. On 23/06/2006, the Claimant wrote to the Department of National Civic Registration (DNCR) and appealed to withdraw his letter of 18/04/2006. In July 2006, the Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs (FMIA) acting on the Claimant's letter of 18/04/2006 stopped his salary. The FMIA acting on the claimant’s letter of 18/04/2006, retired him, stopped his salary and removed his name from the payroll. The claimant became aware of this decision and thereafter wrote letters dated 23/07/06 and 21/08/2006 to the DNCR. It was also deposed in the further affidavit that there is no contractual relationship between the claimant and the defendant and the claimant lacks the locus to institute this 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 basis of the defendant’s contention that the claimant’s suit is statute barred, as submitted by the defendant’s counsel, is the provision of S</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">ection 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act. Since both Counsels to the parties have reproduced the said provision of the Act in their written addresses, I do not see the need to repeat it again save to stress that the effect of </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">the provision is 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 of same can only be commenced within 3 months of the accrual of the cause of action except in the case of continuance of the damage or injury, in which case the claimant must institute the action within 3 months after the cessation of the damage or injury. Where the suit is not commenced within the prescribed period, the claimant’s right of action in respect of that cause will be statute barred and the court will no longer have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. See <b>IBRAHIM vs. J.S.C, KADUNA STATE (1998) 12 SC 20; EGBE vs. ALHAJI (1990) 3 S.C (Pt.1) 63; NNAMDI AZIKIWE UNIVERSITY, AWKA vs. NWEKE (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 428) 343. </b><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;tab-stops:105.0pt"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">In his submissions, the claimant’s counsel submitted that the claimant does not dispute the fact that the </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Defendant is a public officer or that it acted pursuant to its duties as a Public Officer. That is to say there is no dispute as to the fact that </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">the defendant is a public officer and was sued in respect of an </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">alleged neglect or default in the execution </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">of its public </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">duty. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">There is no doubt therefore that the defendant can seek to take protection under section 2 (a) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act. The only issue remaining to be resolved is whether the claimant filed this suit against the defendant within 3 months of the accrual of his cause of action. In doing so, there is need to find out when the claimant’s cause of action arose and when he filed this suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:105.0pt"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:105.0pt"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The law is settled that in determining whether a suit is statute barred, the processes to which recourse should be had are the Writ and the statement of claim; in this case, they are the Complaint and the Statement of Facts. It is from these processes the date of accrual of the cause of action and the date the suit was filed can be deduced. See <b>J.S.F.</b> <b>INVESTMENT LTD. vs. BRAWAL LINE LTD. (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 578) 876 at 902; ELEBANJO vs. DAWODU (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 328) 604 at 646; AMEDE vs. UBA (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 469) 479 at 506/507. </b>From the record of this court the endorsement on the Complaint, this suit was filed on 18<sup>th</sup> December 2014. I do not see any dispute about that. The area of disagreement between the parties in this application is the exact time the claimant’s cause of action arose. While the defendant contended that the claimant’s cause of action arose in June 2006 and July 2006, the claimant averred that the act of the defendant which was the cause of his action is a continuing injury and the injury has not ceased at the time the suit was filed. In view of these varied contentions of the parties that the claimant’s cause of action and the precise date it arose must be determined. Whether or not the claimant’s suit is statute barred depends on the date the cause of action arose or whether the cause of action is attended by a continuance of injury.<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 reliefs sought by the claimant in this action have already been set out in full at the beginning of this ruling. Briefly put, he is seeking this court to declare as unlawful, the refusal of the defendant to retire him or re-instate him and an order to compel the defendant to either reinstate him or retire him. He is also seeking orders for the payment of arrears of salary from August 2006 to the time of determination of his suit. When did these alleged acts of the defendant upon which he seeks these reliefs take place? The claimant’s case is that he was employed by the Department of Civic Registration in 1983. In 2006, he applied to the Department of Civic Registration for voluntary retirement by a letter dated 18<sup>th</sup> April 2006. However, before the statutory 3 months notice of retirement will lapsed, he wrote a letter dated 23<sup>rd</sup> June 2006 for withdrawal of his notice of retirement but his salary was stopped in July 2006 neither was he recalled or retired or paid any salary. Now to the query raised above, the answer thereto is disclosed in the averments of the claimant in paragraphs 14 to 32 of the statement of facts. It is averred therein that the instant defendant took over the Department of Civic Registration in 2007. In August 2007, the claimant made an appeal to the defendant to withdraw his notice of retirement and reinstatement but the defendant did not respond. By another letter dated 9<sup>th</sup> March 2010, the claimant re-appealed to the defendant, still the defendant did not respond. Eventually, the defendant, in a letter dated 18<sup>th</sup> December 2013, in reply to the letter of the claimant’s solicitor, stated that the claimant was not an employee of the defendant. <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;">A cause of action is said to accrue when it can be said or there exist in the person who can sue and another who can be sued and all facts have happened which are material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed. In </span><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">BANK OF THE NORTH vs. GANA (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 296) 862</span></b><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></b><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">at 881</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">, it was held that a cause of action </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">arises at the date or time when a breach or any act that will warrant the person who is adversely affected by the act to take action in court. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">In <b>DAWODU vs. AJOSE (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 580) 1334 at 1348</b> it was stated that time begins to run for the filing of an action when the cause of action arose. This means that once there exist two people with interest at variance to each other over a subject matter, then the aggrieved party must go to court timeously. From the facts of his case, the claimant’s case against the defendant is the defendant’s refusal to retire him or reinstate him. This refusal by the defendant happened in August 2007 when the claimant wrote the letter dated 21<sup>st</sup> August 2007 to the defendant for withdrawal of notice of retirement or reinstatement but the defendant did not respond until March 2010 when the defendant wrote to inform the claimant’s solicitor that the claimant was never its employee. At the moment the defendant refused to meet the claimant’s request for reinstatement or retirement, which is now the subject of this action, the claimant’s cause of action arose at that moment. By the defendant’s letter of 18<sup>th</sup> December 2013, where the defendant stated that it never offered any employment to the claimant, it should have become clear to the claimant that the defendant cannot grant his request for withdrawal of retirement or reinstatement. At that moment, a cause of action on the claims now before this court has accrued to the claimant. The letter did disclose to the claimant the contrary position of the defendant and by it also, all the material facts which will enable the claimant to seek redress in court have happened. I find that the claimant’s cause of action arose from and on the defendant’s letter of 18<sup>th</sup> December 2013. Between the time the claimant cause of action arose and the time he filed this suit was period of 12 months. <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 paragraphs 7, 9 and 13 of the counter affidavit, the claimant averred that the defendant’s </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">refusal or failure retire or reinstate the claimant has continued up till date and the act of the defendant is still ongoing and has not ceased. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The claimant’s counsel, while relying on the latter part of Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act which provide that <b>“… </b></span><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">in case of a continuance of damage or injury, within three months next after the ceasing thereof”, </span></i></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">contended that the act of refusal to </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">issue the Claimant a letter of reinstatement or dismissal or termination</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> is a continuous injury and has not ceased at the time this suit was filed.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">While I agree with the claimant counsel that continuance of damage or injury is an exception to Section 2 (a) of Public Officers’ Protection Act, I am however on the firm position that the claimant’s cause of action in this suit cannot be said to be a continuance of damage or injury. The defendant’s decision not to reinstate or retire the claimant was passed to the claimant through his solicitors on a particular day which was 18/12/2013 and the claimant also became aware of the defendant’s position regarding his demands in that letter. From the day of the defendants’ refusal, all facts have happened which are material to enable the claimant to approach the court and the time started counting against him from that day. In any case, as submitted by the defendant’s counsel in his reply, </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">continuance of injury or damage contemplated in Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act has</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> been defined to mean the continuance of the act which caused the injury or damage and not merely a continuance of the injurious effect of the act. See <b>OLAOSEBIKAN vs. WILLIAMS (1996) 5 NWLR </b></span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">(Pt. </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">449) 437</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">; OBIEFUNA vs. OKOYE </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">(1961) </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">All NLR 357</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">. See also the rulings of this court in </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Suit No.<b> NICN/OW/38/2013: UGOALA CHIDINMA JOY vs. ABIA STATE UNIVERSAL </b></span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">BASIC EDUCATION BOARD</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">given on 28/04/2014 and </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">suit No. <b>NICN/EN/92: OGUGUO SYLVALINE </b></span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">& </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">42 ORS. vs GOVERNOR OF IMO STATE </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">& </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">3 ORS</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> delivered on 10/02/2015.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> I</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">n this case, </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">the alleged refusal of the defendant to reinstate or retire the claimant is not a continuous act.<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 claimant’s counsel has also argued that the refusal of the defendant to retire or reinstate the claimant </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">is tantamount to denying him his right to pension. As such, the claimant’s suit is not statute barred as his entitlement to pension cannot be denied by statute. With respect to the claimant’s counsel, the claimant’s suit is not a claim for pension. His principal reliefs are for reinstatement or retirement and for payment of arrears of salary from August 2006 to the time of determination of his suit. None of the claims is a claim for pension. In his statement of facts also, he never made any case for his pension. Therefore, the argument of counsel on this point is misplaced.<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 conclusion, it is clear from the foregoing that this suit was filed more than 3 months from the date the cause of action arose. The claimant did not commence this suit against the defendant within the statutorily prescribed period. By the effect of Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act, the claimant’s suit is clearly statute barred having been filed more than a period of 3 months from the time the cause of action arose. It is trite law that suits instituted outside the time stipulated by the statute of limitation is statute barred and cannot be entertained by the courts. In other words, where the law provides for the bringing of an action within a prescribed period of time, proceedings shall not be brought after the time prescribed by the statute. An action brought outside the prescribed period is contrary to the provision of the law and does not give rise to a cause of action. See <b>ELEBANJO vs. DAWODU (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 328) 604;</b> <b>INEC vs. OKORONKWO (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 488) 227 at 247. </b>This suit is not competent and this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain same in the first place. Consequently, the suit is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.<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;">Ruling is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 8pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Judge</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>