Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Representation</span></u></b><b><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Comic Sans MS"">M.U. Ofoegbu for the Claimant/Respondent<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Comic Sans MS"">Anyikude E. I. O (Mrs.) With Anyaelezu A.E. (Mrs.) for the 1<sup>st</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Comic Sans MS"">E. C. Aguta (Mrs.) Director ADR, Ministry of Justice Imo State for the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">JUDGMENT/RULING</span></u></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">This action was first commenced by a writ of summons filed at the High Court of Imo State sitting at Owerri on the 22<sup>nd</sup> day of October 2009 before it was transferred to this court vide an order of transfer made on the 16<sup>th</sup> day of October 2014. Upon the matter coming up on the 9<sup>th</sup> day of December 2014, this court ordered the parties to re-file their processes to bring them in compliance with the rules of this court. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">In compliance, the Claimant re-filed his complaint on the 9<sup>th</sup> day of March 2015 wherein he claimed jointly and severally against the defendants as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo5"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language: HE">A declaration that the employment of the Claimant with the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant is valid and subsisting.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo5"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language: HE">A declaration that the handover letter dated 20<sup>th</sup> May 2009 with reference number IM/SEMB/PM/5975/T.1/75 to the claimant by the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant directing him to hand over the administration of Ihitte Ezinihitte Technical College to the 4<sup>th</sup> defendant is wrongful, illegal, unconstitutional, void and no effect whatsoever having not complied with Imo State Public Service Rules 2001.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo5"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language: HE">An order of court directing the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant to pay the claimant’s arrears of salaries, entitlements and benefits from December 2008 till November 2010 when the claimant will be due for retirement.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo5"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language: HE">An order of court directing the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant to withdraw the said handover letter dated 20<sup>th</sup> May 2009.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo5"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language: HE">An injunction restraining the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant by their servants, agents and any person acting through them from any further interference with the claimant’s constitutional rights and privileges with regards to his employment.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo5"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language: HE">An injunction restraining the 4<sup>th</sup> defendant from parading himself as the principal of Ihitte Ezinihitte Technical College, Ezinihitte Mbaise.<o:p></o:p></span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">By a Motion on Notice filed on 29/06/2015 pursuant to Orders 26(13), 11(1) of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, Counsel for the 1<sup>st</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants/Applicants sought for the dismissal of the suit on the grounds of non- service of pre-action Notice on the 1<sup>st </sup>and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants/Applicants and that the action is statute barred. The Motion is supported by an affidavit of 8 paragraphs deposed to by one Nick Osuji the litigation officer of the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant. In the accompanying address, counsel identified two issues for determination, which are: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language: HE">Whether the action is statute-barred. <o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language: HE">Whether non-service for pre-action notice on the defendants is fatal to the case.<o:p></o:p></span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">With respect to issue one, Counsel submitted that the Complaint in the extant case was filed in 2009 while the purported act complained of took place before the year 2007. The three (3) months mandatory statutory period allowed for institution of an action was not complied with. It is the law that consideration of statutory period is done by looking at the time of the summons viz-a-viz the time when the alleged wrong was purportedly done. This is done without taking evidence from the parties. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Once the period between date of cause of action and date for institution of the action exceeds the period allowed by the Limitation Law, then the action is statute-barred. Counsel referred to the following cases: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo3"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">ORANYELI vs. FIRST BANK OF (NIG) PLC (2001) FWLR (Pt. 86) 1217 at 1218 <o:p></o:p></span></b></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo3"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">EGBE vs. ADEFARASIN (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 47) 1<o:p></o:p></span></b></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo3"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">ARMTI vs. BAYER (2003) FWLR (Pt. 155) 649 <o:p></o:p></span></b></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo3"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">TAJUDEEN vs. CUSTOMS, IMMIGRATION & PRISONS SERVICE BOARD (2010) All FWLR 1743<o:p></o:p></span></b></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Also, counsel referred to Section 36 of EDICT No 3 1988 which established the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant which provides thus: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">“No suit against the Board, against any member, officer or employee of the Board respecting any act, neglect or default done or committed in his capacity as such member, officer or employee, shall lie or be instituted in any court, unless it is commenced within three months from the occurrence of the act, neglect or default or, in the case of a continuance of damage or injury, within three months immediately after the cessation thereof.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel urged the Court to resolve issue one in favour of the defendants. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Regarding issue two, it is the submission of Counsel that the Court must ensure that conditions precedent for its assumption of jurisdiction in a suit must be fulfilled or satisfied or complied with. Counsel referred to the case of <b>NNPC vs. FEMA OIL LTD (2003) FWLR (Pt. 155) 796</b> where the Court cannot assume jurisdiction over a matter when the conditions precedent are not satisfied or do not appear to have been satisfied. See also <b>NWANKWO vs. ABAZIE (2003) FWLR (Pt. 180) 1410- 1411</b> where the Court of Appeal held that the Court can assume jurisdiction where there is no feature in the case which prevents Court from exercising its jurisdiction. See also <b>ACHEBE vs. NWOSU (2003) FWLR (Pt. 136O) 898-899</b> and <b>MADUKOLU vs. NKEMDILIM (1962) All NLR (Pt. 2) 587</b>. Counsel urged the court to resolve the second issue against the claimant and hold that the claimant did not comply with the conditions precedent to the institution of this suit and dismiss same with cost. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">In opposition to the application, the Claimant filed an affidavit of 9 paragraphs on the 14<sup>th</sup> day of October 2015. In the accompanying Reply on points of law, counsel raised two issues for determination, thus: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Whether the 1<sup>st</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> defendants where served with pre-action notice.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Whether the suit is statute barred.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Arguing the first issue, counsel submitted that the Claimant has deposed that he personally served the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant on 22/07/2009. The 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant is yet to deny the date stated by the Claimant. According to Counsel, Exhibit A2 and A3 points out the fact that a pre-action notice was actually served. Again, the pre-action notice was one of the documents front loaded along with the complaint. It is the argument of Counsel that a construction of Section 36 relied on by the Defence’s Counsel shows that a pre-action notice is issued to either the board or an officer or employee of SEMB and it must be in respect of an act, neglect, default done or committed either by the board or her office or employee. A joint reading of the Claimant’s complaints reveals that the whole case revolves around the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. The 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant is therefore a nominal party. Counsel submitted that the 4th Defendant does not need to be served any pre-action notice because the wordings of the Edict are clear and unambiguous. The law is that a statute should not be given a construction that will defeat it purpose.Where the provision of a statute/edict is clear and unambiguous, there is no need to give them any other meaning than their ordinary, natural and grammatical construction would permit. See <b>NAVY vs. LAMBERT (2007) </b><b>11 MJSC 1.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">It is counsel’s submission that all authorities cited by the 1<sup>st </sup>and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant's counsel are not specifically on the same wordings with the present Edict in issue. Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the first arm of objection of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants/Applicants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">On the second issue, Counsel stated that the cause of action in this action arose when the Claimant was served with a hand-over letter therein stating that his service with Imo State Government (1<sup>st</sup> Defendant) terminated on 16/11/2007 and that he was born on 16/11/1948. He was served on 23/07/2009 while this action was filed on 22/10/2009. In the event that the above argument fails, counsel submitted that the proviso of the above Edict covers the situation. In other words, the injury or damage (non-payment of his salary) continued till date. In such a situation, the Supreme Court has echoed that the circumstance is not statute barred. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">See <b>A. G. RIVERS STATE vs. A. G. BAYELSA </b></span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE">& </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">ANOR (2012) </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:127%;mso-bidi-language:HE">6-7 </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">MJSC 111.<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the preliminary objection of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 4th Defendants/Applicants. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">The 1<sup>st</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants/Applicants on 18 February 2016 filed a further affidavit of 9 paragraphs deposed to by one Okwara Philip N; a Civil Servant and an Administrative Officer with the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant. Same was regularized on 22 February 2016. The said further affidavit which exhibited a handing over note and the secret mail register of the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant, reiterated that no pre-action notice was served on either the 1<sup>st</sup> or the 4<sup>th</sup> defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">In support of the further affidavit is a Reply on points of Law filed on the 9<sup>th</sup> day of June 2016, upon leave of Court having been sought and obtained for an extension of time to file same. In the said Reply, counsel submitted that contrary to the claimant’s assertion that Exhibit A1 in his counter-affidavit is a sufficient pre-action notice in line with Section 36(2) of the SEMB Edict no. 3 of 1989; the document titled “pre-action notice” is a demand letter not in tandem with SEMB Edict no. 3 of 1989, which specifies that a pre-action notice which contains the cause of action, name and abode of intending claimant and relief sought; is served on the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant at least one month before any action against it, is instituted. Similarly, counsel argued that the SEMB Edict no. 3 of 1989 is a substantial law that cannot be waived but needs to be adhered to. Counsel argued further that on the assumption that the claimant’s Exhibit A1 qualifies as a pre-action notice, the said exhibit does not qualify as evidence, in that it was not properly served on the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant because it was not served on the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant, its executive secretary personally or by registered post as stipulated by Section 36(3) of the SEMB Edict no. 3 of 1989. See also <b>AMADI vs. NNPC (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 673) 4.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Furthermore, reacting to the claimant’s second issue, counsel submitted that the 4<sup>th</sup> defendant is a desirable party in this suit, particularly as paragraph 26 of the Statement of facts indicates the “claimant claims against the defendants jointly and severally” and the sixth relief is an injunction restraining the 4<sup>th</sup> defendant. Thus, the 4<sup>th</sup> defendant cannot rightly be called a nominal party to warrant not being served with a pre-action notice because he is directly affected by the outcome of this suit and his interest will be prejudiced if he is not joined as a party. See <b>A. G. FEDERATION vs. A. G. ABIA STATE & 35 ORS (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 567) 54</b>6. Counsel urged the court to grant this application and strike out the claimant’s suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel for the claimant on the 12<sup>th</sup> day of July 2016 informed the court that he had filed a further Counter Affidavit deposed to by the Claimant on the 1<sup>st</sup> day of June 2016. He sought and obtained the leave of court to deem the said further counter affidavit filed on 1<sup>st</sup> June 2016 together with the accompanying written address (pages 390-393 of the file) as having been properly filed and served. In the said further counter affidavit, the Claimant claimed that he personally served a pre-action notice on the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant on the 27/07/2009 and not on 22/07/2009 as claimed in his earlier affidavit, and that the purpose of this further counter affidavit was to correct his earlier mistake of date, which he said was a typographical error. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">In the interim, counsel for the Claimant had again filed another process he named “New Counter Affidavit” which he informed the court on 12/07/2016 that wanted to use to replace the first counter affidavit he filed on 14 October 2015. The address accompanying the counter affidavit is the same as the one filed on 14 October 2015 and need not be repeated. The Court having given consideration to the further counter affidavit, is constrained to discountenance the processes filed by the Claimant on 12<sup>th</sup> July 2016. It is accordingly struck out. Its purpose has already been met by the further counter affidavit filed on 1<sup>st</sup> June 2016 together with the accompanying written address (See Pages 390 – 393 of the case file).<span style="color:red"> <o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="Style" style="text-align:justify;line-height:.05pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_GoBack"></a><span style="font-size:4.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">COURT’S DECISION<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Let me now determine the application having heard the submissions of the learned counsels to the parties. The Defendants prayer in this Notice of Preliminary Objection seeks the dismissal of the suit on the grounds that the suit is statute barred and that the Claimant did not serve pre-action notice on the 1<sup>st </sup>and 4<sup>th </sup>Defendants before instituting this action. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">In their contention that the suit is statute barred, the Defendants placed reliance on the provision of Section 36(1) of the Secondary Education Management Board Edict No. 3 of 1989. The said provision reads:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“No suit against the Board or against any member, officer or employee of the Board respecting any act, neglect or default done or committed in his capacity as such member, officer or employee, shall lie or be instituted in any court, unless it is commenced within three months from the occurrence of the act, neglect or default or, in the case of a continuance of damage or injury, within three months immediately after the cessation thereof.” <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">In the affidavit in support of the motion, it was deposed that this suit is statute barred because the action complained against by the Claimant was done before 2007 while the suit was filed in 2009. The time within which the Claimant should institute action has since elapsed before the institution of this suit. In his counter affidavit, the Claimant averred that his suit is not statute barred. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The import of the above provision of Section </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">36(1) of the Secondary Education Management Board Edict No. 3 of 1989</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> is very clear. It is to the effect that any action against </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">the Secondary Education Management Board</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> or </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">against any of its members, officers or employees</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> concerning any </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">act, neglect or default done or committed in their capacities as members, officers or employee of the Board </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">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 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<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant in this case is the Board referred to in the section. The 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant is in fact established by that Edict. In paragraph 2 of the affidavit in support of the motion, the Defendants described the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant as</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> the Principal of Ihitte Ezinihitte Technical College, Mbaise and an officer of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. I</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">t means that the 1<sup>st</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants can seek to invoke the provision of Section </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">36(1) of the Secondary Education Management Board Edict</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> in this suit.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The question at this point is whether the Claimant instituted this action within 3 months from the date his cause of action arose. The date when the Claimant’s cause of action in this suit arose appears to be in controversy. While the Defendants alleged that the Claimant’s cause of action arose in 2007, the Claimant’s counsel submitted that the Claimant’s cause of action arose on </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">23/07/2009</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> being the date he received </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">a hand-over letter informing the Claimant that his service with the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant terminated on 16/11/2007.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The cause of the Claimant’s action, as disclosed in the averments in the statement of facts and the reliefs sought by him, is the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s letter dated 20th May 2009 with reference number</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> IM/SEMB/PM/2145/VOL.1/9 </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">directing the Claimant to hand over the administration of </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Ihitte Ezinihitte Technical College, Mbaise </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">to the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant. See particularly relief (ii). In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the statement of facts, the Claimant pleaded as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“9. The claimant was the principal in charge of </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">Ihitte Ezinihitte Technical College, Mbaise which position he held until a hand over letter dated 20<sup>th</sup> May 2009 with reference number IM/SEMB/PM/2145/VOL.1/9 signed by the then permanent secretary, one chief M.U Edomobi of the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant was served on him via the school bursar one Mr. Ihuma Cannice on 23/07/09.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">10. The claimant upon receipt of the said hand over note gave the defendants the mandatory one month pre-action notice dated 27<sup>th</sup> July 2009 through his counsel- Okezie A. Eke Esq.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:62.25pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:4.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:62.25pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">It is clear from the above facts of the Claimant’s case that the cause of his present action was the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s letter dated 20<sup>th</sup> May 2009 which he received on 23<sup>rd</sup> July 2009. It was his grievance with the directive in the letter that made him give pre-action action notice to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. Without any doubt, the Claimant’s cause of action in this suit arose when he received the instruction from the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to hand over to the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant in the letter of 20<sup>th</sup> May 2009 with reference number </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">IM/SEMB/PM/2145/VOL.1/9</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">. The Claimant received the letter on 23<sup>rd</sup> July 2009. His cause of action arose on that day. This matter was first instituted in the Imo State High Court before it was transferred to this court in November 2014. The date of filing of this suit in the High Court was 22/10/2009. The period between 23/7/2009 when the claimant’s cause of action arose and 22/10/2009 when this action was instituted is a day less than three months. The claimant filed this suit within the three months statutory period. The suit is not statute barred.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Defendants have also urged this court to dismiss the suit on the ground that the Claimant did not serve pre-action notice on the 1<sup>st</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">In the affidavit in support of the motion, it was deposed that both the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant and the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant were not served with pre-action notice by the Claimant. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Comic Sans MS"">The basis of the Defendants’ contention in this ground of their application is the provision of </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Section 36 (2) of the Secondary Education Management Board Edict No.3 of 1989 </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">which provides that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“No suit shall be commenced against the Board or against any member, officer or employee of the Board respecting any act, neglect or default done or committed by him as such member, officer or employee until at least one month after the service on the Board, member, officer or employee, as the case may be, or a written notice by or on behalf of the intending plaintiff on intention to commence the suit stating: <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: normal;"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language: HE">The cause of action. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: normal;"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language: HE">The name and place of abode of the intending claimant. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: normal;"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language: HE">The relief claimed.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">The initial response of the Claimant to this issue, as deposed in the counter affidavit, is that he personally served a pre-action notice on the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant on 22/07/2009 and he wrote to the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant on 28/07/2010 requesting photocopy of the registry sheet of where his letter was registered but the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant replied on 2<sup>nd </sup>August, 2010 refusing the request. The Claimant annexed a copy of the pre-action notice he said he served on the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to his counter affidavit as Exhibit A1. There is no indication on the exhibit that it was received by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. The Defendants have even contended in their further affidavit that no pre-action notice was served on either the 1<sup>st </sup>or the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants as the Mail Register of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant does not contain endorsement for receipt of such document. The burden is therefore on the Claimant to show that that he actually served the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant with a pre-action notice before instituting this action. The Claimant did not satisfy this proof.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">By his Further Affidavit of 1<sup>st</sup> June 2016, the Claimant has however contended that he served the said pre-action notice on the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant on 27/07/2009 and not 22/07/2009 as earlier contended. This is duly noted but still does not discharge the required proof. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">I observe that the Claimant mentioned only the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant as the person he served pre-action notice. He did not deny the fact that the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant was not served any pre-action notice before this action was instituted. In his submissions, the Claimant’s counsel argued that service on the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant suffices, as the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant is only a nominal party to this suit. In paragraph 5 of his statement of facts, the Claimant described the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant as an employee of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. The Defendants too described the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant in paragraph 2 of the affidavit in support of the motion as an officer of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. Section 36 (2) of the Secondary Education Management Board Edict requires that any officer or employee of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant intended to be sued must be given the mandatory pre-action notice. It means that the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant too was entitled to be served pre-action notice. But the Claimant did not serve the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant any pre-action notice. In my view, the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant is not a nominal party in this matter as claimed by the Claimant’s counsel. The Claimant sought the reliefs in this suit against the Defendants jointly and severally. Relief 6 of the Claimant’s claims is specifically directed at the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant. It follows that the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant is an interested and necessary party to this suit and he cannot be regarded as a nominal party. In effect, the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant too was entitled to be served pre-action notice. The Claimant has not denied the fact that he did not serve the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant any pre-action notice. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">By the provision of Section</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> 36 (2) of the Secondary Education Management Board Edict</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">, service of pre-action notice on the 1<sup>st</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants is a condition precedent before the Claimant can institute this action against them. In </span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">NNPC vs. FEMA OIL LTD (2003) FWLR (Pt.155) 796</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">, it was held that a Court cannot assume jurisdiction over a matter when the conditions precedent to the institution of the matter have not been satisfied or do not appear to have been satisfied<span style="color:#3F4844">. </span>Also, in <b>CHIEF BERTHRAND E. NNONYE vs. D. N. ANYICHI [2005] 1 S.C. (Pt. II) 96</b>, the Supreme Court held that the effect of non-service of a pre-action notice, where it is statutorily required, renders an action incompetent and where a Defendant raises it, then the issue becomes a condition precedent which must be met before the court could exercise its jurisdiction. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Bookman Old Style", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Bookman Old Style", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Accordingly, since the Claimant did not meet the requirement of the law by his failure to serve pre-action notice on both the 1<sup>st</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> defendants, the jurisdiction of this court has not been properly invoked against the 1<sup>st</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants. I have observed from the Claimant’s pleadings that the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants are only nominal parties with no direct allegation or claim against them. Since the principal Defendants in this suit are the 1<sup>st</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants, this suit cannot proceed beyond this stage in the circumstance. The suit is therefore struck out. No order as to cost.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Ruling is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Judge</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>