Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Representation:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Paschal Ibe for the Claimant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">I.P. Hamman for the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Chidinma Otisi (Miss ) for the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">JUDGMENT/RULING</span></u></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">This action was commenced by way of Complaint filed on the 17<sup>th</sup> day of February 2015 wherein the Claimant claimed against the Defendants jointly and severally, the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">a.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">A Declaration that the purported date of birth of 14<sup>th</sup> January 1952 and or 12<sup>th</sup> February 1952 used in the compilation of the claimant’s retirement instead of the correct date of birth of 14<sup>th</sup> January 1955, as contained in affidavit of Age Declaration of May 2008 which contains substantially the same information of the claimant’ age submitted to the federal Civil Service Commission in July 1979 at the claimant’s point of entry into Federal Civil Service, is unlawful, irregular, in bad faith and in breach of the terms and conditions of employment under the Federal Civil Service rules.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">b.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">A Declaration that the correct date of birth of the claimant is 14<sup>th</sup> January 1955 as conveyed by Affidavit of Age Declaration of May 2008, submitted to the Head of Service of the Federation in 2008 is the claimant’s correct dated of birth.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">c.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">A Declaration that the continued retention of the claimant on Grade Level 15 since 1<sup>st</sup> January 2001. Without any meaningful decision by the Federal Civil Service Commission to place him on Grade Level 17 as directed by the Court Order of 3<sup>rd</sup> October 2002 is unlawful, irregular in bad faith and in breach of order of seniority in Federal Civil Service Commission.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">d.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">A Declaration that the refusal of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> defendants to reimburse/refund the funds/monies spent by the claimant in the cause of his duty in Ekiti State as the Federal Controller of Works Ekiti State between 1<sup>st</sup> January 2012 and 31<sup>st</sup> March 2012 is unlawful, irregular, in bad faith and against the Federal Civil Service Rules.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">e.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">An order of specific performance directing the defendants to give effect to the correct date of birth of the claimant as 14<sup>th</sup> January 1955, as conveyed by an affidavit of age declaration of May 2008, submitted to the Head of Service of the Federation in 2008 as the claimant’s correct date of birth.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">f.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">An order of specific performance directing the Federal Civil Service Commission to place/promote the claimant to Grade level 17 with effect from 1<sup>st</sup> January 2010 to avoid loss of seniority and or benefits in compliance with Court Order of 3<sup>rd</sup> October, 2002.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">g.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">An order directing the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> defendants to pay the arrears of money spent by the claimant in rendering services while in Ekiti State when he was the Federal Controller of Works between 1<sup>st</sup> January 2012 to March 2012 in the sum of (N2,975,0000.00) Two million nine hundred and seventy five thousand naira only.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">h.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">An order directing the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> defendants to pay the claimant all his transfer allowances due to him as follows;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo9"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Transfer from Benue State to Abuja in January 2005 as N508,000.00 (Five hundred and eight thousand naira) only.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo9"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Transfer from Abuja to Ekiti State in May 2009 in the sum of N508,000.00 (Five hundred and eight thousand naira) only.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo9"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The sum of N500,000,000.00 (Five hundred million naira only as general damages for breach of contract of employment, unlawful retirement and denial of seniority in service.<o:p></o:p></span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">I. An order directing the defendants to pay the cost of this suit to the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant on 27<sup>th</sup> October 2015 filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection pursuant to Section 2(a) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act (POPA) seeking a dismissal of this suit for want of jurisdiction. The grounds for the objection are as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo1"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">This suit is statute barred thereby robbing the court of jurisdiction to entertain same.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo1"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The suit does not disclose any reasonable cause of action against the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In the supporting written address, counsel identified 3 issues for determination as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a"> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the Claimant’s suit commenced on 17<sup>th</sup> February 2015 to enforce a cause of action that allegedly arose in August 2014 is not statute barred <a name="_GoBack"></a>and therefore not maintainable before this court?<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the claimant’s case as constituted discloses a reasonable cause of action against the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant?<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the non-disclosure of the requisite cause of action is not a condition precedent to the competence of this suit for adjudication?<o:p></o:p></span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On issue one; counsel submitted that the Defendants are public officers. Thus, any suit against them must be commenced within the time allowed by the Limitation Laws which in this case is the Public Officers Protection Act that provides that any action be commenced within 3 months. See <b>IBRAHIM vs. JSC (1998) 12 SCNJ 255 at 279</b>. Counsel submitted further that in determining the period of limitation, the proper thing to do is to examine the originating process, decipher when the cause of action arose and compare with the date the suit was filed. It is counsel’s contention that from paragraphs 6-11, 14 and 16 of the Statement of Facts in the instant case, the cause of action in this suit arose latest on 14<sup>th </sup>August 2014 (when the Claimant was served with his retirement letter) and this suit was filed on 17<sup>th</sup> February 2015, a period of more than 5 months exceeding the 3 month period of the Public Officers Protection Act. Therefore, the effect is that the present suit is statute barred and non-maintainable with the Claimant losing his right of action and the court being divested of jurisdiction. See <b>ELABANJO vs. DAWODU (2006) NSCQR 318 at 353 and EGBE vs. ADEFARASIN (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 47) 1 at 4</b>. Furthermore, counsel argued that the lack of jurisdiction is critical to render any judgment rendered a nullity. See <b>APGA vs. SENATOR ANYANWU & 2 ORS (2014) 57 NSCQR 341</b>. Counsel added that the operation of limitation laws applies to contracts of employment as decided by the courts in <b>BAKARE vs. NRC (2007) LPELR-712 and YARE vs. NATIONAL SALARIES, WAGES AND INCOME COMMISSION (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1367) 173 at 191-2</b>. Counsel urged the court to hold that this suit is statute barred with the claimant having an empty cause of action that is not maintainable before this court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel proceeded to argue issues two and three together. He argued that a reasonable cause of action consists of two fundamental elements which the law expects the Claimant to establish simultaneously. These elements are the wrongful acts of the Defendants sued and damage consequent on the act. It is counsel’s further argument that the non-disclosure of a reasonable cause of action, which is a condition precedent to the court assuming jurisdiction over a matter, robs the court of the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. See <b>IBRAHIM vs. OSIM (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 82) 257 at 260 and OJUKWU vs. YAR’ADUA & 4 ORS (2009) 28 NSCQR (Pt. 1) 492 at 565</b>. It is counsel’s opinion that parties are bound by their pleadings. From the totality of pleadings, there is no allegation of wrongful act levied on the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant. Again, counsel argued that for a party to be joined as a party to a suit, it must be established that the court would be unable to adjudicate on the Claimant’s suit unless the party is joined. Again, the presence of the party joined must be necessary to enable the court effectively and completely settle the questions involved in the case. Counsel submitted that in the circumstances the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant is not a necessary party because this suit can be effectively determined in his absence, and he did not employ or retire the Claimant. See <b>LAGOS STATE BULK PURCHASE CORP. vs. PURIFICATION TECHNIQUES LTD (2012) 12 SCNJ at 304-5</b>. Counsel urged the court to hold that this suit is statute barred in line with Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act and dismiss same.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant on 7<sup>th</sup> March 2016 filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection pursuant to Section 2(a) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act (POPA) seeking a dismissal of this suit for want of jurisdiction and abuse of court process. The grounds for the objection are as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo8"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">That the action is statute barred having been instituted against the defendants who are public officers more than 3 months after the cause of action arose; and <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 lfo8"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">That this suit is an abuse of court process. <o:p></o:p></span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The objection was supported by a 25 paragraph affidavit deposed to by Isah Alidu and Assistant Legal Adviser in the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant. In the supporting written address counsel raised two issues for determination, thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a"> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether or not this action is statute barred vis-a-vis Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether or not this action amounts to an abuse of court process.<o:p></o:p></span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel’s argument on the first issue are repetitive of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s counsel’s address and do not need to be summarised again. However, concerning his second issue, counsel submitted that an abuse of court process may occur in several ways such as a multiplicity of actions involving same parties and subject matter, improperly using the judicial process to harass or annoy. See <b>OKAFOR vs. ANAMBRA STATE (1991)6 NWLR (Pt. 200) 659 and OKOROCHA vs. PDP (2015) All FWLR (Pt. 786) 536</b>. Counsel submitted that the Claimant has instituted several actions against the Defendants as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo5"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">FEDERAL HIGH COURT ENUGU - SUIT NO: FHC/EN/CS/11/99<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo5"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">COURT OF APPEAL ENUGU - APPEAL NO: CA/E/341/2010<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo5"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">FEDERAL HIGH COURT OWERRI - SUIT NO: FHC/OW/CS/23/2012<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo5"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">FEDERAL HIGH COURT ABUJA - SUIT NO: FHC/ABJ/CS/92/2013<o:p></o:p></span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">From the above, counsel submitted that the case at the Federal High Court Owerri is pending, while the 3<sup>rd</sup> relief in the present suit has been decided at the Federal High Court in the ruling annexed as Exhibit F2 to the supporting affidavit. Counsel argued that the present case amounts to forum shopping, an attempt to re-litigate, harass the Defendants and an abuse of court process. See <b>ACB PLC vs. NWAIGWE (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1246) 380 at 393 and CBN vs. AHMED (2001) All FWLR (Pt. 56) 673</b>. Counsel urged the court to hold that the instant case is an abuse of court process and dismiss same with substantial cost.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In reaction to the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s application, the Claimant filed a written address on 4/12/2015 wherein he raised 2 issues for determination, thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo3"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether this honourable Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case has jurisdiction to entertain this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo3"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the claimant’s case having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case discloses a reasonable cause of action against the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On the first issue, counsel submitted that from the claimant’s pleadings it is clear that he has been pursuing his claim since February 2012 when he filed the suit at the Federal High Court Owerri - SUIT NO: FHC/OW/CS/23/2012 which translated to SUIT NO: FHC/ABJ/CS/92/2013 following the transfer of the Claimant to Abuja in March 2012. See paragraph 13 of the Statement of Claim. It is counsel’s submission that the Defendant’s computation of the date of cause of action is erroneous because the Claimant received a LETTER OF NOTIFICATION OF RETIREMENT FROM FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE on the 2<sup>nd</sup> February 2012. Thus, in the instant case time ceased to run from the filing of the Claimant’s suit in FHC/OW/CS/23/2012 on 15<sup>th</sup> February 2012. It is counsel’s submission that there is no law barring an aggrieved party from continuation of a pending suit in another court seised with jurisdiction. See <b>SIFAX NIG LTD & 4 ORS vs. MUGFO NIG LTD & ANOR (UNREPORTED) CA/L/843/2013</b> delivered on 27/4/2015. More so, the striking out of the claimant’s suit without determining the right of parties does not mean that the subject matter in the suit has ceased to exist. See <b>ABDULKAREEM vs. INCAR LTD (1984) 10 SC 1 at 22</b>. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Again, counsel submitted that the protection of the Public Officers Protection Act is limited because it does not protect public officers acting without authority. See <b>EGBE vs. YUSUF (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 245) 1</b>. He submitted further that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s actions towards the Claimant are unlawful, thereby removing protection of the Public Officers Protection Act. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objection and hold that the court has jurisdiction to determine this suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">With respect to the second issue, counsel contended that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s wrongful act as disclosed in the statement of claim was the act of conspiring with the other Defendants to unlawfully retire the Claimant, robbing the claimant of seniority in service by disobedience of the court order of 3/10/2002 which if proved would entitle the claimant to damages. Particularly, the 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant’s non- performance of its role as custodian of the 4<sup>th</sup> defendant’s employees resulted in the injustice perpetrated against the claimant by the defendants. It was clearly the 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant that produced the record of the claimant’s age that led to his unlawful retirement. See paragraph 7 of the statement of claim. This in counsel’s opinion discloses a reasonable cause of action as defined in <b>IBRAHIM vs. OSIM (supra), KUSADA vs. SOKOTO NATIVE AUTHORITY (1968) 1 All NLR 377</b>. Furthermore, counsel submitted that the court must confine itself solely to the claimant’s pleadings in assessing whether there is a reasonable cause of action. See <b>SHELL BP LTD vs. ONASANYA (1976) 6 SC 89</b>. In light of the foregoing, counsel urged the court to dismiss the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s application for lacking in merit and hear this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In opposition to the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant’s objection, Claimant’s counsel filed a written address on 20/4/2016 where he raised two issues for determination, thus: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo6"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether or not this suit is statute barred having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case has jurisdiction to entertain this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo6"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the Claimant’s case having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case amounts to an abuse of court process.<o:p></o:p></span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In arguing issue one, counsel reiterated his arguments in his earlier address. However, his arguments on issue two are different and will be summarised as follows. Firstly, counsel submitted on the authority of <b>SARAKI vs. KOTOYE (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 188</b> that an abuse of court process in respect of multiplicity of suits arises when the parties, subject matter and issues are the same. Counsel submitted further that the different suit numbers in his earlier suit were transfers to other divisions because of the Claimant’s transfers from Owerri to Ekiti and subsequently Abuja. Counsel argued that there is only one Federal High Court in Nigeria; each time a case is transferred it is assigned the suit number of the division. It is counsel’s argument that suit number FHC/OW/CS/ 23/2012 is the same as FHC/ABJ/CS/92/2013. The suit in FHC/EN/CS11/99 bordered on the suspension of the claimant for no just case while the instant case borders on unlawful retirement. Therefore, the present action is not an abuse of court process. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant’s objection and hear this case on its merit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The 4<sup>th</sup> defendant filed a Reply on Points of Law on 26/5/2016. In reply to the Claimant’s counsel’s first issue, counsel submitted that the SIFAX’s case (2015) LPELR-24655 (CA) cited by counsel is distinguishable from the present case. In the instant case according to counsel in paragraphs 12-17 of their supporting affidavit, the Claimant initially filed a suit at the Federal High Court Owerri in February 2012 after which he filed another in Abuja one year after he abandoned his earlier suit. The instant suit was filed 7 months after the Claimant discontinued the Abuja case prior to which he had the suit reinstated one year after it was struck out for lack of diligent prosecution. Thus, the periods between the suits of 2 year and 7 months are beyond the 3 months specified by Section 2(a) of the POPA. Counsel urged the court to consider the foregoing argument and hold that the case is statute barred and dismiss same accordingly. With respect to the second issue of the claimant; counsel submitted that the claimant’s assertions of his transfer from and to various locations were not substantiated by evidence. Counsel submitted further that such assertions need to be proved and the arguments of Counsel cannot replace evidence. See <b>AGALA 7ORS vs. EGWERE & ORS (2010) 5 SCM 22 at 37 and 7UP BOTTLING COMPANY vs. ABIOLA (2001) FWLR (Pt. 59) 1216 at 1241</b>. Further, counsel argued that the reliefs in paragraphs C and E of the statement of claim in the instant case border on issues decided in the ruling exhibited as F2. Also, counsel is of the opinion that the Claimant’s counsel’s reliance on the motion ex parte ruling in FHC/OW/CS/23/2012 is unlawful. Counsel submitted further that a ruling in a case that has been struck out has no binding effect especially with the Claimant’s filing of a new action for trial de novo. See <b>OMOSAYE vs. THE STATE (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 726) 517</b>. Again, counsel submitted that the Claimant’s failure to file an affidavit to the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant’s application amounts to admittance of the facts deposed to in the supporting affidavit. See <b>ODULAJA vs. HADDED (1973) 11 NSC 35</b>. Counsel urged the court to discountenance the Claimant’s arguments and dismiss this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in; line-height:normal"><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">COURT’s DECISION<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">I have identified three grounds of objection raised against the Claimant’s suit in the Preliminary Objection of the 3<sup>rd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants. They are that the Claimant’s suit is statute barred, the suit discloses no cause of action and that the suit is an abuse of court process. It appears to me that the issue which arises from the grounds of the Preliminary Objections for determination in this ruling is whether the Claimant’s suit is competent before this court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Common to both preliminary objections, as the 1<sup>st</sup> ground of objection, is the contention that the Claimant’s suit is statute barred by the effect of Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act. It is the submission of counsel to the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants that all the Defendants are public officers and by the provision of the Public Officers’ Protection Act, any suit against them must be commenced within 3 months of the cause of action. Counsel’s contended that a reading of the averments in paragraphs 6-11, 14 and 16 of the Claimant’s statement of facts reveals that his cause of action in this suit arose about the 14<sup>th </sup>day of August 2014 which was the date the Claimant was served with his retirement letter. This suit was filed on 17<sup>th</sup> February 2015 which is a period of more than 5 months. According to the counsel to the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant, the suit is therefore statute barred. In the affidavit in support of the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant’s Preliminary Objection, it was deposed that the Claimant was retired from service with effect from 14<sup>th</sup> January 2012 being the date he attained 60 years of age. He commenced this suit on 17<sup>th</sup> February 2015, which is 3 years from the date his cause of action arose. Counsel to the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant submitted that the action is consequently statute barred having been instituted against the Defendants, who are public officers, more than 3 months after the cause of action arose.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The Claimant, in his reaction to both Preliminary Objections, did not dispute the fact that the defendants are public officers. The Claimant did not also dispute the fact that his cause of action arose on 14<sup>th</sup> August 2014 or that this instant suit was filed more than 3 months after the cause of action arose. At page 4 of his written address in response to the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s NPO, the Claimant’s counsel submitted that a computation of the period from 14/8/2014 to 17/2/2015 shows that the Claimant’s suit was not filed within 3 months but the Claimant did not sleep over his right because he did commence suit FHC/OW/CS/23/2012 at the Federal High Court Owerri in 2012. It however appears to me that the Claimant, in his reaction to the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant’s Preliminary Objection, is contending that the instant suit is not statute barred by virtue of suit FHC/OW/CS/23/2012. The Claimant’s counsel did submit that the </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Claimant filed suit FHC/OW/CS/23/2012 on 15<sup>th</sup> February 2012 after he received his letter of notification of retirement dated 23/1/2012. The suit was filed before the Federal High Court Owerri and was later transferred to the Federal High Court Abuja but he discontinued the suit and it was struck out on 14<sup>th</sup> March 2014. The claimant’s counsel also argued that the time for the Claimant’s cause of action in this case stopped running from the filing of suit FHC/OW/CS/23/2012 on 15<sup>th</sup> February 2012. Accordingly, from the date of notice of retirement and date of filing of suit FHC/OW/CS/23/2012 is within limitation period. Counsel cited the unreported case of <b>SIFAX NIG LTD vs. MUGFO NIG LTD</b> delivered on 27/4/2015. The Claimant’s counsel appears to be approbating and reprobating in his submissions. While counsel admits in his response to the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s Preliminary Objection that the Claimant’s cause of action arose on 14<sup>th</sup> August 2014 and the suit was filed outside the 3 months limitation period, Counsel argued differently in his response to the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant’s Preliminary Objection. He submitted that the Claimant’s cause of action arose when he received notice of retirement in January 2012 and the date of this suit should be taken to the date of suit FHC/OW/CS/23/2012 which the Claimant commenced in February 2012 in the Federal High Court, in which case, this suit is not statute barred. It is in view of these contradictory contentions of the Claimant’s counsel that the need to determine what was the Claimant’s cause of action in this suit and when it arose, as become imperative. It is trite that in such an exercise, the only processes to which recourse must be taken are the Complaint and the Statement of facts.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">I have examined the averments of the Claimant in paragraphs 7 to 16 of the statement of facts and the reliefs sought in this case and it is clear to me that his cause of action in this case is the dispute about his retirement age, failure to promote him to grade level 17 and none refund of sums due to him. In paragraph 12 of the statement of facts, the Claimant averred that he was verified to retire on 19<sup>th</sup> July 2014 on account of service or 14<sup>th</sup> January 2015 on account of age. In paragraphs 14, 16 and 21 of the statement of facts, the Claimant averred that he retired from service in July 2014 by reason of 35 years of service. That is to say by July 2014, which was the date the Claimant said he retired from service, his cause of action in respect of his complaints regarding his retirement, promotion and the sums he claims from the Defendant had become complete. At the date of his retirement on 19<sup>th</sup> July 2014, a cause of action had accrued regarding all his perceived complaints which arose from his employment. Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act provides 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 must be instituted 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. The implication of this provision is that where a suit against a public officer 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. </b>By the provision of Section 2 (a) of POPA, the Claimant was expected to have taken out an action in respect of his grievances against the Defendants within 3 months of the date of the accrual of the cause of action. But the Claimant filed this instant suit on 17<sup>th</sup> February 2015. A simple computation shows that this suit was filed more than 6 months after the Claimant’s cause of action in this suit accrued. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The Claimant has contended however that this suit should be taken to have been commenced since 15<sup>th</sup> February 2012 being the date he filed suit No. FHC/OW/CS/23/2012 in the Federal High Court. According to his counsel, since the period of limitation has stopped running from the filing of suit FHC/OW/CS/23/2012, this suit is not statute barred. I understand from the facts that the Claimant was given a retirement notice dated </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">23/1/2012 and he commenced suit FHC/OW/CS/23/2012 on account of the retirement in the Federal High Court Owerri Division on 15<sup>th</sup> February 2012. The Suit was later transferred to the Federal High Court Abuja Division. On 14<sup>th</sup> March 2014 the suit was struck out following the claimant’s application to withdraw the suit. On 17<sup>th</sup> February 2015, that is 11 months after the striking out of suit FHC/OW/CS/23/2012, the claimant filed the instant suit before this court. Let me first point out that the fact that the cause of action in this suit is found to have accrued in July 2014 gives this suit a different coloration from the said suit FHC/OW/CS/23/2012. In other words, the notice of retirement received in January 2012 which was the cause of action in suit FHC/OW/CS/23/2012 is not the cause of action in this suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Secondly, I cannot subscribe to the argument of the Claimant’s counsel that the date of this suit be related to the date of suit FHC/OW/CS/23/2012 or his argument that </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">SIFAX NIG LTD vs. MUGFO NIG LTD case be applied to dismiss the objection that the suit is statute barred. What I find in this instance is that the Claimant filed suit FHC/OW/CS/23/2012 on the question of his employment, at the Federal High Court on 15<sup>th</sup> February 2012. By Section 254C of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction on the subject of the Claimant’s suit. Since the coming into effect of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Act 2010, this is the court which has the exclusive jurisdiction on employment and labour matters. From the moment of the enactment of the Third Alteration to the 1999 Constitution in 2010, this is the only court that should be approached on matters relating to labour or employment. Any suit filed in any other court on any such matter on which this court is conferred with exclusive jurisdiction is an incompetent action. That is to say suit FHC/OW/CS/23/2012 filed in the Federal High Court in 2012 after the Third Alteration Act has been enacted was never a competent or valid suit before the Federal High Court. The suit was not also transferred to this court after it was wrongly filed in the Federal High Court. A transfer of the suit to his court could have given the suit validity but it was struck out by that court and a new suit was commenced in this court by way of a Complaint on 17<sup>th</sup> February 2015. Suit FHC/OW/CS/23/2012 was an incompetent suit. As such, it cannot be related to this suit. This suit is a fresh, separate and distinct case on its own and its commencement must be taken to the date it was filed in this court. The case of SIFAX NIG LTD vs. MUGFO NIG LTD relied on by the Claimant has no force in this application in view of the peculiar circumstance of this suit which is its non-connection with suit FHC/OW/CS/23/2012. The result is that the fact remains that this instant suit was filed on 17<sup>th</sup> February 2015 as a distinct action. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The Claimant’s counsel has also argued that the Public Officers’ Protection Act cannot avail the Defendants because they acted without authority in the retirement of the Claimant. Counsel cited the cases of EGBE vs. YUSUF and EGBE vs. ALHAJI. While I agree with the Claimant’s counsel that it is the law that a public officer who acted without lawful authority or outside his constitutional or statutory duties or who acted outside the colour of his office or acted in bad faith or in abuse of office will not be entitled to the protection under the Public Officers’ Protection Act, it is my view however that this court can only proceed to consider such matters which will ordinarily disentitle the Defendants from the protection of the Public Officers’ Protection Act if the action is a competent one; that is if the action had been commenced against the Defendants within the 3 months from the time the cause of action arose. In <b>KASANDUBU vs. ULTIMATE PETROLEUM LTD (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 417) 155 at 182,</b> it was held that a public officer who in the course of performance of public duty does so maliciously or for private spite or acted out the colour of his office or without lawful authority will have no protection under Section 2 of the Public Officers’ Protection Act only if the action is filed against him within 3 months of the accrual of the cause of action. Where the action is filed outside the 3 months, there will be no cause of action and the legality of the action complained of cannot be in issue. In<b> EGBE vs. ALHAJI (1990) 3 S.C (PT.1) 63 at 80-</b></span><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">81, </span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">it was held thus;<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“In a civil action where the defendant invokes in </span></i></b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">limine<b> the protection under section 2 (a) of the Public Officers protection Law Cap 114, (which is indeed a defence by way of limitation of action); it is, as laid down in Fred Egbe v. Justice Adefarasin (supra), not proper for the trial court to infer or conclude from the pleadings that the protection afforded the defendant by law is has been vitiated by malice or bad faith. For what the trial court is obligated to decide at that stage is whether the action is maintainable and whether not the defendant is liable. The proof of liability can only come about after evidence in support of the pleadings has been adduced by the parties or the plaintiff.”</b></span></i><span lang="EN-GB" 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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">It should be mentioned that the Defendants raised their preliminary objections <i>in limine</i>. At this stage, what this court is called upon to determine is whether the suit is competent and not whether the Defendants are liable. It is only when the suit is competent that evidence can be led to determine whether the protection under the Public Officers Protection Act has been vitiated by the alleged lack of authority. Therefore, whether the Defendants acted without authority or in abuse of their office can only be considered by this court if the action was filed against the Defendants within the prescribed 3 months from the date the cause of action arose. Since that is not the case here, the argument of learned counsel to the Claimant in this respect cannot save the Claimant’s suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:red"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Clearly, the suit was filed against the Defendants outside the 3 months period allowed by the Public Officers’ Protection Act. By the effect of Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act, this suit is no doubt statute barred. Where a statute of limitation prescribes a period within which an action should be brought, legal proceedings cannot be properly or validly instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period. An action which is not brought within the prescribed period offends the provision of the law and does not give rise to a cause of action. See <b>AJAYI vs. ADEBIYI (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 634) 1 at 21.</b> In the result, the Claimant’s right to prosecute his case has become statute barred and this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Claimant’s suit. Consequently, this suit is dismissed.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:red"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">With this position, the other grounds of the Preliminary Objections have become inconsequential for consideration. No order as to cost.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" 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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; 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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Judge<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></u></p>