Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><b><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">REPRESENTATION:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Eze Nwakaeze Esq. appeared for the Claimant/Respondent.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Vincent O. Ene Esq. appeared for the Defendant/Applicant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal"><b><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">RULING<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the 4<sup>th</sup> day of November, 2014 the Claimant approached this Honourable Court and filed a Complaint with a Statement of Facts wherein he claims against the defendants jointly and severally, the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(a)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">DECLARATION </span></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">that the disciplinary sanction of warning letter issued by the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant in the name of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant was not arrived at in accordance with Section 30(3) & (4) of Institute of Management & Technology Law, Cap 97, Laws of Enugu State, 2004 or applicable conditions stated in the Senior Staff Conditions of Service, 1994 and thereby is null, void and ineffectual.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(b)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">AN ORDER</span></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> expunging the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant’s warning letter of 2<sup>nd</sup> May, 2012 from the records of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(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 style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">N100,000,000 (one Hundred Million naira only) on the footing of exemplary and general damages for wrongful sanction of the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Complaint was accompanied with Statement of facts, list of witnesses, statement on oath of the witness, list and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial. Upon being served with the processes of the Claimant, the defendants on 17<sup>th</sup> day of November, 2014 entered appearance and filed a Statement of Defence with its accompanying processes. He equally filed a Notice of preliminary objection against the Suit. The relief sought on the said preliminary objection is for<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">AN ORDER dismissing this suit for being statute barred in that it contravenes Section 11(1) of the State Proceedings Law, Cap 148 Laws of Enugu State, 2004 and Section 37(1) of the Actions Law Cap 4, Laws of Enugu State, 2004.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">AND for such further order(s) the Honourable Court may deem fit in the circumstance.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The grounds for the application are stated in the 8-paragraphed affidavit in support of the Notice of Preliminary Objection deposed to by the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant in this case. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The objection is also accompanied with a written address in support. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Upon being served with the preliminary objection of the Defendants/Applicants, the Claimant/Respondent on 20<sup>th</sup> May, 2015 filed a Counter-Affidavit of 7 paragraphs deposed to by the Claimant himself. There is a written address in opposition to the preliminary objection. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Thereafter the learned defendants’ counsel filed a reply on points of law on 20<sup>th</sup> January, 2016 with leave of court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In his written address in support of the preliminary objection learned defendants’ counsel formulated and argued one issue for determination as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether the Claimant can maintain this action which contravenes Section 11(1) of the State Proceedings Law, Cap 148, Laws of Enugu State, 2004 and Section 37(1) of the Actions Law, Cap 4, Laws of Enugu State, 2004?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On his own part the learned counsel for the Claimant formulated and argued the following issues for determination:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(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 style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether Section 11(1) of the State Proceedings Law Cap 147 Laws of Enugu State, 2004 and Section 37(1) of the Actions Law Cap 4 Laws of Enugu State, 2004 can validly regulate the institution of action or the time frame within which the Claimant/Respondent can maintain this action against the Defendants/Respondents?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(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 style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether by reasons of malice or bad faith succinctly exhibited by the defendants/applicants in the matter leading to this action, this suit can be caught up by statute of limitation?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(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 style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether an action which touches on the breach of a person’s fundamental rights can be limited by statutes?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I have carefully considered the processes filed as well as the arguments and submissions of counsel on the preliminary objection of the Defendants/applicants. There is only a single issue for determination here which is whether the Claimant’s suit as presently constituted is statute barred?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant is challenging the disciplinary action taken against him wherein the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant issued him a warning letter through the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant following an allegation that he changed the place of his sabbatical leave without the approval of the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant as required by its Rules and Regulations. The defendants filed a preliminary objection which I shall now determine.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Defendants are of the view that the Claimant’s suit is statute barred. The ground is that by the provisions of Section 11(1) of the State Proceedings Law of Enugu State and Section 37(1) of Actions Law of Enugu State, the Claimant should have come to court within one year from the accrual of his cause of action. The two provisions state as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">11(1) No action or proceedings shall lie or be instituted under this law unless it is commenced within twelve months next after the act, neglect or default complained of or, in the case of a continuing damage or injury within twelve months next after the ceasing thereof.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Section 37(1) of the Actions Law of Enugu State provides that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">37(1) Subject to any written law from time to time in force in the State, no action shall be brought against any person for any act done in pursuance, or execution, or intended execution of any written law or of any public duty or authority, unless it is commenced before the expiration of one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued;<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> Provided that where the act, neglect or default is a continuing one, no cause of action in respect thereof shall be deemed to have accrued, for the purposes of this subsection, until the act, or default has ceased.</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the Claimant cannot come to court because his cause of action, the warning letter, accrued more than a year before he filed the suit. This is because since the limitation law has stipulated one year as the period within which he should have come to court, he cannot now come to court to ventilate the same cause of action. He referred to the case of <b><i>Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) & Ors vs INEC & Ors (2011) 12 SCNJ 644 at 649. </i></b>He added that from his calculation the period between 2<sup>nd</sup> May, 2012 when the letter of warning, which is when the cause of action accrued and the 4<sup>th</sup> November, 2014 when this suit was instituted is 31 months as against the twelve months prescribed by the limitation statute. That the suit is statute barred. He cited and relied on the case of <b><i>William Olagunju & Anor vs Power Holdings Co. of Nigeria Plc (2011) 4 SCNJ 194 </i></b>and <b><i>JFS Investments Ltd vs Brawal Line Ltd & 2 Ors (2010) 12 SCNJ 307.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On his own part the learned counsel for the Claimant argued that the provisions of sections 11(1) and 37(1) of the State Proceedings Law and Actions Law of Enugu State respectively relied upon by the Defendants are not applicable in this case. That is to say that the limitation period of twelve months provided in those sections cannot apply to the defendants/applicants. This is because the statute that created the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant, Institute of Management and Technology Law, Cap 97, Revised Laws of Enugu State does not provide for any limitation period. Therefore it is not subject to any limitation laws where it is to be sued. He added that the IMT Law has not mentioned any limitation of time and so therefore it should not be imported into it through the general legislation. He referred to <b><i>Oshoffa & Ors vs Kosoko & Ors (2014) 3 WRN 84 at 112.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel further referredto the decision in the case of <b><i>Ugwu George & Ors vs IMT & Ors (Unreported) Suit No. E/483/09 Ruling in which was given on 24<sup>th</sup> November 2010 </i></b>where the court held that the provision of section 11(2) of State Proceedings Law of Enugu State was not applicable to IMT which has its own law governing its activities. He then added that this Honourable Court relied on that decision in the case of NICN/EN/215/2013, Oforah Ngozi Joy (Mrs) vs Enugu State College of Education Technical & 3 Ors to hold that the said section 11(2) cannot be used to contest the competence of the suit. He then added that this court decided in Ngozi Joy’s case that section 11(2) cannot be used to fill the lacuna in the law of the Enugu State College of Education Technical on pre-action notice. He then concluded that the sections 11(1) and 37(1) of the State Proceedings Law and Actions Law respectively of Enugu State cannot be used to bring in the issue of limitation of time which has not been provided in the IMT Law.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel further referred to the case of <b><i>Sifax Nig Ltd vs Migfor Nig Ltd (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1510) p. 10 at 22-23 ratios 9 and 10.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I have considered the submissions of learned counsel. It is quite clear that the Claimant is not arguing that going by the provisions of the two pieces of legislation relied upon by the Defendants/Applicants the Claimant’s suit is not statute barred, but rather that those two laws are not applicable in this case. To start with the Claimant’s cause of action is the warning letter that he is challenging. See paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 18(a) and (b) of the Statement of Facts establishing the cause of action. It is the date on which the cause of action accrued that the court will use in determining whether the suit is statute barred. Here the 2<sup>nd</sup> day of May, 2012 is the date on which the cause of action arose. The next is the date on which the claimant came to court which in this case is 4<sup>th</sup> day of November, 2014. By the provisions of Sections 11(1) and 37(1) of the State Proceedings Law and Actions Law respectively of Enugu State, the contents of which were earlier on reproduced in this Ruling, the claimant had twelve months or one year to come to court. He did not do that. His suit must therefore be declared statute barred. See <b><i>Olagunju & Anor vs PHCN (2011), supra.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">There is however, the argument made by the learned Claimant’s counsel that the two laws are not applicable to this suit. Having considered the arguments and submissions as well as the authorities relied upon, it is quite clear to me that the Claimant counsel’s argument is misconceived. The provisions of Section 11(1) relates to actions of public officers in the service of the state and the defendants are public officers going by the Interpretation Act. More specifically, the argument that the IMT Law has not provided for limitation period and therefore the institution and staff cannot be protected by the limitation in other statutes of limitation of the state like the State Proceedings Law and Actions Law is not tenable. Since the Institution and its officers are public officers their actions or inactions must be subject to the laws. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant’s argument that this court had in <b><i>Joy’s case, supra,</i></b> held that Section 11(2) was not applicable to Enugu State College of Education Technical because its law was silent on the issue, cannot avail the claimant. This is because the decision was clearly in relation to pre-action notice and not limitation period as embodied in section 11(1) of the State Proceedings Law.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the reliance on the decision in the case of <b><i>Sifax Nig Ltd vs Migfo Nig Ltd (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1510) p. 10 at 22-23 ratios 9 and 10</i></b>by the learned Claimant’s counsel, I have gone through his Statement of facts and there is nothing to show that the present suit was “pending” as such before the court to enable it make the finding that the time had stopped running for the purpose of statute of limitation.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned claimant’s counsel further relied on the decisions in <b><i>Engr G.F.C. Ezeani vs NRC (2013) LPELR-22065 (CA)</i></b> and <b><i>Hon. Samuel N. Anyanwu vs Imo State Government & Ors (Unreported) Ruling in which was delivered on 28/11/2012</i></b> to urge the court to hold that there are exceptions to the limitation laws. The one relied upon by counsel is that of malice, bad faith or absence of colour of authority of office from the actions of the defendants. In the instant case, from the Claimant’s averments I do not see anything to show that the defendants/applicants failed to act in accordance with the colour of their offices or authority. See <b><i>ALHAJI JIBRIN BALA HASSAN V. DR. MU'AZU BABANGIDA ALIYU & ORS (2010) LPELR-SC.170/2009.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The averments of the Claimant are to the effect that the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> defendants acted in issuing a letter of warning to him following the discovery that the place he had applied to proceed to for his sabbatical leave, had been changed by the Claimant. The Claimant’s processes show that there are procedures for effecting any change to the institution or organization approved for a staff to proceed to for his sabbatical leave. I do not see how the defendants in the circumstance can be said to </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>