Download PDF
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><u><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Representation</span></u></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">P. O. Igwe (Miss) for the Claimant/Respondent<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">N. E. Chukwu for the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Applicant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Ikpe U. C. (Mrs.) for the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Applicant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Dan Modozie for the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Applicant <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;tab-stops:0in"><b><u><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;tab-stops:0in"><b><u><span style="font-size:13.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">RULING/JUDGMENT</span></u></b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;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 dated and filed 18<sup>th</sup> December 2014, wherein the Claimant/Respondent claimed against the Defendants as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l5 level1 lfo1"><!--[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"">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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">A Declaration that the Claimant’s employment relationship with the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant is imbued with statutory flavour by virtue of the provisions of the University of Port Harcourt Act.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo1"><!--[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"">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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">A Declaration that as an agency and a Ministry, respectively, of the Federal Government of Nigeria, the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant are bound by the decisions and directives of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant, and therefore, bound to implement same.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo1"><!--[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"">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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">A Declaration that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant refusal or Failure/neglect to recall or reinstate the Claimant as her employee in accordance with the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s directives to Federal Universities in 2003, is unlawful and therefore null and void.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo1"><!--[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"">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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">A Declaration that as a public servant, the Claimant is still an employee of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant, and therefore, entitled to his salaries and/or entitlements from the 1<sup>st</sup> day of May, 1999 until the date of judgment. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo1"><!--[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"">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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The sum of <s>N</s>6,394,237.25k being the sum-total of the Claimant’s salary entitlements from 01/05/1999 until 31/10/2014, and thereafter the sum of <s>N</s>35,202.25k every month until judgment, and thereafter, interest thereon at the statutory rate until final liquidation of the total judgment sum.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo1"><!--[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"">6.<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> Defendants to recall and re-instate the Claimant forthwith and pay his salaries and entitlements since May 1<sup>st</sup>, 1999.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo1"><!--[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"">7.<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 perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their privies, servants, principal officers, agents etc and/or howsoever otherwise from disengaging, removing etc or threatening or attempting to remove or disengage the Claimant from his employment save in accordance with due process of law.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">ALTERNATIVELY:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The sum of Six Million Naira (<s>N</s>6,000,000.00) only, as damages against the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant for wrongful failure and/or refusal to recall or re-instate the Claimant as her employee following the purported termination of his employment in April 1999<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">This ruling is premised on three (3) Notices of Preliminary Objections filed by the respective Defendants in this action, the arguments and submissions of which are summarised below</span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">By a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 15<sup>th</sup> March 2016 and filed 16<sup>th</sup> March 2016 and brought pursuant to Order 11 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, Section 2 of the Public Officers’ Protection Act, Cap P41, 2004 and under the inherent jurisdiction of this honourable court, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant sought the following orders:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[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"">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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">An order dismissing this suit for being statute barred.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[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"">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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">An order dismissing this suit for want of jurisdiction<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[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"">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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">An order applying the decision in this application to the suits consolidated by order of this Court on 10<sup>th</sup> November 2015. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The grounds upon which this application is made are <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo3"><!--[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"">The Claimants in this suit are former employees of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Applicant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo3"><!--[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"">The Claimants’ employment with the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Applicant were all terminated on the 30<sup>th</sup> of April, 1999 vide letters sent to each of them. This suit was filed sometime December, 2014 almost 15 years after the letter was given to the Claimant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo3"><!--[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"">The 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Applicant is by law, a public officer who is protected by the Public Officer Protection Acts, 2004.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo3"><!--[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"">The Public Officer Protection Act prescribes the limitation of a period of 3 months within which a public officer may be sued.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo3"><!--[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"">From the time the termination and other complaint in the statements of fact took place, and the time the suit was filed it is well over 3 months contrary to the Public Officer Protection Act.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo3"><!--[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"">This suit is statute barred. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In support of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s Notice of Preliminary objection, is an affidavit of 5 paragraphs, deposed to by one Innocent Nwala, as well as a written address of counsel, wherein the following two issues were raised for the court’s determination:<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:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><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"">i.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the action of the Claimants in this suit is statute barred.<o:p></o:p></span></b></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:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><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"">ii.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this matter.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;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 submitted that Section 2a of the Public Officers’ Protection Act Cap P41 Laws of the Federation 2004 provides as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Where any action, prosecution or other proceeding is commenced against <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">any person for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">execution of any Act or Law or of any public duty or authority, or in <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Act, Law, duty or authority, the following provision shall have effect:<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(a)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The action, prosecution or proceeding shall not lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within three months next after the act, neglect or default complained of, or in case of a continuance of damage or injury, within three months next after the ceasing thereof.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">By the above provision of the Public Officers’ Protection Act, Cap P41 Laws of the Federation 2004, no action is to be brought against a public officer three months after the act complained are done against a person.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">According to counsel, the provision of the Public Officers Protection Act has been acted upon by the court and given judicial might. In <b>Tajudeen vs. C.I.P.S.B (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1184) 325 CA</b>, the Court of Appeal held that an action which was filed almost six years after dismissal of the appellant from the services of the Defendant Board was statute-barred.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In <b>University of Ilorin vs. Adeniran (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1031) 498 at pp 522-523</b>, the Court of Appeal stated thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“The cause of action in this matter arose on 28/2/85 when the respondent’s appointment was terminated. He had till the 28<sup>th</sup> day of March 1985 that is three months in calendar days to file his action. He waited for almost six years to file this action. It is apt to note that the relationship between the parties was by specific statute and not common law. It was a contract with statutory flavor. See Bamgboye V. Unilorin (1999) 6 SCNJ 295, (19999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290. Theirs was not just a simple contract between individuals in which the general statute of limitation would apply but a contract between the respondents as a ‘public officer; an individual and a natural person and the appellant- a Federal Government Agency which is a ‘public service’. In the circumstances, by the operation of s.2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, the action or the proceedings commenced by the respondents outside the 3 months period is totally barred as the right of the respondent- the injured person to commence the action has been extinguished by law…”</span></i></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Supreme Court also held the same position in the cases of <b>Momoh vs. Okewale</b> <b>(1977) 11 NSCC 365</b> and <b>Ibrahim vs. Judicial Service Committee, Kaduna State</b> <b>(1988) 14 NWLR (Pt. 584) 1</b>. It is clear that actions against a Public Officer must be commenced 3 months after the cause of action arose, after the time elapses, a complainant is statute-barred. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In <b>Nigeria Ports Authority vs. Ajobi (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt. 998)447 SC at P.</b> <b>487, (Paras A-C)</b>, the Supreme Court in defining when the time begins to run in an action against public officers, held that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“Time begins to run when there is in existence a person who can sue and when all facts have happened which are material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed. In other words, time will start to run when all facts which constitute the plaintiff cause of action arose”.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In the present case, the primary cause of action arose on the 30<sup>th</sup> day of April 1999 when Letters of Termination of Employment were sent by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Applicant to each of the Claimants as shown in their various complaints. They waited until 18<sup>th</sup> day of December, 2014 to file an action protesting against their dismissal.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel stated that from the facts stated above, a period of 15 years has passed from the day the primary cause of action arose in April, 1999 till the day this action was filed in December, 2014. Counsel submitted that the provisions of the Public Officer Protection Act applies to this case, as the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Applicant is a public officer and the acts complained of were done by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant in its official capacity. Thus all the Claimants are statute-barred from bringing an action against the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Applicant as the 3 months period prescribed by the Act has long elapsed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel urged the court to dismiss all the claims of the Claimants, as their action is statute-barred. According to Counsel, equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent. He prayed that equity be done in this case.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel stated, assuming without conceding that the cause of action was resurrected on the 17<sup>th</sup> day March, 2003 when the Head of Civil Service of the Federation made a directive to reinstate the employees dismissed pursuant to the Public Officers (Special Provision) Decree No. 17 of 1984 he submitted that any action brought by the Claimants on the basis of neglect by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Appellant to obey a directive made since 17<sup>th</sup> March,2003 is equally statute-barred, as the prescribed period of 3 months has long elapsed. Counsel stated that a period of 11 years passed before Claimants instituted an action on the 18<sup>th</sup> day of December, 2014.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel urged the court to dismiss the claims made by the Claimants based on the directive made since 2003 as the claims are statute-barred.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In arguing issue two, Counsel submitted, relying on the case of <b>Madukolu vs. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341</b>, that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit and the cause of action of the Claimants is statute-barred. A cause of action that is statute-barred robs the Court of jurisdiction. He submitted that this matter is incompetent because it has not fulfilled the conditions precedent as stated in <b>Madukolu vs. Nkemdilim.</b> He urged the court to so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In the case <b>Oguwuko vs. Shell (2004) 6 NWLR (Pt. 868) 17 CA</b> the court held that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“When a period is prescribed by statute within which an action should be brought; legal proceedings cannot be properly or validly instituted after expiration of the prescribed period. Thus an action instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period is said to be statute-barred.” <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">See also the case of <b>Osun State Government vs. Dalami Nigeria Ltd</b> <b>(2007) All FWLR (Pt. 365) 438 SC</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">It is trite that a legal right to enforce an action is not a perpetual right, but a right generally limited by statute. Where, a cause of action is statute barred, legal proceedings cannot be commenced in respect of same outside the time prescribed by the law and cannot be entertained by the court of law because the period laid down by the limitation law had elapsed. <b>See Adeosun vs. Jazesun</b> <b>(2001) 14 WRN 106 CA</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel submits further that where a court finds that it lacks jurisdiction the proper order is one dismissing the matter, See the case of <b>Okolo vs. Union Bank of Nig. Plc. (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 197)</b>. Counsel submits that, if the court finds in favour of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Applicant in the first issue, then this entire case crumbles and cannot be heard on the merit. Counsel urged the court to so hold and dismiss this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In opposition to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s Notice of Preliminary Objection, the Claimants/Respondent filed a written address on the 2<sup>nd</sup> day of June 2016, wherein the following two issues were identified for the determination of the court:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><!--[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"">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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the action of the Claimant in this suit is statute-barred.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><!--[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"">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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain this matter.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">According to the counsel for the Claimant, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant has argued that the Claimant’s suit is statute-barred having not been instituted within three months of termination of his contract of employment via letters dated 30/4/1999, or in the alternative, for failure to institute the suit within three months from 17/3/2003, when the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant was directed via an Official Circular to re-absorb/re-instate workers sacked pursuant to the repealed Public Officers (Special Provision) Decree, No 17 of 1984.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">According to Counsel, the above objection is not only misconceived, but also premature. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">According to Counsel, the objection is misconceived because:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l15 level1 lfo13"><!--[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"">In law, an objection on limitation of action is a special defence to an action. It ought to be specifically pleaded and raised as a point of law for resolution in limine. So held the Supreme Court in the following cases:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo14"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><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"">i.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">OLAGUNJU vs. POWER HOLDING COMPANY OF NIGERIA LIMITED (2011) NWLR (Part 1254) 113 at 124 Paragraphs F-G Headnote 1 (SC).<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo14"><!--[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"">ii.<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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">FORESTRY RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF NIGERIA vs. GOLD (2007) 11 NWLR (Part 1044) 1 at 29 Paragraphs F-G, Headnote 3 (SC)</span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel urged the court to dismiss the objection, same being premature and not properly raised. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Alternatively, Counsel for the Claimant submitted that any attempt to resolve the issues raised by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s objection will entail a collateral consideration and conclusion/findings on substantive issues at an interlocutory stage of the suit. Such substantive issues include the following that is:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l14 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"">What is the legal effect of the following of the repeal of the Public Officers (Special Provisions) Decree, No 17 of 1984 under which the Claimant’s employment was terminated by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant via letter dated 30/4/1999?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l14 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"">Is the Claimant still an employee of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant in view of the fact that the Directive to re-absorb and re-instate him in the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s employments was given by the same “appropriate authority” on whose authority his employment was previously determined via letter dated 30/4/1999?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l14 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"">What is the actual cause of action/wrong, which gave rise to the main suit?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Question (a) above is a question of law. Decree No 17 of 1984 was repealed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Certain Consequential Repeals) Decree, No 63 of 1999 (“Decree No 63 of 1999) which came into effect on 29/5/1995. Following the said repeal and a plethora of petitions and representations made to the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by workers sacked in 1999 pursuant of Decree No 17 of 1984, the President directed that those affected by the mass sack of 1999 should be re-absorbed and re-instated.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In <b>A. I. WILSON vs. ATTORNEY – GENERAL OF BENDEL STATE &ORS (1985) NWLR (Part 4) 572</b>, the Supreme Court held inter alia, that the State President or Head of State is the appropriate authority that can either directly or through authorized officers, exercise the powers vested in the Federal Government under Decree No 17 of 1984. Decree No 17 of 1984 was abrogated via Decree No 63 of 1999 by the very same appropriate authority, namely, the then Head of State, General Abdulsalami Alhaji Abubakar (rtd). The Official Circular dated 17/3/2003, directing all Federal Agencies, Parastatals, Ministries and Extra–Ministerial departments to re-absorb and re-instate Public Servants sacked in 1999 under Decree No 17 of 1984 was also made under the same authority. The answer to the question (a) will lead to a resolution of question (b), which the Claimant submits, is a matter of trial, to be determined on the basis of pleadings and evidence of the Claimant on one hand, and the Defendant on the other hand.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Such trial, according to counsel, will provide answers to the following matters:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l13 level1 lfo8"><!--[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"">Has the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant complied or implemented the 2003 Directive dated 17/3/2003?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l13 level1 lfo8"><!--[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"">If not, why has the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant not done so?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l13 level1 lfo8"><!--[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"">Does the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant have a discretion or choice as to whether, how, or when to obey/implement any Directive from the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant, or in particular, the 2003 Directive dated 17/3/2003?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l13 level1 lfo8"><!--[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"">Given ITEM 3(ix) of the 2003 Directive, has the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant submitted to the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant a situation report regarding compliance/implementation of the 2003 Directive?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l13 level1 lfo8"><!--[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"">Did the 1<sup>st</sup> or 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant, or even the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant, at all times between 2003 and 2014, formally notify the Claimant that he will not be re-absorbed or re-instated pursuant to the 2003 Directive?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l13 level1 lfo8"><!--[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"">Is the Claimant not entitled to any kind of compensation or benefits or at all in the event that he is not to be re-absorbed or re-instated by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant in accordance with the 2003 Directive?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l13 level1 lfo8"><!--[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"">Is the re-absorption/re-instatement exercise concluded or an on-going exercise?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l13 level1 lfo8"><!--[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"">Is it constitutionally-permissible for the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to discriminate between employees of her host community (Choba) and non-indigenes thereof in the implementation of the 2003 Directive?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">According to Counsel, question (c) is the principal issue in this application, but cannot be effectually determined without first resolving questions (a) and (b), respectively. Given the substantive nature of the critical issue of law and of mixed low and fact raised above, Counsel urged the court to hold that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s objection is premature in content, misconceived in law and should be dismissed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The following two issues were identified for the determination of the court:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo9"><!--[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"">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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the action of the Claimant in this suit is statute-barred.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo9"><!--[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"">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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain this matter.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On issue one, Counsel stated that if the court should hold that the objection can be safely determined without full trial/evidence, he submits nevertheless that the sole issues for resolution in this application is: <b><i>Whether the cause of action arising from the non-implementation of the 2003 Directive to Federal Parastatals and Agencies is statute-barred, notwithstanding the continuance of the injury/damage suffered by the Claimant as a result thereof</i></b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In opposing the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant objection, counsel submitted that a Counter-Affidavit is unnecessary because it is the date of accrual of the subject cause of action as stated in the claim, and not the depositions in the objector’s supporting affidavit that would determine whether a suit/claim is statute-barred or not.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">See i. <b>CHIEF E.J.W WOHERM J.P vs. JOEL EMEREUWA & 4 others (2004) 13 NWLR (Part 890) 398 at 418, paragraphs C – E</b>, per IGUH JSC (as he then was).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">ii. <b>KASANDUBU vs. ULTIMATE PETROLEUM LIMITED (2008) 7 NWLR (Part 1086) 274 at 298 Paragraph C</b>. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Assuming without conceding that a counter-affidavit ought to have been filed Counsel submits nevertheless that the facts disposed to in the paragraph 3 of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s supporting affidavit are legally inadmissible in law. The said paragraph deposes to information derived from a solicitor, and by Section 115(2) and (3) of the Evidence Act, 2011 the deponent ought to have, but did not set out the facts and circumstance forming the basis of his belief in the received information. Without such particulars, the deposition ought to be treated as mere legal conclusions or opinions.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">See <b>AKPOKININIOVO vs. HON. OVIE AGAS & 4 others (2004) 10 NWLR (Part 881) 394 at 417 -418 paragraphs G – D</b> per AUGIE JCA (as she then was) where it was held inter alia, that a deposition to the effect that the deponent <u>“was informed by Milton Paul Ohwovoriole SAN, leading Counsel to the 1<sup>st</sup> Respondent and verily believed him that the Petition is not in compliance with mandatory provisions of the Electoral Act</u>” was not a statement of facts and circumstances known to the deponent, but a mere legal conclusion and/or opinion, and therefore, liable to be struck out. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></u></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In determining whether or not an action is statute-barred, the applicable period of limitation is usually computed between the date of accrual of cause of action as revealed in the claim and the date of filing the suit. It is for this reason that what constitutes the cause of action in the instant must first be identified prior to any computation exercise. In law, a cause of action is recognized as the factual situation or combination of facts which entitles a party when proved, to obtain a relief against another party. It consists of two elements, namely:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l13 level2 lfo8"><!--[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"">The wrongful act of the Defendant which gives the Plaintiff a cause of complaint; and<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l13 level2 lfo8"><!--[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"">The consequent damage resulting from such wrongful act.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">See <b>DANTATA vs. MOHAMMED (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 664) 176 at 196-197 Paragraphs H-A (SC).</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In the instant case, what is the Claimant’s cause of action, and was his suit filed after the limitation period prescribed for his kind of claim? Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the Complaint alleged that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant terminated the Claimant’s employment on 30/4/1999, but that by the 2003 Directive dated 17/3/2003, the President represented by the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant, acting through the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, directed the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants to re-absorb the Claimant and others sacked in 1999 under Decree No 17 of 1984, which directive is yet to be obeyed/implemented till date. Counsel submitted that since said that Directive contains no deadline for the implementation, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s refusal/neglect and delay to obey/implement same in relation to the Claimant is what constitutes the cause of action in this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In arguing issue two, Counsel for the Claimant submitted that this action is not statute barred. He anchored this submission on the proviso in Section 2a of the Public Officers’ Protection Act which states that the three month limitation period does not start running where there is a continuance of damage/injury resulting from the wrong complained against a public officer. In case of continuance of damage /injury, the law is that the three months limitation period starts running from the date of cessation of the damage/injury complained of. See <b>SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF NIGERIA LMITED vs. OJIOWHOR MONDAY AMADI & ORS (2010) 13 NWLR (Part 1210) 82 at 123 paragraph D-E</b> per EJEMBI EKO JCA.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In the instant case, paragraphs 5, 8 and 9 of the complaint show that by reason of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s non-implementation of the 2003 Directive, the Claimant has not been receiving his salary, he has been re-integrated into the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s structure, he has not been assigned any office or duties, he has not been formally disengaged after 2003, his grade level has not even changed after salaries for those grade levels have been revised upward etc. These indignities and hardship are continuous and rolled over every day for as long as the 2003 Directive remains unimplemented or complied with.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Claimant is a beneficiary of the 2003 Directive, but not a party thereto. Its contents were not directed at him, but rather to the 1<sup>st</sup> and the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants, as Federal Parastatals and Ministries. The 2003 Directive contains no deadline for implementation. The Claimant was not formally notified that the exercise is over, or that he will not be re-absorbed or re-instated till date. The right to enforce the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s compliance with the 2003 directive lies with the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants, respectively. The Claimant is however, the party that is adversely affected by the consequences of a refusal/delay to comply with the said directive on the part of either the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant on one hand, or by both the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants on the other hand. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel for the Claimant therefore submits and urges the court to hold that the cause of action/wrong resulting from the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s delay and/or refusal/neglect to implement the 2003 directive in relation to the Claimant, is not statute-barred because of the continuance of the injury/damage occasioned by the delayed implementation of the said Directive.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">He submitted that the protection created by the provisions of the Public Officers Protection Act is not absolute or automatic. To be validly invoked, it must be shown:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l16 level1 lfo10"><!--[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"">That the action, prosecution or proceeding relates to a public officer as legally and judicially defined;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l16 level1 lfo10"><!--[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"">The act or conduct complained of was done or occurred in performance of, execution or intended execution of a law, public duty or authority;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l16 level1 lfo10"><!--[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"">The party relying on the Public Officers Protection Act is a public officer must have acted within the scope of the law, his duty, or authority. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">See the following cases:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l11 level1 lfo11"><!--[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"">1.<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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">SULGRAVE HOLDING INCORPORATED & 19 ors vs. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & 3 others (2012) 17 NWLR (Part 1329) 309 at 335 paragraphs A-D.</span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> Per GALADIMA JSC.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l11 level1 lfo11"><!--[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"">2.<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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">NATIONAL INSURANCE COMMISSION vs. SHEHU AMINU (2012) 8 NWLR (Part 1302) 330 at 355 paragraph A-D</span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">. Per JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA JCA.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In the instant case, no evidence is before the court to the effect that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s refusal/delay to implement/comply with the 2003 Directive is in pursuance of, execution or intended execution of a law, public duty or authority vested in the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant by the law or the constitution. As a public institution, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant is bound by law and public interest to comply with such a Presidential Directive. Non-compliance therewith is clearly outside the scope of its authority or duty as a subordinate public institution. Accordingly, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant is not entitled to the protection offered by the law to public officers. Given the facts that the wrong complained of is an act of disobedience to the lawful directives of the President and the fact that there is a continuance of injury/damage resulting therefrom, counsel urged the court to hold that the claim in this suit is not statute-barred, and the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s act/conduct is outside the scope of its duty, the law and its authority as a public body.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:-.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel concluded by submitting that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s objection lacks merit and ought to be dismissed because it was shown that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l2 level1 lfo12"><!--[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"">The grounds of the objection cannot be effectually determined without a collateral consideration and possible findings on substantive matters, requiring pleadings and evidence;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l2 level1 lfo12"><!--[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"">The cause of action in the main suit is not the 1999 termination of the Claimant’s employment by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant, but rather the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s delay, neglect or failure to implement the 2003 Presidential Directive on re-absorption of federal employees sacked in 1999 under the repealed Public Officers (Special Provisions) Decree, No 17 of 1984;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l2 level1 lfo12"><!--[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"">The said cause of action is not statute-barred because the injury/damage resulting therefrom is a continuing one, has not yet abated and is still being suffered by the claimant till date;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l2 level1 lfo12"><!--[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"">The 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s continuous refusal to implement/obey the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s 2003 Presidential Directive is an act of wilful disobedience to constituted authority, which is outside the scope of the authority, the law and therefore, disentitles it to the protection afforded under the Public Officers Protection Act;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l2 level1 lfo12"><!--[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"">The 2003 Directive does not contain any date or time line within which the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant ought to have implemented/complied with the re-absorption of sacked federal employees as to make three months from such date the relevant limitation period within which the Claimant ought to have commenced his action against the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant for failure to re-instate or re-absorb him. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In the light of the above, Counsel urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objection and order an accelerated hearing.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On the 25<sup>th</sup> day of October 2016, Counsel for the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant filed a reply on points of law wherein counsel submitted that the court lacks jurisdiction to delve into matters which question the legislative competence of the National Assembly to make laws, and he urged the court to so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">According to counsel, this is not a suit challenging the provision of Section 2a of the Public Officers’ Protection Act LFN 2004. Where a party is desirous of challenging a section of the law, there is a procedure to be adopted, and counsel for the Claimant is aware of this. Counsel then urged the court to discountenance the entire arguments contained in paragraphs 3.1 to 3.7 of the Claimant’s address, as the issue is purely a constitutional one and cannot be dealt with in this matter and in this manner.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel reiterated the position of the Claimant that what the court is to look at is the date of accrual of the cause of action as against the date the suit was filed. Citing the case of <b>FRED EGBE vs. ADEFARASIN (1985) 1 NWLR 549</b>, counsel submitted that the cause of action in this matter arose in 1999. He urged the court to so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">He went further that the only document the court should look at is the writ of summons and statement of claim, to determine the date the cause of action arose, and compare the date with the date the writ was filed. If the time is beyond the period allowed by the limitation law, the action is statute barred. See <b>ELABANJO vs. DAWODU (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1001) 78 SC at pp123-124. EGBE vs. ADEFARASIN (No. 2) (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 47) 1</b>. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">According to counsel, the cause of action is the termination of the Claimants’ employment, as seen in their complaint, and the subsequent refusal of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to reinstate them pursuant to a directive in 2003. The court can therefore entertain this Preliminary Objection. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In response to arguments relating to continuance of injury, counsel submitted that subsequent complaints about failure to recall the Claimants are all effects of the legal act. See <b>OBIEFUNA vs. OKEKE (1961) 1 SCNLR 144, HASSAN vs. ALIYU (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1223) 547</b>. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In response to the Claimant’s argument relating to inadmissibility of Paragraph 3 of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s supporting affidavit, Counsel submitted that the Claimant’s contention is misconceived. He cited Section 115 (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Evidence Act and submitted that paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the said affidavit had complied with the said provisions, as sufficient particulars had been given, and they contained facts and not extraneous matters.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">He went further to submit that since there was no counter affidavit, the court is to treat the supporting affidavit as having established the facts contained therein. See <b>AJOMALE vs. YADUAT (1991) 22 NSCC (Pt. 1) 570 at 575. ATTORNEY GENERAL ONDO STATE vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL EKITI STATE (2001) 9-10 SC 116 at pp135-136</b>. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">According to counsel, the law is trite that mere technicalities should not affect the merits of a case. He submitted that the contention of the Claimant are mere technicalities, and should be dismissed. <b>EGBE & ORS vs. AGBARA & ORS (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt. 481) 293, CONSORTIUM M. V. vs. NEPA (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 246) 132</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In answer to the Claimant’s contention that there was no deadline for implementation of the directive to reabsorb the Claimants, Counsel for the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant referred the court to paragraph 3(i) of the said directive, which the Claimant had frontloaded along with his claim. Counsel said the directive provides for 1<sup>st</sup> March 2003 as the effective date of reabsorption. The directive therefore had a deadline which expired 3 months after March 2003. Having not been reabsorbed on the 1<sup>st</sup> day of March 2003, a cause of action had arisen. The Claimant did not file an action until 2014, 11 years afterwards, the action is therefore statute barred. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel urged the court to dismiss the action for being statute barred. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant filed a Notice of Preliminary objection on the 1<sup>st</sup> day of June 2016, seeking an order of this court dismissing the suit for being statute barred. In the supporting written address, counsel submitted a sole issue for the determination of the court, being <b><i>whether the suit/action is not statute barred.<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In arguing the sole issue, counsel cited the provisions of Section 2a of the Public Officers’ Protection Act and submitted, relying on the case of <b>IBRAHIM vs. JSC (Supra)</b>, that this action, having not been filed within three months from the accrual of the cause of action, is statute barred, and ought to be dismissed. Further arguments raised by counsel are similar to arguments raised by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Applicant, and does not need to be further repeated. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In opposition to the Preliminary objection of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant, the Claimant filed a Written Address wherein counsel proffered arguments and submissions which are materially the same as those proffered in opposition to the preliminary objection of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant, which address has been earlier summarized in this ruling. It therefore needs no further repetition. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;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 filed a Notice of Preliminary objection on the 2<sup>nd</sup> day of June 2016 seeking an order of this court striking out the name of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant as a party, and setting aside all the processes served on him by the Claimant, as they disclose no reasonable cause of action against him, as such not a proper party. Counsel also seeks an order dismissing the suit for being statute barred, having not been commenced within 3 months from 30<sup>th</sup> July 1999. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The grounds upon which the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s objection is brought are:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l12 level1 lfo15"><!--[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"">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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">No legal factual or circumstantial relationship has been established to exist or alleged to exist between the Claimant and the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l12 level1 lfo15"><!--[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"">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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">From the totality of processes filed and materials placed by the Claimant before the court, no wrong, dispute or default giving rise to a reasonable cause of action against the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant has been disclosed to warrant the claim of damages against him or to support and sustain his joinder as a party to this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l12 level1 lfo15"><!--[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"">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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The suit can be properly, completely, effectually and finally determined without joining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant as a party.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l12 level1 lfo15"><!--[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"">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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Having been filed outside the three months period prescribed by Section 2a of the Public Officers’ Protection Act Cap P41 LFN 2004, this action is statute barred and this honourable court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain same.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In the accompanying written address, counsel formulated three issues for the court’s determination, viz:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo16"><!--[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"">Whether there is any reasonable cause of action disclosed before this honourable court against the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo16"><!--[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"">Whether the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant is a proper party to this suit before this honourable court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo16"><!--[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"">Whether the suit is not statute barred.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; 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 submitted that throughout the gamut of the Claimant’s statement of facts, no reasonable cause of action was disclosed against the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant. The Claimant neither alleged any wrongdoing by the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant against its interest nor any consequence it has suffered as a result of the act or omission of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant. Counsel defined cause of action as the operative fact or factual situation which gives rise to a right of action which itself is a remedial right. Counsel cited the case of <b>ADEKOYA vs. FEDERAL HOUSING AUTHORITY (2008) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1099) 539 at 551</b> where the Supreme Court quoted and applied the definition of the term “cause of action” as defined by Oputa JSC in <b>FRED EGBE vs. HON. JUSTICE ADEFARASIN (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 47) 1 at 20</b>. According to counsel, there is no action or omission attributable to the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant against the Claimant. Therefore the court’s jurisdiction cannot be invoked against the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On issue two, Counsel argued that proper parties must be identified before a court can be said to be competent and have jurisdiction over a matter. When proper parties are not before a court, then the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter. See <b>BEST VISION CENTRA LTD. vs. UCA NPDC PLC (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt. 838) 394; IKENE vs. ANAKWE (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt. 669) Pg. 484; PEENOK LTD. vs. HOTEL PRESIDENTIAL (1983) 4 NCLR P.122</b>. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In <b>GREEN vs. GREEN (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 480</b>, it was held that necessary parties are those who are not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings but also who in their absence, the proceedings could not be fairly dealt with. Counsel submitted that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant is not a proper party in this suit, his absence will not have any effect to the determination of the suit and the matter can be properly, completely, effectually and finally determined without joining him as a party.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On issue 3, counsel submitted that the Claimant ought to have commenced this action within three months from the date of his retirement. Having failed to do so, his suit has therefore become statute barred, having been caught up by the provisions of Section 2a of the Public Officers’ Protection Act. Further submissions on issue three overlaps with the submissions of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants’ counsels on the issue, and therefore needs no further repetition. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In opposition to the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s objection, the Claimant filed a written address on the 25<sup>th</sup> day of October 2016. Counsel adopted the issues submitted by the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant for the court’s determination. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">As to whether there is a reasonable cause of action against the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant, Counsel submitted that although the decisions cited by the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s counsel represent the position of the law, the principles therein are unhelpful to the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant as they are inapplicable to the facts of this case. According to counsel, there is a lis between the Claimant and the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant as to whether the 2003 directive was intended to benefit federal employees of the Claimant’s category. Since the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant is the Chief Legal Adviser, Law Officer and Legal Representative of the Federal Government of Nigeria, he is the proper person to sue or be sued in respect of any complaints about the validity, issuance, scope and implementation or otherwise of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s 2003 directive for the re-absorption/re-instatement of sacked federal employees. The said directive having been issued from the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s Head of Civil Service of the Federation at the behest of the then President Olusegun Obasanjo, the directive qualifies as an act of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant. Counsel urged the court to so hold. He urged the court to hold that there is a dispute between the Claimant and the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant as to whether he is not a beneficiary of her 2003 directive. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">As regards whether there is existence of a reasonable cause of action, it is counsel’s submission that in determining whether or not a claim discloses a reasonable cause of action against a party, it is sufficient for a court to hold that the cause of action is reasonable once a claim discloses some cause of action or some questions fit to be decided by a judge, notwithstanding that the case is weak or not likely to succeed. The fact that a cause of action is weak or unlikely to succeed will not be a basis for striking it out. See <b>A.G FEDERATION vs. A.G ABIA STATE & ORS (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 725) 689 at 733</b>. According to counsel, the failure or neglect of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant to ensure that the 2003 directive was implemented, contributed to the Claimant’s hardship. The court needs therefore to decide whether:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo17"><!--[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"">The 2003 directive was issued on its authority as alleged;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo17"><!--[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"">The reason behind its issuance;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo17"><!--[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"">Whether the Claimant is among its intended beneficiaries;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo17"><!--[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"">Whether the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant furnished her with a status report as to implementation of the said directive;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo17"><!--[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"">Whether the exercise has ended; and<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo17"><!--[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"">Whether the non-inclusion of the Claimant among the beneficiaries of the 2003 directive was proper or justifiable.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">To counsel, whether or not the above issues or claim will succeed against the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant is irrelevant at this stage. Counsel urged the court to hold that this leg of objection is unmeritorious and should be dismissed. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">As regards existence of facts warranting a declaration, counsel referred the court to paragraphs 3-6 of the claim and submitted that there are sufficient facts in support of the declaratory reliefs sought. The 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s failure to enforce or monitor compliance with the said directive is a wrongful act. Counsel urged the court to hold that the claim discloses sufficient facts to warrant a declaration. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">As regards whether the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant is a proper party to the suit, it is the submission of counsel for the Claimant that a proper party includes a necessary party. He relied on the authority of <b>KALU vs. UZOR (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt. 886) 1 at 22</b>, and urged the court to hold that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant is a proper and necessary party to the suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">As regards whether the suit is statute barred, counsel submitted that the case is not statute barred. According to counsel, there is a continuance of damage/injury resulting from the wrong complained of. Time should therefore start running from the date of the cessation of the damage/injury complained of. See <b>SPD OF NIGERIA LTD. vs. OJIOWHOR MONDAY AMADI & ORS (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1210) 82 at 123</b>. Further arguments proffered by counsel on this issue are a repetition of the Claimant’s address in opposition to the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants’ Preliminary Objections. I see no further need to summarize them here, save to say that counsel urged the court to dismiss the Objections.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:.25in;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="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In the reply of the Claimants’ counsel to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s Notice of Preliminary Objection, the Claimants’ counsel submitted that the objection should be dismissed as it is not properly raised. Counsel argued that objection on limitation of action is a special defence to an action and ought to be specifically pleaded. Again, the Claimants’ counsel also made the point that an attempt to resolve the Preliminary objection will lead to consideration and findings on some vital facts in the suit. These arguments of the Claimants’ counsel, in my view, are misconceived. The Defendants can raise an objection to the jurisdiction of the court, particular that a suit is statute barred, at any time even before filing a defence. See <b>UDOKPO vs. ARCHIBONG (2013) All FWLR (Pt.659) 1144 at 1160; AMUKAMARA vs. AMUKAMARA (2003) FWLR (Pt.173) 57 at 64-65.</b> Similarly, where the issue of limitation of action by statute is raised in a suit to challenge the jurisdiction of the court, two things to look for in determining the objection are when the cause of action arose and when the suit was filed. These facts are determined from the writ and statement of facts and not from the statement of defence. Furthermore, the examination of these facts has nothing to do with determining or making a finding on the substantive suit. I overrule the Claimants’ counsel on these points. I will proceed to determine the objections.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In the respective Preliminary Objections, a ground of objection common to them is the assertion that the Claimants’ suit is statute barred by reason of Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as POPA). The 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant seeks in addition, the striking out of its name for the reason that it is not a juristic person. The 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant on the other hand added a prayer to have its name struck from the suit for non-disclosure of cause of action against it. Let me first consider whether the suit is statute barred. It is when the suit is found to be competent that the issues whether any of the parties is not juristic or the suit discloses a cause of action can be examined.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Only the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant filed an affidavit in support of her Notice of Preliminary Objection (hereinafter referred to as NPO). The NPO of the other Defendants and the responses of the Claimant to the respective Notices of Preliminary Objection were on points of law. Basically, an objection to the competence of an action on the ground that it is statute barred is considered on the basis of the Complaint and the facts contained in the statement of facts. It is from these processes the date the Claimant’s cause of action arose and the date the suit was filed is found. I agree with the submission of the Claimants’ counsel in his reply to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s objection that affidavits are not necessary in an application of this nature. The law is trite that in determining whether a suit is statute barred, the processes to examine are the Writ and the statement of claim; in this case, the Complaint and the Statement of Facts. It is in these processes the date when the cause of action arose and the date the suit was filed will be disclosed. See <b>J.S.F.</b> <b>INVESTMENT LTD. vs. BRAWAL LINE LTD. (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 578) 876 at 902; ELEBANJO vs. DAWODU (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 328) 604 at 646; AMEDE vs. UBA (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 469) 479 at 506/507. </b>In the circumstance the objections will be determined on the strength of the submissions of counsels and the claims and averments of the Claimants in the originating processes.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In the NPOs, the Defendants urged the court to dismiss the Claimants’ suits. It is their contention that the suits are statute barred by virtue of Section 2 (a) of POPA. The provision of Section 2 (a) POPA, which I have earlier set out in this ruling, provides that an action against a public officer must be commenced within 3 months of the accrual of the cause of action except in the case of continuance of the damage or injury in which the Claimant must institute the action within 3 months after the cessation of the damage or injury. The effect, where the suit is not commenced within the prescribed period, is that 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. TAJUDEEN vs. C.I.P.S.B (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1184) 325; UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN vs. ADENIRAN (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1031) 498.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:158.9pt"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:158.9pt"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">It is the contention of the Defendants that the Claimants’ cause of action arose either on 30<sup>th</sup> April 1999 when Letters of Termination of Employment were sent by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Applicant to each of the Claimants as shown in their various complaints or on 17<sup>th</sup> March, 2003 when the Head of Civil Service of the Federation made a directive to reinstate the employees dismissed pursuant to the Public Officers (Special Provision) Decree No. 17 of 1984 and the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Appellant refused to obey the directive. The Claimants, by the time they filed this suit against the Defendants, who are public officers on 18<sup>th</sup> December 2014, the period was already outside the 3 months prescribed in Section 2 (a) of POPA. Let me mention that t</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">he Claimants’ counsel did not dispute the reference to Defendants as public officers in the written address of the Defendants’ counsels. In view of the description of the Defendants in paragraph 1 of the Claimants’ statement of facts, the Claimants need not even contend that the Defendants are not public officers. Clearly, the Defendants are public officers within the meaning of the term as used in POPA.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:105.0pt"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The only issue which remains to be resolved is whether the Claimants filed their suits against the Defendants within 3 months of the accrual of their cause of action. To do this, there is need to know when the Claimants’ cause of action arose and when they filed their suits. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:105.0pt"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:105.0pt"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">All the parties are agreed as to the date the actions were filed. There is no dispute about this. The suits were filed on 18/12/2014. From the record of this court, the Complaints of the Claimants in this action were filed on 18<sup>th</sup> December 2014. The area of disagreement between the parties in the applications is the exact time the Claimants’ cause of action arose. While the Defendants contended that the Claimant’s cause of action arose either on 30<sup>th</sup> April 1999 when their employments were terminated or on 17<sup>th</sup> March 2003 when the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant refused to comply with the letter directing the Claimants’ recall, the Claimants contended that the act of the Defendant which was the cause of their action is a continuing injury and the injury has not ceased at the time the suits were filed. In view of these different positions taken by the parties, it is necessary that the Claimants’ cause of action and the precise date it arose be determined. Whether or not the Claimants suits are statute barred depends on the date the cause of action arose or whether the cause of action is a continuing injury. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:105.0pt"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:105.0pt"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">I have stated earlier in this ruling that these matters can only be discovered in the statement of facts. The averments of the Claimants in the statement of facts disclose that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant terminated the Claimants’ employment on 30/4/1999 pursuant to Decree No 17 of 1984 but there was a presidential directive contained in a letter dated 17/3/2003 directing all Federal Universities including the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to reinstate the employees removed under the repealed Decree No 17 of 1984. The Claimants stated that they reported at the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s offices on the strength of the directive so that they can be reinstated. The 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant however reinstated some staff but excluded the Claimants. Since that time in 2003, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant has refused to re-instate or recall the Claimants. The decision of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant not to recall the Claimants has resulted into nonpayment of salaries to the Claimants and has caused the Claimants hardship and damages. From the facts, it was as a result of the refusal of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to reinstate or recall the Claimants they brought this action. The Claimants’ cause of action in this suit, as I find, was the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendants’ refusal to comply with the directive in the letter dated 17/3/2003 to reinstate the Claimants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:105.0pt"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:105.0pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Claimants counsel submitted that non reinstatement of the Claimants is a continuance of injury which has not ceased till the time of filing this action. Counsel also argued that the said letter of 17/3/2003 does not contain any date of compliance as to say time began to run from that date. Counsel’s argument is, perhaps, hinged on the latter part of the provision of Section 2 (a) of POPA which provides that “<b><i>or in case of a continuance of damage or injury, within three months next after the ceasing thereof”.</i></b> I have considered the arguments of counsel in light of the facts pleaded by the Claimants but I do not see any merit in these arguments. The said letter, front loaded by the Claimants, states as follows in paragraph 3 (i): <b><i>“That the 1<sup>st</sup> of March 2003 shall be the effective date of re-absorption”.</i></b> This paragraph limited a time for the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to commence absorption. Refusal of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to re-absorb or recall the Claimants any time after that date gives a cause of action to the Claimants. The Claimants pleaded that after the said letter of 17/3/2003 was released, they “<b>promptly</b>” reported in the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s office to be re-instated but the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant failed to reinstate the Claimants while some staff were reinstated. At the material moment when the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant re-instated some staff but refused to re-instate the Claimants, the grievance of the Claimants, which is the cause of action in this action, has happened. Evidently, the Claimants were aware that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant will not reinstate them or will not comply with the directive in the letter. The Claimants were expected to take action at that time to force the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to reinstate them. In my view, the time started running from the moment the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant refused to reinstate the Claimants. This is because, at that moment when the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant refused to reinstate the Claimants, the Claimants had a cause of action to enable them to sue and all facts had happened which are material to be proved to entitle the Claimants to succeed. But the Claimants went into deep slumber since that time in March 2003 only to wake up in 2014 and decided to institute these suits. The act of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant in refusing to reinstate the Claimants happened on a particular day and it was not an act that was being repeated. See <b>I.N.E.C vs. OGBADIBO (2016) 3, NWLR (Pt. 1498) 167.</b> The refusal of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to reinstate the Claimants is not a continuing injury or damage as contemplated in Section 2 (a) of POPA.<b><i><o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In paragraphs 5.4 to 5.5 of the Claimants reply to 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s NPO, counsel to the Claimants contended that the Defendants are not entitled to the protection of POPA because the act complained of was not done or in pursuance of execution or intended execution of a law, public duty or authority. Counsel also argued that noncompliance with the presidential directive is act outside scope of authority or duty as a public body like the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. Let me state in the first place that the acts of a public officer which are protected under Section 2 (a) of POPA include <b><i>“any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of any Act or Law or of any public duty or authority, <u>or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such Act, Law, duty or authority”</u></i></b>. The complaint of the Claimants is that the Defendants failed to comply with a presidential directive contained in a letter dated 17/3/2003 to reinstate the Claimants. This is an allegation of default of the Defendants to execute their public duty contained in the directive. Clearly, the complaint of the Claimants is covered in Section 2 (a) of POPA and the Defendants can seek to take protection under the Act.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: 4pt; 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";">In the second place, I agree with the Claimants’ counsel 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 will not be entitled to protection under the POPA, 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 POPA if the action is a competent one; that is if the action had been commenced against the Defendants within 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 POPA 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 80-81, </b>it was held thus;<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“In a civil action where the defendant invokes in </span></i></b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; 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 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 not whether 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 style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">At this stage of the case, what this court is called upon to determine in the NPOs is whether the Claimants’ 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 Claimants in this respect cannot save the Claimants’ suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">I find that the Claimants’ cause of action arose in March 2003 when the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant refused to comply with the letter dated 17/3/2003 to reinstate them. It is from that date the time limited in Section 2 of POPA started to count. The Claimants eventually filed their actions on 18/12/2014. This is a period of over 11 years from the date their cause of action arose. The Claimants did not file this suit against the Defendants within 3 months from the accrual of the cause of action as stipulated in Section 2 (a) of POPA. Where a statute prescribes for the bringing of an action within a prescribed period of time, proceedings shall not be brought after the time prescribed by the statute. This is because an action brought outside the prescribed period is contrary to the provision of the law and does not give rise to a cause of action. See <b>ELEBANJO vs. DAWODU (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 328) 604;</b> <b>INEC vs. OKORONKWO (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 488) 227 at 247.</b> By the effect of Section 2 (a) of POPA, the Claimants suit is clearly statute barred having been filed outside the statutory period. The action is no longer maintainable and this court lacks jurisdiction to continue to entertain it. In the circumstance, the appropriate order to make is to dismiss the Claimants’ suits. Accordingly, this suit is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Ruling is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Judge <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space: auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>