Download PDF
<p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">REPRESENTATION</span></u><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Godfrey Agbo, with A. G. E. Ishiwu, for the claimant.</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Chief Paul C. Obi, with Miss Omotola Ikuenayo and Miss Ginika Okoroafor, for the defendant.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">RULING</span></u><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">1. The claimant had filed this action on 6th May 2016 vide a Complaint. By the statement of claim, the claimant is seeking for the following reliefs –</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">1)<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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">A declaration that the claimant being a staff of the 1st defendant’s Ministry of Petroleum Resources is in the Civil Service of the Federation and subject to the Public Service Rules, 2008 Edition.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">2)<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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">A declaration that the action of the 2nd defendant in terminating the claimant’s contract of employment with the 1st defendant by a letter dated 26/4/2013 is unlawful and a breach of the Public Service Rules, 2008.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">3)<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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">A declaration that Departmental Disciplinary Committee set up by the 2nd defendant to investigate the criminal allegation of forgery made against the claimant in the query letter dated 4/12/2012 is illegal, unconstitutional and void.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">4)<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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">An order of Court setting aside the letter dated 26/4/2013 issued to the claimant by the 2nd defendant’s department/staff for being illegal and a breach of the Public Service Rules, 2008.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">5)<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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">An order reinstating the claimant to his position as a staff of the Civil Service of the Federation in the 1st defendant’s Ministry. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO 1), 2), 3), 4) and 5) above</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode 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 style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">The sum of N707,186,453.65 (Seven Hundred and Seven Million, One Hundred and Eighty-Six Thousand, Four Hundred and Fifty-Three Naira, Sixty-Five Kobo), being the claimant’s expected total salary/emoluments from May, 2013 to April, 2035.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode 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 style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">The sum of N110,148,906.00 (One Hundred and Ten Million, One Hundred and Forty-Eight Thousand, Nine Hundred and Six Naira) being the gratuity due to the claimant from the 1st defendant company upon retirement in the year June, 2035.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode 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 style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">The sum of N1,222,652,862.00 (One Billion, Two Hundred and Twenty-Two Million, Six Hundred and Fifty-Two Thousand, Eight Hundred and Sixty-Two Naira) being total annual pension due to the claimant from the 1st defendant upon retirement from the year 2035 to 2050 at the rate of N81,510,910 per annum.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">2. At the Court’s sitting of 30th June 2016, the Court noted that the claimant is complaining about the termination of his employment in 2013 and this suit was filed in 2016; thus raising the question whether the case is not caught up by the Public Officers Protection Act (POPA). Parties, starting with the claimant, were then asked to address the Court by filing written addresses.The claimant’s written address is dated 10th October 2016 but filed on 7th November 2016, while the defendant’s is dated and filed on 22nd November 2016. The claimant did not file any reply on points of law.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">3. The claimant framed three issues for the determination of the Court, namely:</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(i)<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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit in view of the provisions of section 2(1) of the Public Officers Protection Act.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(ii)<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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Whether the raising of the defense of statute of limitation <i>suo motu</i> by the Court is a breach of fair hearing.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(iii)<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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Whether this Court has the powers/jurisdiction to grant the claimant’s claim as contained in the complaint.</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">4. The contention of the claimant is that the POPA is not applicable to employment contracts; and since his is also an employment contract, POPA is inapplicable to his case, citing <i>Dr Reuben T. Tolorunleke v. Agricultural and Rural Management Trading Institute (ARMTI)</i> [2009] All FWLR (Pt. 497) 152 CA per Sankey, JCA. The claimant proceeded to argue that because it was not the defendants that raised the issue of statute-barred, the defendants must be read to have waived their right in that regard; as such the defense was no longer available to them. This being the case, that it was wrong for this Court to have raised the issue; and in doing so, this Court descended into the arena thus breaching the claimant’s right to fair hearing. Once again the claimant relied on <i>Dr Reuben T. Tolorunleke v. Agricultural and Rural Management Trading Institute (ARMTI)</i>, this time per Denton-West, JCA disagreeing with Sankey, JCA. The claimant then urged the Court to hold that the applicability of the statute of limitation is not an issue that the Court can raise <i>suo motu</i>. Lastly, it is the contention of the claimant that the kind of pecuniary claims in this suit have been dealt with in <i>I. Kayode Omoyuyigbe v. NIPOST</i> [2010] All FWLR “part 543 part 190 at page 1468 - 1 1969”, and for which this Court has the jurisdiction to determine.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">5. The defendants on their part framed two issues for the determination of this Court, namely:</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode 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 style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Whether this Honourable Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this suit having regard to the provisions of section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act Cap. P41 LFN 2004.</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode 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 style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Whether, having regard to the fact that the issue of limitation period affects the jurisdiction of court, raising same by the Court <i>suo motu</i> amounts to a breach of fair hearing.</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">6. The contention of the defendants is that this suit is statute-barred and that the defendants fall within the meaning of public officers as provided in section 2(a) of POPA, referring to <i>Abubakar v. Gov. Gombe State</i> [2002] 17 NWLR (Pt. 797) 533 amongst other cases as well as section 318 of the 1999 Constitution regarding the meaning of Public Service of the Federation. The defendants continued that looking at the complaint and statement of fact, this suit is as a result of the termination of the claimant’s employment via a letter dated 26th April 2013, meaning that the cause of action arose on this date. That the instant suit was filed on 6th May 2016, three years and 10 days after the cause of action arose. That this suit is accordingly caught up by section 2(a) of POPA, referring to <i>Agboola v. Agbodemu & ors</i> [2008] LPELR-8461(CA). As for the claimant's argument that POPA does not apply to employment contracts, the defendants submitted that this argument is a misconception of the law, citing <i>Tajudeen v. CIPSP</i> [2010] 4 NWLR (Pt. 1184) 325 where POPA was held to apply to contracts of employment. On the issue whether this Court in raising <i>suo motu</i> the question of limitation period thereby breached the claimant’s fair hearing, the defendants answered in the negative given that jurisdiction is in issue. That this Court can raise <i>suo motu</i> the issue of statute of limitation and that will not be breach of fair hearing. Also that the Court can raise <i>suo motu</i> the issue of jurisdiction, citing <i>Braithwaite v. Skye Bank Plc</i> [2013] 5 NWLR (Pt. 1346) 1, <i>Miaphen v. Unijos Consultancy Ltd</i> [2013] LPELR-21904(CA) and <i>Olutola v. Unicorn</i> [2004] 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 416 at 446. The defendants concluded by urging the Court to discountenance the arguments of the claimant and dismiss this suit.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">7. Like my brother of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Hon. Justice Peter O. Affen, put it in <i>Adriatic </i></span><i><span lang="RU" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:RU">1 L</span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">td & anor v. Oriental Energy Resources Ltd</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> unreported Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/1398/2016 Motion No. M/614/2016, the ruling of which was delivered on 16th February 2017, “Jurisdiction is determined by the plaintiff’s demand and not the defendant’s answer which merely disputes the existence of the claim but does not alter or affect its nature”. I indicated earlier that the claimant filed the instant suit on 6th May 2016. The claimant’s complaint is that the termination of his employment vide a letter dated 26th April 2013 is unlawful; that the disciplinary hearing set up for him pursuant to a query letter dated 4th December 2012 is unconstitutional and void; and that he wants to be reinstated. See reliefs 2), 3) and 4) as well as paragraphs 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the statement of claim. In the alternative, he is praying for monetary sums representing his salary/emoluments, gratuity and pension for the period May 2013 to 2050. From all of this, the cause of action of the claimant as per this suit is the termination of his employment. The termination was vide a letter dated 26th April 2013 but was received by the claimant on 10th July 2013. See the endorsement of the claimant on the letter itself wherein he endorsed thus: “Original Copy Collected by me Aku Anthony”. This endorsement is dated 10/07/2013 and signed by the claimant. Since the letter of termination was received on 10th July 2013, it means that the cause of action in this suit arose on 10th July 2013, the date when all needed to go Court crystallized as to give the claimant the right to approach the Court between this date and 6th May 2016 when this suit was filed, more than two years elapsed. In other words, the claimant waited for more than two years before filing this suit. The POPA in section 2(a) allows for only a three month limitation period. In not filing this suit within the three months allowed, the filing of this suit is in breach of the mandatory provisions of section 2(a) of POPA. Accordingly, this suit is statute-barred, the defendants being public officers wishing the meaning of section 2(a) of POPA. See <i>Ibrahim v. JSC, Kaduna State</i> [1998] LPELR-1408(SC); [1998] 14 NWLR (Pt. 584) 1. I so find and hold.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">8. The claimant argued that POPA does not apply to employment contracts. I agree with the submission of the defendants that this argument of the claimant is misconceived. The applicability of section 2(a) of POPA to employment contracts is no longer in doubt. Only recently, the Court of Appeal applied it to an employment contract dismissing the case in the process. See <i>Securities and Exchange Commission v. Abilo Uboboso</i> unreported Appeal No. CA/A/388/2013 the judgment of which was delivered on 21st December 2016. And on 16th February 2017, this Court followed <i>Securities and Exchange Commission v. Abilo Uboboso</i> and dismissed the claimants’ case in <i>Mr O. R. Ejeme & 3 ors v. Standards Organization of Nigeria (SON)</i> unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/655/2015, the ruling of which delivered on 16th February 2017. I do not accordingly see any merit in the claimant’s argument as to the inapplicability of POPA to employment contracts.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">9. It is also the contention of the claimant that this Court erred in raising <i>suo motu</i> the issue of statute-barred. Once again, I agree with the defendants that the question of limitation law goes to jurisdiction, which this Court can raise <i>suo motu</i>. The argument of the claimant that in not raising the issue of statute-barred, the defendants waived their right in that regard is blind to the fact that parties cannot by consent confer jurisdiction where there is none, neither can they waive it where it is. The talk of waiver of jurisdiction intuits that a party can choose to confer jurisdiction on the Court by not raising it where in fact the Court lacks jurisdiction. I do not think that this represents the law. I find it curious that the claimant in relying on <i>Dr Reuben T. Tolorunleke v. Agricultural and Rural Management Trading Institute (ARMTI)</i> [2009] All FWLR (Pt. 497) 152 CA quoted Her Ladyship Denton-West, JCA as disagreeing with Her Ladyship Sankey, JCA on the issue whether a trial judge can raise <i>suo motu</i> the question of an action being statute-barred. While Sankey, JCA (delivering the leading judgment) said the trial judge could, Denton-West, JCA said he could not. I asked A. G. E. Ishiwu, counsel who held brief for G. O. Agbo when counsel adopted their written briefs on 22nd February 2017, whether one JCA can overrule another JCA. He did not give an answer beyond muttering that he is merely holding brief and that all their arguments are contained in the written address which the Court should read. To start with, the judgment of Her Ladyship Denton-West, JCA was a concurring one, the opening words of which at page 181 were:</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">I have the privilege to read before now the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Jummai Hannatu Sankey, JCA. I am in agreement with him in his final conclusion dismissing the appeal. The decision is a well thought out one, particularly, the part of the judgment specifically taking contract of service out of classes of actions which will attract the application of section 2(a) of Public Officers (Protection) Act. It is a highly welcome development which I hope the apex court will have occasion to affirm in the not too distant future.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">It was after this statement that Her Ladyship Denton-West, JCA proceeded in the very next paragraph to express her disagreement with Sankey, JCA on the question whether a trial judge can raise <i>suo motu</i> the question whether an action is statute-barred. This effectively, at least regarding the issue whether a trial Judge can <i>suo motu</i> raise the question of an action being statute-barred, makes the contribution of Her Ladyship Denton-West, JCA heavily relied on by the claimant, to be a dissenting one. His Lordship Niki Tobi, JSC in <i>Nwana v. FCDA</i> [2004] 13 NWLR (Pt. 889) 128 at pp. 140 – </span><span lang="RU" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:RU">141 </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">took time out to state the character of a concurring judgment. Hear His Lordship: “… a concurring judgment is not expected to deviate from the leading judgment. A concurring judgment as the name implies, must be in agreement with the leading judgment. A concurring judgment which does its own thing in its own way outside the leading judgment is not a concurring judgment but a dissenting judgment”. And by <i>Mohhamed v. Abdulkadir</i> [2008] 4 NWLR (Pt. 1076) 111 at 146, “where a concurring judgment conflicts with or contradicts the leading judgment, then it becomes a dissenting judgment and will not have the force of the leading judgment which will be binding. The leading judgment will be the binding judgment going by the principle of </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">stare decisis</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">”. In any event, a review of recent authorities (note that <i>Tolorunleke</i> was decided on 17th July 2008) may help us in resolving the judicial impasse between Their Ladyships.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">10. The claimant had tied his response on whether the Court can raise the issue of statute-bar <i>suo motu</i> with that of the defendant having waived his right to raise the issue of statute-barred for not raising it in the first place. So in considering whether or not this Court can raise <i>suo motu</i> the issue of statute-bar, we must also consider whether the defendant can waive the defence of statute-bar. In <i>University of Jos v. Adam</i> [2013] LPELR-20276(CA), therefore, the leading judgment of His Lordship Agbo, JCA first held that “The importation of the principle or doctrine of waiver in jurisdictional issues is yet to take hold in our jurisdiction”; and then Her Ladyship Sankey, JCA in her concurring judgment proceeded to hold thus:</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">On the issue of waiver raised by the Respondent on the ground that the issue of statute bar under the Limitation Law was not raised before the lower court and was being raised for the first time before this court, it must be said that the issue of jurisdiction is a question of law and can be raised at any time by the parties or by the court </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">suo motu</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time at the Supreme Court. It can even be raised </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">viva voce</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> for the first time during arguments.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">11. If there is any doubt as to the concurring stance of Sankey, JCA, this has been cleared by the leading judgment of His Lordship Okoro, JSC in <i>Alhaji (Dr) Ado Ibrahim v. Alhaji Maigida U. Lawal & ors</i> [2015]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> LPELR-24736(SC)</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">. In His Lordship’s words:</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">The second legal mine set to ambush, explode and stop the application of the Public Officers Protection Act to this proceeding is that the 5th and 6th respondents had waived their right to do so, for, though they pleaded same in their statement of defence, have not fought it to this court. Without much ado, I find it difficult to accept this proposition. The reason is not farfetched. Courts are creatures of statutes predicated on the Constitution with their jurisdiction clearly stated or prescribed therein. In view of this state of affairs, it is quite obvious that no court can assume jurisdiction except it is statutorily endowed as jurisdiction cannot be implied nor can it be conferred by agreement of parties. See <i>Anyo v. Ogele</i> [1968] 1 All NLR 1, <i>Osadebay v. Attorney-General, Bendel State</i> [1991] 22 NCSS (Pt. 1) 137 at 160, [1991] 1 NWLR (Pt. 169) 525 at 572, <i>Gafar v. Governor of Kwara State</i> [2007] 4 NWLR (Pt. 1024) 375 at 463 paras G-H.</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Let me emphasize the fact that a mandatory statutory provision cannot be waived. The word “</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DE">shall</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">” used in Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act denotes mandatoriness and leaves no room for discretion.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">By these Court of Appeal and Supreme Court authorities, not only can a trial court raise the issue of statute-bar <i>suo motu</i>, a defendant cannot be held to have waived the defence of an action being statute-barred as the claimant argued. It is accordingly my holding that this Court was right to have raised <i>suo motu</i> the issue of this case being statute-barred and no right to fair hearing of the claimant was breached thereby; neither is it that the defendant waived the right to raise the issue of this case being statute-barred.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">12. Where a Court makes the finding that a matter is statute-barred, the proper order to make is one of dismissal. See <i> NPA Plc v. Lotus Plastics Ltd</i> [2005] 19 NWLR (Pt. 959) 158.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">13. Although not raised by the Court, the claimant as his issue (iii) asked whether this Court has the powers/jurisdiction to grant the claimant’s claim as contained in the complaint, and answered in the affirmative. This is an issue that should appropriately be taken when the merit of the case is being considered. While I think it is inappropriate for counsel to the claimant to have raised it at this preliminary stage when only jurisdiction of the Court is being considered, I feel compelled to leave the claimant with three case law authorities. The first is <i>Okeme v. Civil Service Commission, Edo State</i> [2000] 14 NWLR (Pt. 688) CA. This case held that an employer does not guarantee a job to an employee until the employee’s retirement age. The time stipulated for retirement only set out the maximum duration possible for the employment under the existing contract. Consequently, the Court will not grant a claim for payment of salary up to the retirement age of the employee in a claim of wrongful dismissal. The second case is <i>Achimugu v. Minister FCT</i> [1998] 11 NWLR (Pt. 574) 467, which held that it is entirely erroneous to hold that a person is qualified for pension merely because a court has awarded damages for a period covering the time he would have remained in service had his services not been terminated. Where the claim for salaries is involved, as is the case in this suit, the law is that by <i>LUTH & MB v. Adewole</i> [1998] 5 NWLR (Pt. 550) 406, (and this is the third case) where a claim is that payment of salaries has been wrongfully withheld, the cause of action accrues from the date the salaries are due for payment; and the liability of the employer does not generally depend on demand for payment. The claimant in the alternative reliefs is asking for salaries/emoluments, gratuity and pension for a period up to 2050. Have they been earned? The claimant may wish to reappraise his alternative reliefs a), b) and c) within the context of these case law authorities.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">14. On the whole, it is my finding and holding that this suit is statute-barred; as such it is hereby dismissed. Ruling is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">……………………………………</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD</span><o:p></o:p></p>