Download PDF
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><u><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Representation:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Ndaji Chidozie, with him L. A. Amanze for the Claimant/Respondent<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Femi Onibalusi for the Defendant/Applicant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:2.0in;text-indent:.5in"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">RULING/JUDGMENT<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"">This action was commenced by way of complaint date and filed the 29<sup>th</sup> day of April 2016 wherein he claimed against the Defendant as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span 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 style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">A Declaration that the words “...appraisal rating over the last 3 years” within the meaning of the Internal Memorandum issued by the Defendant titled “INCENTIVE FOR EARLY RETIREMENT SCHEME” meant and referred to the <b>last three appraisal service years preceding the retirement date</b> of their staff within that scheme.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span 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 style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to have his <b>last three due appraisal service years</b> i.e. 1999, 2000 and 2001 in reckoning as his appraisal period within the scheme.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span 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 style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to his promotion from Personal Secretary 1 to a Senior Personal Secretary within that scheme and for purposes of the computation of his pension entitlements.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span 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 style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">An Order of court commanding the Defendant to promote the Claimant from the grade of a Personal Secretary 1 to a Senior Personal Secretary and/or the next upper grade for purposes of the computation and payment of his pension entitlements.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span 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 style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">An Order of Court that the Claimant be paid all arrears of pension payment outstanding from his retirement date to date on account of the difference between the pension entitlement of a Personal Secretary 1 and a Senior Personal Secretary in the Defendants employ.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span 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 style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) as general damages for breach of contract.<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"">By a Motion on Notice brought pursuant to Section 2a of the Public Officers’ Protection Act, Section 52 of the Central Bank of Nigeria Establishment Act 2007, and Section 19(B) and (E) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006, the Defendant/Applicant’s counsel sought an order </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:117%; mso-bidi-language:HE">dismissing this suit for lack or jurisdiction, as the cause of action is stale, extinguished and statute </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:106%; mso-bidi-language:HE">barred.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">The grounds upon which the application is brought are as follows:</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">i.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">The declarations, orders of injunction and damages sought by the claimant relates to a cause of action </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">which arose in June, 2003 and this suit was filed in on 29/4/2016.<i> <o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width: 125%;mso-bidi-language:HE">ii. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%; mso-bidi-language:HE">The cause of action is in respect of the management’s execution of the Internal Memorandum of the defendant in pursuance of the provisions of S. 7 of the Central Bank of Nigeria (Establishment) Act of 2007. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">ii.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">By the provisions of S. 2(a) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act, Cap P41, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, the National Industrial Court have no jurisdiction to hear this suit more three (3) months after the cause of action arose.</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:70%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%; mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">iii.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">The institution of this suit is contrary to the provisions of S.52 of the Central Bank of Nigeria <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:.25in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">(Establishment) Act, 2007. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">In support of the motion is an affidavit of 11 paragraphs deposed to by one Peter Duru. In the accompanying written address, the Defendant/Applicant formulated two issues for the determination of the Court to wit: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.5in"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">i. Whether this Honourable Court has jurisdiction over this suit instituted on 29/4/2016 when the cause of action arose in June 2003<span style="color:#777E82">. <o:p></o:p></span></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.5in"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">ii<span style="color:#777E82">. </span>Whether in the light of </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">S<span style="color:#5A6062">.</span>52 Central Bank of Nigeria (Establishment) Act, 2007 this <i>Honourable Court has jurisdiction over this ma<span style="color:#424C4D">t</span>ter pertaining to the execution and implementation of the terms of the Internal Memorandum of the defendant being in pursuance of th<span style="color:#424C4D">e </span>powers conferred on the Defendant by S. 7 of the Central Bank o<span style="color:#424C4D">f </span>Nigeria (Establishment) Act<span style="color:#61686B">, </span>2007<span style="color:#424C4D">. </span></i><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="Style" style="line-height:.05pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly"><span style="font-size:36.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"> In arguing issue </span><u><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:Arial; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></u><span style="font-size:1.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">In arguing issue one, it is counsel’s submission that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this suit which was instituted on 29/4/2016, as the cause of action arose in June 2003. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">According to counsel, by the provisions of S. 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, the Claimant is expected to institute this suit within 3 months from the date the cause of action arose. <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"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Section 2 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:l0 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span 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 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="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:l0 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span 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-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 style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Provided that if the action, prosecution or proceeding be at the instance of any person for cause arising while such person was a convict prisoner, it may be commenced within three months after the discharge of such person from prison". </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.75in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language: HE">It is counsel’s submission that even though the above provision makes the law applicable <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">to 'any person', a person in law includes a statutory body like the Defendant. Refer to S. 18 of the Interpretation Act Cap 123, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 which defines 'person' as including" any-body of persons corporate or unincorporated;" <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Refer also to <b>CBN vs. Ukpong (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt. 998) 555 at 569/570 par F/H</b> per Fabiyi, J.C.A. (as he then was) as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:3.05pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">"In Ibrahim </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">vs. Judicial Service Committee &Anor (1998) 14 NWLR (Pt. 584) 1 at 36 the Supreme Court, per Iguh, JSC, pronounced as follows </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">on meaning of 'person- </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">"Without, therefore, seeking guidance from anywhere else, it seems to me plain that the definition of the word 'person' in the legal sense under the Nigerian law is not limited to natural person or human beings only as the appellant now vigorously appears to contend. It clearly admits and includes artificial persons such as a corporation sole, company or anybody or any-body of persons corporate or incorporate. In this regard, and again without making reference to the decisions of any foreign jurisdiction, it is clear to me that it cannot be right that the definition of 'any person' in the Public Officers' (Protection) Law of Northern Nigeria, 1963 must be read as meaning any person in any limited sense, that is to say; as referring only to natural persons or human beings. I am not, with respect, prepared to accept this interpretation as well founded. This is because to ascribe to those words any limited meaning would tantamount to importing into the words of a statute, such qualifying or additional words that were not provided there in the first instance by the legislature. This exercise the courts are not permitted in law to indulge in."</span></i></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">To counsel, the act which the Claimant complains of being the cause of action pertains to the execution of the terms of the Internal Memorandum, a management circular of the Defendant dated 8/11/2001 on the Claimant's pensions and entitlements. The said Internal Memorandum being a management circular was issued by the Defendant in pursuance of the management duties or powers of the Defendant under the provisions of <b>S. 7 of the Central Bank of Nigeria (Establishment) Act, 2007 </b>which states as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width: 92%;mso-bidi-language:HE">"( 1) </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">The Governor or in his absence, one of the Deputy Governors nominated by him shall be in charge of the day to day management of the bank and shall be answerable to the Board for his acts and decisions. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">(2) The provisions of section 6 (1) of this Act shall apply in relation to the general policy pursued or intended to be pursued on any administrative matters including staff pensions, salaries, allowances and any other similar matters. " <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Thus the action of the Claimant in this matter is an action commenced against the act of Defendant "done in pursuance or execution" of the law in <b>S. 7 of the Central Bank of Nigeria (Establishment) Act, 2007. </b>Counsel submitted that the said action of the Defendant comes under the purview of actions of public officers protected under <b>S.2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act. <o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">In this matter the Claimant/Respondent pleaded in paragraph 8 of the statement of facts establishing cause of action (statement of facts) – Exhibit A, that he wrote a letter dated 14/3/2002<i> </i>to demand that his entitlements be calculated on the grade of <i>Senior Personal Secretary </i>instead of <i>Personal Secretary </i>1 which the Defendant used to calculate the entitlements. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">By the same pleading of the Claimant in paragraph 8 of the statement of facts, the Claimant stated that the Defendant wrote a letter dated 25/6/2003 (Exhibit A 1) in reply to another letter of his where the Defendant rejected the said demand of the Claimant. Exhibit A 1 is one of the documents attached to the statement of facts filed by the Claimant in this case. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel submitted that at the stage of the issuance of Exhibit A 1 to the Claimants' solicitors, the cause of action have arisen. By the terms of Exhibit A 1 the Defendant clearly rejected the assumptive claims of the Claimant to which his claims in this suit is predicated. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">According to counsel, the Claimant emphatically admitted this in paragraph 8 of the Exhibit A (statement of facts) when he stated that “•••••••• <i>Rather the defendant had via her reply letters respectively dated June </i>25, <i>2003 Ref No. HRD/DD/CBO/40/6/03; …… continued in defiance and denial of the claimant's claim…" </i>Refer to <b>Archianga vs. A. G. Akwa Ibom State (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1454) 1 @ 55 par. F-H per Garba, J.C.A.</b> as follows: <i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">"In law the period </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">limitation begins to run from the date on which the right or cause </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:107%; mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">action accrued to the party entitled to it and against another who is responsible for the grievance in respect </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:107%; mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">which the cause </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:107%; mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">action arises. To determine whether an action or cause of action is statute barred, all that is required for the court to do is to examine the writ of summons or other initiating process of the action and statement of claim wherein the facts </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:107%; mso-bidi-language:HE">as </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">to the date when the wrong complained of and giving rise to the cause of action was committed and then comparing it with the date on which the writ of summons or other process initiating the action was filed. If the date on which the action was initiated was beyond or outside the time or period prescribed, and limited by the Limitation Law, then the action is statute barred by the law and </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">so <i>it cannot be maintained." <o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel submitted that while the cause of action had arisen in June, 2003 the Claimant filed this suit on 29/4/2016, a period of about 154 months (12 years and 8 months) after the cause of action had arisen. This is clearly more than the 3 months prescribed by S. 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, within which the Claimant ought to have instituted this suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">By dint of this fact counsel submitted that this suit as filed before this Court is stale and statute barred. Refer to <b>CBN vs. Ukpong (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt. 998) 555 at 568 G-H </b>per <b>Fabiyi, J.C.A. </b>(as he then was) as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">“A statute </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">limitation </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:106%; mso-bidi-language:HE">as </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">the one reproduced above removes the right </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">action and leaves </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">a <i>plaintiff with </i>a <i>bare and empty cause </i>of <i>action which he cannot enforce if such is instituted outside the three months statutory period allowed by the law. Proceedings cannot be instituted outside the prescribed period. Any action <b>instituted outside the prescribed period will be statute-barred. </b>See Obiefuna vs. Okoye </i>(1961) <i>1 All NLR </i>357; <i>Fadare vs. A-G., Oyo State </i>(1982) 4 SC 1." <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">A</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">nd at <b>572 </b>par <b>F-H </b>per <b>Augie, J.C.A. </b>held as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">"The Supreme Court made it emphatically clear in Ibrahim vs. Judicial Service Committee & Anor </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">(1998) 14 <i>NWLR (Pt. </i>584) 1 @ 13, <i>that the word "person" is not limited to natural persons or human beings but <b>"admits and includes artificial persons such </b></i><b>as a <i>corporate sole, company or any-body of persons corporate or incorporate." </i></b><i>In this case, the lower court failed to follow the decision </i>of <i>the Supreme Court, and arrived at an erroneous decision that cannot be allowed to stand. <b>The Central Bank of Nigeria is </b></i><b>a <i>"person" corporate and the Respondent's suit filed outside the three month limitation period was statute barred. </i></b><i>It is trite law that<b> </b>where a statute provides for the bringing of an action within </i>a <i>prescribed period in respect </i>of a <i>cause </i>of <i>action that had accrued to </i>a <i>Claimant, proceedings cannot be brought after the time prescribed by such </i>a <i>statute </i>- <i>see Ogoh vs. ENPEE Ind. Ltd </i>(2004) 17 <i>NWLR (Pt. </i>903) 449 <i>and Araka vs. Ejeagwu </i>(2001) <i>FWLR (Pt. </i>36) 830; (2000) 15 <i>NWLR (Pt. </i>692) 684. <b><i>What is more, any proceedings conducted without jurisdiction, </i>as <i>in this case, is </i>a <i>nullity </i></b>- <i>see Akeem vs. University </i>of <i>Ibadan </i>(2003) 10 <i>NWLR (Pt. 829) </i>584" (emphasis supplied by counsel). <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">He therefore urged the Court to grant this application and dismiss this suit with substantial costs as prescribed under <b>S. 2(b) of the Public Officers Protection Act. <o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size: 4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">In arguing issue two, it is the submission of counsel that this Court has no jurisdiction over this matter which pertains to the execution and implementation of the terms of the management circular, <i>Internal Memorandum </i>of 8/11/2001, being statute barred by the provisions of <b>S. 52 Central Bank of Nigeria (Establishment) Act, 2007 </b>which provides thus: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">"52 Protection against adverse Claims: <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language: HE">(1) Neither the Federal Government nor the Bank nor any officer of that Government or Bank shall be subject to any action, claim or demand by or liability to any person in respect of anything done or omitted to be done in good faith in pursuance or in execution </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:116%;mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">or in connection with the execution or intended execution of any power conferred upon that Government, the Bank or such officer, by this Act. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language: HE">(2) For the purpose of this section, the Minister or any officer duly acting on his behalf shall be deemed to be an officer of the Federal Government and the Governor, any Deputy Governor of the Bank or other employee shall be deemed to be an officer of the Bank. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">By the above cited provision the Claimant is precluded from bringing this action against the defendant as it is a claim in respect of management decision via the <i>Internal Memorandum </i>of 8/11/2001 which is an act done with respect to the pensions and other terminal entitlements of the Claimant in pursuance of the powers conferred on the Defendant by S. 7 of the Central Bank of Nigeria (Establishment) Act. Counsel submitted that this is a management decision made and executed in good faith without any prejudice or ill will to the Claimant. He referred and relied on paragraph 9(i) and (ii) of the affidavit in support to this effect. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">The act is in respect of the execution of the terms of the Internal Memorandum which in turn is in pursuance of the management powers of the Defendant as provided in S. 7 of the Central Bank of Nigeria (Establishment) Act. It is submitted that the main cause of action of the Claimant is his complaint on the pensions and entitlements payable to him by the Defendant on his retirement. By S. 7 of the Central Bank of Nigeria (Establishment) Act, the Defendant is by law empowered to apply her <i>"general" </i>policies on <i>"any administrative matters including staff pensions, salaries, allowances and any other similar matters." <o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">To counsel, by dint of the above stated circumstance and the provisions of S. 7 of the Central Bank of Nigeria (Establishment) Act the Claimant offends the provisions of S. 52 of the Central Bank of Nigeria (Establishment) Act which excludes the Defendant from any liability on the execution of its management decisions as its said actions upon which this suit is predicated by the Claimant particularly when the action of the Defendant was done in good faith without any prejudice to the Claimant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel commended the facts stated in paragraph 9(i) and (iv) of the affidavit in support, to the effect that the application of the policy on the years of the appraisal ratings that are applicable being 1998, 1999 and 2000 is not peculiar to the Claimant being a policy of general application to all members of staff that so qualified for the <i>Incentive for Early Retirement Scheme. </i>He referred to ExhibitA2 of the affidavit in support which the Claimant has pleaded and attached to his list of document he is relying upon in this suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">He humbly urged the Court to believe the facts so stated in paragraph 9 (i) and (ii) of the affidavit in support to the effect that the implementation of the policy as it concerns the Claimant was in good faith and without any prejudice or ill will to his person but of general application to all members of staff of the Defendant. This is particularly so as the Claimant have been duly paid his entitlements as agreed by the Defendant based on the operative Personal Secretary 1 grade of the Claimant/Respondent at the time of his qualification and retirement. Refer also to paragraph 9(iii) of the affidavit in support. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel submitted that this action of the Claimant ought to be dismissed with cost, for lack of jurisdiction as the action is statute barred, both on the basis of the provisions of <b>S. 52 of the Central Bank of Nigeria (Establishment) Act, 2007 and S. 2 of the Public Officers Protection Act,</b>. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">In opposition to the application of the Applicant, the Claimant/Respondent filed a written address dated 14/9/2016 but filed on 28/9/2016. In the said address, the Claimant’s Counsel contended that the Applicant’s argument is untenable and has no force or merit in situations where the law sees the damage or injury complained of as continuing. The principle of continuing damage or injury in law has been held as exempting a cause of action based on payments accruing from week to week or month to month like pensions from limitation since it is incapable of being statute barred. Because the cause of action is continuously renewed so long as the breach, injury or damage persists. He referred the court to <b>CBN vs. AMAD (2007) 36 WRN 34 at 78 para 30-35</b> where the Court of Appeal held thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">“I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the Respondents and the court below that the payment of pensions to the Respondents being monthly or on monthly basis is recurrent and so no fixed date can be reasonably and properly used for the purpose of calculating the 3 months limitation period provided in Section 2a. Indeed, I venture to say that the limitation period in the Section on the continuous damage or on an injury could not apply because up to the time the Respondent initiated their action in the court below, the injury from the refusal or failure of the Appellant to pay the Respondents the harmonized pensions had not ceased.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">According to the Claimant, the case of <b>CBN vs. UKPONG (2006) 13 NWLR Pt. 998) 555</b> relied upon heavily by the Applicant is clearly distinguishable and inapplicable on this narrow issue of continuous damage as an exception to limitation laws. In Ukpong’s case, the Plaintiff at the lower court only challenged the termination of his employment as unlawful. The Central Bank of Nigeria merely took cover under Section 2a of POPA to contend that the action is statute barred and on appeal, it was successfully argued that the CBN was a “person” within the meaning of the provisions of the Public Officers’ Protection Act. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">In opposition to the Applicant’s contention that by virtue of the joint effect of the provisions of Section 7 and Section 52 of the CBN (Establishment) Act, the Claimant was statute barred from initiating any action arising from that internal memorandum or that scheme for early retirement; it is the submission of the Claimant that the Applicant acted in total bad faith in not following or implementing the letters, meaning and spirit of the internal memorandum offered by her to her staff, which the Claimant accepted and consequently retired prematurely. According to Counsel, the bar on claims and actions imposed by that legislation was qualified and restricted to <b><i>“……in respect of anything done or omitted to be done <u>in good faith</u>…” </i></b>in Section 52(i) of the CBN (Establishment) Act 2007.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel submits on this point that the Applicant has shown manifest bad faith in not abiding with the terms of her own document. To counsel, it will nevertheless be premature at this stage to reach a conclusion that the Applicant acted in good faith. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">It is the further submission of counsel for the Claimant that the “INCENTIVE FOR EARLY RETIREMENT SCHEME” was not any ordinary internal memorandum. It was a special contract offer made optional by an employer to the employee that had a terminal effect on the employee’s service term if accepted.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">According to counsel, after that offer was affected by the employee, the rules and laws of contract came strictly into effect because it terminated the employment of the Staff and parties became solely bound by the terms of the new contract i.e. the “INCENTIVE FOR EARLY RETIREMENT SCHEME”. Sections 52(1) and 52 of the CBN (Establishment) Act 2007 became inapplicable on the date offer and acceptance became ad idem and parties were only bound by that contract. It is now for the court to as a court of law and equity to determine whether the letters and spirit of that contract has been followed. Counsel urged the court to resist any attempt to oust its jurisdiction by the application of Sections 52 of the CBN (Establishment) Act 2007. He referred the court to the case of <b>ABURIMI vs. SECRETARY, ASSEMBLIES OF GOD MISSION 14 WACA 85</b> where it was stated that the court should not reject jurisdiction unless it is satisfied by admission or proof that jurisdiction has really been taken away from it. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the application and order hearing in this matter. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">On the 1<sup>st</sup> day of November 2016, the Defendant/Applicant’s counsel filed a written address in reply to the Claimant’s opposition to the Preliminary objection. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">According to counsel, while the Claimant’s counsel had argued that the damage or injury caused to the Claimant is continuous, the applicant failed or neglected to show where in the general form of complaint and pleadings of the claimant i.e. the particulars of claim, that the claimant had claimed or pleaded that the cause of action in this suit is a continuing damage or injury. It is trite that where Defendant challenges the jurisdiction of the Court it is the writ of summons and statement of claim and in this case the general form of complaint and particulars of the claim that is relevant in the determination of the facts constituting the cause of action or other facts that the applicant and respondent could reply on to disclaim or found such a jurisdiction <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Refer to <b>J.K.K. Ltd vs. Gov. Lagos State (2014) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1399) 151 at 168 par G-H per Jauro, J.C.A</b> as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">"In the computation </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">limitation period, resort is always made to the originating processes, namely the writ </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:107%; mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">summons and statement of claim to determine the accrual date of the cause of action. The accrual date will now be compared with the date </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">filing the action, in order to determine whether it was filed within the prescribed time limit. In the instant case, the action was commenced by an originating summons, hence it is the originating process. </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language: HE">Yare vs. N.S.W. & I.C (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1367) 173 at <i>186/187 </i>par <i>GIS </i>per Galadima J.S.C</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">“The question is whether the appellant in his claim, has disclosed </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">a <i>cause </i>of <i>action or </i>a <i>dispute in respect </i>of <i>which the trial court was entitled to invoke its judicial powers to determine. In determining whether there is </i>a <i>reasonable cause </i>of <i>action, the court is guided and directed </i>to <i>restrict itself </i>to <i>the statement </i>of <i>claim </i>of <i>the plaintiff and nothing else”. <o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">It is the submission of counsel for the applicant that in this case, the respondent did not plead the fact that his cause of action is a continuing damage or injury and he cannot rely on it to defeat this application. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Refer to <b>Yare vs. N.S.W. & I.C (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt 1367) 173 at <i>187/188 </i>para G/B per Galadima J.S.C</b> as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">"It is well settled law that the parties and indeed the court, are bound by the pleading filed and exchanged. If facts needed </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">to <i>establish </i>a <i>right </i>to <i>relief are </i>to <i>be relevant, they have </i>to <i>be pleaded by the party seeking </i>to <i>rely on same </i>to <i>establish his claim or right </i>to <i>relief. It is after the relevant fact is pleaded that evidence would be admissible to establish the existence </i>of <i>the fact. That is why it is trite law that evidence </i>of <i>facts not pleaded goes to no issue, because parties normally join issues on the facts pleaded and only need evidence-either oral or documentary to establish the facts </i>so <i>pleaded. See Adekeye </i>& 6 <i>Ors. V Adesina </i>& 4 <i>Ors. </i>(2010) 125 <i>(Pt. </i>11) 1 <i>at </i>28, (2010) 18 <i>NWLR (Pt. </i>1225) 449; <i>Ojiogu <br> </i>v. <i>Ojiogu </i>& <i>Anor </i>(2020) 3-5 SC <i>(Pt. /I) </i>1 <i>at </i>22, (2010) 9 <i>NWLR (Pt. </i>1198) 1. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">One needs </span></i></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">to <i>take </i>a <i>close examination </i>of <i>the appellant's issue for determination </i>to <i>know that it is predicated on the allegation that the cause </i>of <i>action arose only after the Senior Management Committee </i>of <i>the respondent issued Exhibit </i>8. <i>However, the point is that this very important fact was not pleaded </i></span></b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">and therefore the evidence given</span></i><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">not in accordance with pleading goes to no issue and it remains inadmissible in law and the appellate court has power and indeed duty to reject the evidence. See Adekeye </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:77%;mso-bidi-language:HE">& </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE">6 </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Ors. vs. Adesina (Supra)." </span></i><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel submitted further that the contention of the Claimant that the case of <b>CBN vs. Ukpong (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt. 998) 555</b> is not applicable to this case is not correct as the case of the plaintiff therein includes a claim for an order for the payment to him of all his salaries, entitlements, allowances and promotions due from 12<sup>th</sup> February, 1988 to the date of judgment. Refer to C.B.N vs Ukpong (supra) at <i>564/565 </i>per Fabiyi J.C.A.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">According to counsel, the facts of the case of <b>C.B.N vs Amao (2007) 36 WRN 34</b> is quite distinct and different from the facts of this case and also distinguishable therefrom as the case did not set a precedent that the Public Officers Protection Act do not apply in all cases involving the payment of pensions. In the case of CBN vs. Amao, the respondents were pensioners who filed the suit on the release of a Federal Government circular which stipulates the payment of a harmonized pension to the respondents therein. The effect of the white paper was to increase the amount of pensions payable to the respondents therein from month to month. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">In that case the appellant (CBN) did not dispute the fact that the harmonized and increased pension was payable and in fact did not write any letter rejecting the payment of the increase in pension but actually confirmed to the respondents that the increased pension was payable but later hedged by informing the respondents that the payment was premised on <i>affordability and sustainability. </i>The respondents continued to press for the payments without any specific denial from the appellant (CBN), of the respondents entitlement to the increase in the amount of pension payable to the respondents. Thus the cause of action in the case of CBN vs. Amao is the payment of the harmonized pension agreed as payable by the appellant from month to month and the appellant therein did not at any time deny the harmonised pension as payable unlike in this case where the applicant had emphatically stated that the respondent is not entitled to the payment of the type of pension he is suing for. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:2.6pt;margin-right:3.1pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;tab-stops:35.75pt"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">For an elucidation of the foregoing facts Counsel referred to the Supreme Court decision in <b>CBN vs. Amao (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1219) 271 at <i>295/296 </i></b>par. <b>F-O per</b> <b>Onnoghen J.S.C </b>as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">"In dealing with this issue, the lower court however concurrently found and held that the section </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:108%;mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">the Act does not apply to the facts </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:108%;mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">this case. Learned senior counsel for the appellant had argued that the cause </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:108%;mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">action </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:108%; mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">the respondents had ceased to exist before the institution </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:108%;mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">the action since it was not commenced within the statutory period </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:108%;mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">three months and that the provision </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:108%;mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">paragraph (a) </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:108%; mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">section </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">2 of <i>the Public Officers Protection Act does not apply in that there is no continuance </i>of <i>damage or injury. <b>It is not being contended by the appellant that the appellant did not admit liability </b></i><b>to <i>pay the harmonized pension </i></b><i>but the time within which to claim for that relief had elapsed thereby leaving the respondents with an empty cause </i>of <i>action. <b>Both parties therefore agree that the respondents are entitled </b></i><b>to <i>be paid their pension benefits which is </i>a <i>right </i></b><i>not conferred by either the white paper or the two circulars in question. <b>The white paper and circulars deal with the rate </b></i><b>of <i>monthly pension payable </i>to <i>the respondents and others affected thereby. It is </i>a <i>question, therefore, </i>of <i>the quantum </i>of <i>the monthly pension </i></b><i>to be paid to the respondents. <b><u>The issue is clearly not whether the respondents are entitled </u></b></i><b><u>to <i>be paid pension by the appellant but </i>of <i>how much</i></u></b><i> having regard to the provisions </i>of <i>the white paper and the two circulars. <b>Both parties have not disputed the fact that the issue concerns the monthly payment due </b></i><b>to <i>the respondents. <u>The appellant pays monthly pensions </u></i><u>to <i>the respondents less than what is provided in the white paper and the two circulars every month thereby leaving part </i>of <i>their entitled </i></u></b><i><u>monthly pension <b>unpaid. This clearly demonstrates the fact that the cause </b></u></i><b><u>of <i>action in the circumstances arises every month </i></u></b><i>when appellant pays less pension to the respondents than their full harmonized pensions, <b>which appellant had agreed </b></i><b>to <i>pay. It is therefore very clear that there is continuance </i>of <i>injury the cessation </i>of <i>which cannot be determined </i>as <i>long </i>as <i>the respondents live and are paid their monthly pensions other than </i>as <i>harmonized. </i></b><i>There is therefore no way by which one can calculate the "three months next after the ceasing thereof”.</i> <b><i>It follows therefore that each month that the respondents are paid pensions less than the harmonised pensions, </i>a <i>cause </i>of <i>action arises in respect </i>of <i>the balance or sum outstanding”.</i></b> (emphasis supplied by counsel).<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">While the complaint of the respondents in the case of <b>CBN vs. Amao </b>was the non- payment of a harmonized monthly pension by the appellant which the appellant did not dispute as payable to the respondents, the complaint of the claimant/respondent in this case is the insistence of the applicant that the amount of pension payable is not and cannot be the amount being claimed by the Claimant herein. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">This disagreement between the parties enured from the date of the letters of rejection by the applicant to the respondent the last of which is pleaded in Paragraph 8 of the statement of facts as the letter dated 3/4/2012 which is frontloaded by the Claimant in his form of complaint. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">This cause of action is distillable from Paragraph 7 of the Claimant/Respondent's statement of facts (ExhibitA2 of the affidavit in support). Counsel therefore submitted that the decision of the applicant to pay a particular sum of money as pension to respondent and its decision to premise such a payment on the particular grade of 'Personal Secretary l' cannot by any stretch of imagination be deemed to be a continuous damage or injury but a decided act of 'refusal' or 'default' by the Applicant to yield to the demand of the Respondent for a higher sum of money which the Applicant never admitted as payable. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">The Claimant/Respondent complained of this 'refusal' and 'default' of the Applicant by his letter of 14/3/2002 which complaint the applicant denied or rejected emphatically by its letter of 25/6/2003 (Exhibit A1 of the affidavit in support). <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">The alleged injury cannot therefore be continuous as the respondent had duly received his entitlement and continued to receive his pensions on the basis of the grade of 'Personal Secretary l' that the Applicant affirmed by its letter of 25/6/2003 (Exhibit A1) as applicable to the Respondent. All these are clearly encapsulated in Paragraphs 7 and 15 of the Claimant's statement of facts (ExhibitA2 of the affidavit in support). <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">It is counsel’s submission that the breach, refusal and neglect alleged by the Claimant/Respondent to pay the sum claimed as his pension and to regard him as a Senior Personal Secretary cannot be a continuous damaged or injury as in the case of <b>CBN vs. Amao</b> and a definite act of refusal from which the Claimant/Respondent has acquired a right to sue from the very date of the refusal. In other words the cause of action arose upon the rejection of the Claimant’s demand that he be paid a pension on the grade of a Senior Personal Secretary instead of the Applicant’s emphatic assertion of the Respondent being a Personal Secretary 1.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Refer to Yare vs. N.S.W & L C (supra) at 195 par C-F per Alagoa, J.S.C as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">"When could the cause </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">of <i>action have arisen? Both the High Court and the court below held that the cause </i>of <i>action arose on the 9th December, 1999 being the date </i>of <i>the compulsory retirement from the respondent's employment. In Samson Owie vs. Solomon Ighiwi </i>(2005) 5 <i>NWLR (Pt. </i>917) 184 <i>at </i>214 <i>this court held per Onu, JSC, that: <o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">"the accrual of </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:108%;mso-bidi-language:HE">a </span><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">cause of action is the event whereby </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:108%;mso-bidi-language:HE">a </span><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">cause of action becomes complete </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">so <i>that the aggrieved party can begin </i>to <i>maintain his cause of action". <o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">The appellant knew his fate with the respondent when he got the letter </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:119%; mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">compulsory retirement dated the 9th December, </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">1999. <i>Any argument to the contrary is untenable and does not represent the true position of the law. In that case Owie. Ighiwi (supra) Onu, J.S.C at </i>214 <i>paras, C-O went further to say that: <o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><i><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">"Time therefore begins to run where there is in existence </span></u></i><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:108%; mso-bidi-language:HE">a </span></u><i><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">person who can sue and another who can be sued and when all the facts have happened which are material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed"</span></u></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">(emphasis supplied by counsel). <i><u><o:p></o:p></u></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">In this case the claimant pleaded in Paragraphs 7, 8 and 15 of the particulars of claim that the applicant had by its letter dated 25/6/2003, 5/6/2006 and 3/4/2012 emphatically denied the claims of the Claimant/Respondent which is now the claims of the Claimant/Respondent in this suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">In actual fact the Claimant/Respondent emphatically confirmed via Paragraph 15 of the statement of facts that the Defendant/Applicant refused to pay the pension entitlements, as he claimed, since he left employment in February, 2002 (Paragraph 5 of the statement of facts) and has received all his entitlements in accordance with what the Defendant/Applicant agreed was payable and his pension also as computed by the Defendant/Applicant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">According to counsel, the complaint of the Claimant/Respondent or his cause of action in this case is not that the applicant is not paying what the Defendant/Applicant had agreed as payable as in the case of CBN vs. Amao but on what the Defendant/Applicant had stated <i>ab initio </i>that the Claimant/Respondent is not entitled to in any event. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">He therefore submitted that the case of CBN vs. Amao did not set a precedence to the effect that the Public Officers Protection Act will not apply to all cases involving the payment of pensions but decided on the peculiar facts of that case and it is trite law that a case will act as a binding precedence where the facts and issues involved are similar in all respects. As it is in this case the facts are different which is amplified by the case of Kasim vs. N.N.P.C which is on the payment of pensions as a claim per se. <b>Kasim vs. N.N.P.C (2013) 10 NWLR (Part 1361) 46 at 69 par. 8-C per Orji- Abadua, J.C.A</b> as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">“However, it is the contention </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">of <i>the appellant that since payment </i>of <i>pension is periodical, the refusal to pay at any period one falls due, constitutes </i>a <i>breach and it is therefore </i>a <i>continuous damage not caught up by the period </i>of <i>limitation prescribed by section </i>12(1) of <i>the NNPC Act. The respondents disagreed, and contended that the cause </i>of <i>action arose or accrued on the date his appointment was terminated. " <o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">And at 69 <i>par D-E </i>per Orji-Abadua, J.C.A thus: <i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">"Under the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation Act, time will begin to run when </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">a <i>legal claim accrues or the recipient obtains the right to pursue </i>a <i>legal remedy A claim to recover benefits accrues upon </i>a <i>clear and unequivocal repudiation </i>of <i>right under the pension plan which has been made known to the beneficiary." In other words, the statute </i>of <i>limitations will begin to run once the beneficiary </i>of <i>the pension has the right to receive the payout. Therefore, in determining when the applicable statute </i>of <i>the limitation commences to run, it has been held that </i>a <i>cause </i>of <i>action accrues and the statute </i>of <i>limitation begins to run on the date on which an employer misses its first instalment, </i>" <i>To deal with the issue in this appeal, it is pertinent to appreciate the meaning </i>of <i>the expression "cause </i>of <i>action". The Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition defines it </i>as 'a <i>group </i>of <i>operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing; </i>a <i>factual situation that entitles one person to obtain </i>a <i>remedy in court from another person' Further in Messrs. NV Scheep vs. The MV "S.Araz" </i>(2000) 15 <i>NWLR (Part </i>691) <i>page </i>622 <i>at </i>623; <i>Ogundare, </i>J. S. C <i>opined that "A cause </i>of <i>action" and the expression "cause </i>of <i>action" are defined </i>as <i>meaning; <o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">'The fact or facts which give </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">a <i>person </i>a <i>right to judicial redress or relief against another. The legal effect </i>of <i>an occurrence in terms </i>of <i>redress to </i>a <i>party to the occurrence. A situation or state </i>of <i>facts which would entitle party to sustain action and give him right to seek judicial remedy in his behalf" </i>(emphasis supplied by counsel).” <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">With regard to the contention of the Claimant/Respondent in the written address in opposition that the Defendant/Applicant did not act in good faith, it is submitted that such a contention did not arise and is not contained in the Claimant/Respondent's general form of complaint or his statement of facts. What this Court would consider in this application as constituting bad faith is not the contention of the counsel in his written address that <i>"the Applicant has shown manifest bad faith in not abiding with the terms of her own document," </i>but the terms or content of the respondent's general form of complaint and statement of facts. The Claimant/Respondent's statement of facts did not elicit any complaint of bad faith and did not allege any fact as constituting bad faith for example that the Defendant/Applicant has singled out the Claimant/Respondent for exemption from the terms of the Incentive for Early Retirement Scheme but rather that the Defendant/Applicant duly paid what it believed the Claimant/Respondent was entitled to under the scheme. Again refer to Paragraph 7 of the Claimant/Respondent's statement of facts where the Claimant/Respondent admitted that <i>"the defendant calculated the claimant's pension entitlement on his last grade </i>as <i>Personal Secretary </i>1 ....." <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel referred to Exhibit A1 being the reply of the Defendant/Applicant to the Claimant/Respondent's solicitors letter. The Claimant/Respondent's letter confirmed the payment of the Claimant/Respondent's entitlement and also that the policy applied to all members of staff of the Defendant/Applicant and not to the Claimant/Respondent alone. The letter ExhibitA2 was pleaded by the Claimant/Respondent in Paragraph 8 of his statement of facts (ExhibitA2). This letter clearly show that the stance of the Defendant/Applicant on the pension payable to the Claimant/Respondent is borne out of a policy of general application to all staff and without any bias against the Claimant/Respondent. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">The Claimant/Respondent did not in his said pleadings controvert the germane facts that he had been paid his full entitlements as calculated by the Defendant/Applicant or that he was singled out as a person in the implementation of the policy. Refer to Paragraph 15 of the statement of facts confirming the payment of his entitlements. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel therefore submitted that the Defendant/Applicant cannot be said to have acted in bad faith from the state of the Claimant/Respondent's pleadings being the only process from which the Court could determine the facts constituting any bad faith on the part of the applicant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Refer to <b>Yare vs. N.S.W & I.C (Supra) at 186 par H per Galadima, J.S.C.</b> as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">"In determining whether there is </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">a </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">reasonable cause </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">action, the court is guided and directed to restrict itself to the statement </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:106%; mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">claim </span></i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language: HE">the plaintiff and nothing else." <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel for the Defendant/Applicant concluded by urging the Court to reject the entire argument of the Claimant/Respondent in opposition to this application as misconceived and misleading and to grant this application as the only effect of a suit being statute barred is a dismissal. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Refer to <b>Yare vs. N.S.W & LC (Supra) at 192 par B per Galadima, J.S C</b>. as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">"The provisions </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:108%;mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">the Act is clear and unambiguous. The effect </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:108%;mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">the limitation law is that any action that is statute-barred removes the right </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:108%; mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">action, the right </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:108%; mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">enforcement and the right to judicial relief .... " <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Counsel for the Defendant/Applicant, in adumbration, relied on the ruling of this court delivered on 13<sup>th</sup> December 2016 in the case of <b>Emeka Dennis Mbanusi vs. A. G. Abia State & 3 others Suit No </b></span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS"">NICN/OW/70/2015</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">, and urged the Court to dismiss the suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel for the Claimant/Respondent, in adumbration, submitted that the gravamen of the Claimant’s claim being pension does not require further proof that the damage was of a continuing nature. He cited the case of <b>CBN vs. Amao (supra)</b> and submitted that it is a proper precedent for the application of POPA. He also submitted, on the bar created by the provisions of Section 52 of the CBN (establishment) Act, that the court can entertain such matters once it is done in bad faith, and that the Statement of Facts has disclosed sufficient bad faith. He concluded by submitting that the suit is not statute barred.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:2.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: .5in"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">COURT’s DECISION<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The Defendant is seeking in this application an order dismissing the Claimant’s suit on the grounds that the suit is statute barred and that this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. I have examined the grounds of the Preliminary Objection and I have also considered the submissions of the counsels to the parties in their respective written addresses for and against the Defendant’s objection. The issue which is to be determined in this ruling is whether this court can entertain the case brought by the Claimant.<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";">In the affidavit in support of the Notice of Preliminary Objection, it is averred that the Claimant is a retired staff and a pensioner of the Defendant. Going by the Claimant’s averments in paragraph 8 of his statement of facts, the cause of action of the Claimant arose on or about 25/6/2003 while this suit was filed by the Claimant on 29/4/2016. It is further deposed that the implementation of the Defendant’s Internal Memorandum of 8/11/2001 was without any prejudice to the Claimant and that the Claimant has since received his full entitlements and has continued to receive his pensions in accordance with his retirement grade of Personal Secretary 1. It is also stated that the appraisal rating of the Claimant for the year 2001 had not accrued as at the date the Claimant retired on 31/1/2002. In the written address in support of the Notice of Preliminary Objection, the Defendant’s counsel cited Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act and Section 52 of the CBN Act and argued that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Claimant’s suit. The Claimant did not file a counter affidavit but in the written address of the Claimant’s counsel, it is submitted that the Claimant will rely on all processes already filed in the suit in his response to the Notice of Preliminary Objection.<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";">The provisions of Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act and Section 52 of the CBN Act have earlier been set out in this ruling when I reviewed the written submissions of counsels to the parties in the written addresses. I see no need to repeat the provisions here. I will </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">first consider the whether the Claimant’s suit is caught up by the Public Officers’ Protection Act. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The implication of Section 2 (a) of </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">the Public Officers’ Protection Act</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> is 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. Where such a suit is not commenced within the prescribed period, the Claimant’s right of action in respect of that cause will be statute barred and the court will no longer have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 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. <o:p></o:p></b></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";">It is the Defendant’s </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">contention that the Claimant’s cause of action arose on or about 25/6/2003 while this suit was filed by the Claimant on 29/4/2016. The Defendant’s counsel argued that the suit against the Defendant, who is a public officer and sued in respect of its statutory duty under the CBN Act is statute barred by the effect of Section 2 (a) of </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">the Public Officers’ Protection Act</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">. The Claimant’s counsel did not dispute the fact that the defendant is a public officer. Besides that, the Claimant has described the Defendant in paragraph 2 of the statement of facts, as a corporate sole created by statute. This description brings the Defendant within the category of “any person” referred to in Section 2 (a) of POPA. See <b>IBRAHIM vs. J.S.C, KADUNA STATE (supra)</b>. In any case, the CBN has been held in several reported cases to be a public officer. See </span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">CBN vs. UKPONG (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt. 998) 555; CBN vs. AMAO (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1219) 271</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">. Without any doubt, </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">the Defendant is a public officer within the meaning of the term “any person” as used in Section 2 (a) of POPA. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:104.45pt"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:104.45pt"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Did the Claimant file this suit against the Defendant within 3 months of the accrual of his cause of action as required in Section 2 (a) of </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">the Public Officers’ Protection Act</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">? In order to answer this question, there is need to know when the Claimant’s cause of action arose and when he filed the suit. It is deposed in the affidavit in support of the Notice of Preliminary Objection that the Claimant filed this suit on 29/4/2016. The Claimant did not offer any contrary date of institution of the action. I have looked at the records and I observe that the Complaint of the Claimant in this action was filed on the date stated by the Defendant, which is 29<sup>th</sup> April 2016. The point where the parties do not agree is with respect to the time the Claimants’ cause of action arose. To the Defendant, the Claimant’s cause of action arose on 25<sup>th</sup> June 2003, which was the date of the Defendant’s letter to the Claimant </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">refusing the Claimant's request for computation and payment of his pension entitlements on his next grade level of Senior Personal Secretary and not on his last grade of Personal Secretary 1. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">But the Claimant’s counsel contended that the Claimant’s claim for payment of his pension is a continuing injury and the injury has not ceased at the time the suit was filed. The Claimant’s counsel cited the authority of CBN vs. AMAO to support his position. 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, or whether the cause of action is a continuing injury, be determined. <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"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">As rightly submitted in the reply address of counsel to the Defendant, where the issue of limitation of action by statute is raised in a suit to challenge the jurisdiction of the court, the processes to examine in order to determine what the cause of action is and when it arose are the originating processes, which in this case are the Complaint and the statement of facts of the Claimant. See<b> J.S.F.</b> <b>INVESTMENT LTD. vs. BRAWAL LINE LTD. (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 578) 876 at 902; </b></span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">J.K.K. LTD vs. GOVERNOR, LAGOS STATE (2014) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1399) 151. </span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Therefore, to properly understand what the Claimant’s cause of action is and the time it arose or whether it is a continuing injury, there is need to examine the claims of the Claimant and the facts of his case.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:131.7pt"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The facts of the Claimant’s case, as contained in the statement of facts, are that he </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">retired from the Defendant’s employment on 1<sup>st</sup> February, 2002 as a Personal Secretary 1. In November 2001, the Defendant issued an Internal Memorandum titled “INCENTIVE FOR EARLY RETIREMENT SCHEME" which contains that: <i>“Staff members who have spent up to five (5) years on their current grades with good performance report minimum average of 3.5 appraisal rating over the last 3 years and without blemish shall advance notionally to the next upper grade and all pension entitlements will be calculated on the new grade</i>”. The Claimant relied on this term of the Incentive Scheme to retire early but the Defendant refused to apply the provision of the Scheme in processing and payment of the Claimant's pension entitlements. The Defendant rather calculated the Claimant's pension entitlements on his last grade as Personal Secretary I and not on his next upper grade as Senior Personal Secretary. The Claimant’s first protest on the Defendant’s default in paying him the pension for grade level of Senior Personal Secretary was in a letter dated 14th March 2002. The Defendant responded to the Claimant’s letters, the first response being a letter dated 25/6/2003 where the Defendant denied the Claimant's claim and continued till date to</span><span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">pay the Claimant’s pension entitlements based on the grade of a Personal Secretary 1 instead of Senior Personal Secretary. It is upon these facts the claimant sought the following reliefs in this action: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">a. A Declaration that the words “... appraisal rating over the last 3 <br> years within the meaning of the Internal Memorandum issued by the Defendant, titled "INCENTIVE FOR EARLY RETIREMENT SCHEME" meant and referred to the last three due appraisal service years preceding the retirement date of their staff within that Scheme.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">b. A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to have his last three due appraisal service years i.e.1999, 2000 and 2001 in reckoning as his appraisal period within the Scheme. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">c. A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to his promotion from a Personal Secretary 1 to a Senior Personal </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Secretary</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> within that Scheme and for purposes of the computation of his pension entitlements. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">d. An order of Court commanding the Defendant to promote the Claimant from the grade of a Personal Secretary 1 to a Senior Personal Secretary and or to the next upper grade for purposes of the computation and payment of his pension entitlements. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">e. An order of Court that the Claimant be paid all arrears of pension payment outstanding from his retirement date to date on account of the difference between the pension entitlement of a Personal Secretary 1 and a Senior Personal Secretary in the Defendants employ. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">f. <s>N</s>10,000.000.00 (Ten Million Naira) as general damages for breach of contract.<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";">The Claimant’s counsel, in his bid to argue that the Claimant’s case is not statute barred, contended that the Claimant’s case is a claim for pension. I do not think so. It is clear from the facts that the Claimant retired from the Defendant’s employment since on 1<sup>st</sup> February 2002 as</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> Personal Secretary I </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">and he was, and is still being paid his pension on the basis of his position of</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> Personal Secretary I which he held </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">at the time of his retirement. The Claimant’s case is that by the Defendant’s </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Internal Memorandum on the Incentive for Early Retirement Scheme issued in November 2001, he was expected to have been upgraded to the next upper grade of Senior Personal Secretary at his retirement which position was to be used to calculate his pension. N</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">otwithstanding this memo and the reminder of the Claimant dated </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">14<sup>th</sup> March 2002 of the need to implement the provision of the scheme for purposes of computation of his pension, the Defendant refused to do so but calculated and has since been paying the Claimant's pension entitlements on his last grade as Personal Secretary I. It was for this reason the Claimant sought reliefs a, b, c and d which are for his promotion to Senior Personal Secretary. The </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Claimant’s claim for payment of arrears of his pension on the basis of </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Senior Personal Secretary </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">is dependent on reliefs a, b, c and d. That is to say reliefs a, b, c and d are the Claimant’s principal reliefs. What the Claimant is seeking in these reliefs is for the court to give effect to the memo of November 2001 and order his promotion to </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Senior Personal Secretary</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">. These reliefs are not claims for pension but claims for promotion. <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";">Therefore, the Claimant’s cause of action in this action is the Defendant’s refusal to implement the terms of the November 2001 memo by promoting the claimant to the next grade level of </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Senior Personal Secretary at the time of his retirement on 1/2/2002</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">. When the claimant wrote his first protest letter on </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">14<sup>th</sup> March 2002</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">, he was already aware that the defendant had failed to promote him to the next grade level and he was also aware of the fact that his pension was computed on his last grade level. That was why he wrote that letter to complain to the Defendant on the default to implement the Incentive Scheme with regards to him. When the Claimant received the Defendant’s 1<sup>st</sup> letter of </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">25/6/2003 </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">informing the Claimant of the Defendant’s refusal to implement the memo, the Claimant’s cause of action arose at that moment. By the Defendant’s letter of </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">25/6/2003</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">, it was clear to the Claimant that the Defendant could not grant his request. It was at that moment a cause of action on the claims now before this court accrued to the Claimant. Let me explain that a cause of action is said to accrue when it can be said or there exists a person who can sue and another who can be sued and all facts have happened which are material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed. In <b>BANK OF THE NORTH vs. GANA (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 296) 862 at 881</b>, it was held that a cause of action arises at the date or time when a breach or any act that will warrant the person who is adversely affected by the act to take action in court. I find that the Claimant’s cause of action on the present dispute accrued on the date of the Defendant’s 1<sup>st</sup> letter to the Claimant, being </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">25/6/2003.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:202.4pt"><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";">The Claimant’s counsel, citing the case of CBN vs. AMAO, argued that nonpayment of pension to the Claimant is a continuing injury not caught up by the Public Officers’ Protection Act. First, let me reiterate the fact that the Claimant’s case is not about payment of his pension. He is being paid pension. His claim for </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">arrears or difference of pension payment between the grades of Personal Secretary 1 and a Senior Personal Secretary </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">is merely ancillary to his claim for promotion. The Claimant’s main case, to which his claim for arrears of pension hangs, is for his promotion to next grade level of Senior </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Personal Secretary. It has to be determined first whether he is entitled to be promoted to next grade level before his entitlement to pension on the basis of promotion can be considered. The Claimant’s case is beyond a mere claim for payment of pension. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">This fact clearly takes the case out of the context of the CBN vs. AMAO case heavily relied on by the Claimant’s counsel. In CBN vs. AMAO, </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">the respondents’ cause of action in that case was the default of the appellant to pay the harmonized pension as agreed from month to month. The appellant was paying monthly pensions to the respondents less than what is provided in the white paper and circulars every month thereby leaving part of their entitled monthly pension unpaid. It was held that the cause of action in the case arises every month when the appellant pays less pension to the respondents than their full harmonized pensions, which the appellant had agreed to pay. The scenario or issue in the instant case is different from that in CBN vs. AMAO.<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";">Again, </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">continuance of injury or damage contemplated in Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act has</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> been interpreted to mean the continuance of the act complained of in the action. See <b>OLAOSEBIKAN vs. WILLIAMS (1996) 5 NWLR </b></span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(Pt. </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">449) 437</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">I do not see any continuance of injury in the facts of the Claimant’s case. The Claimant was being paid his pension as computed on his last grade level of </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Personal Secretary I.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> The Claimant’s contention in this case is that he ought to be promoted to Senior </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Personal Secretary</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> and his pension computed on that grade level. The failure or refusal of the Defendant to implement the memo of November 2001 with respect to the Claimant to promote the Claimant occurred on a particular day. The facts do not show that the Defendant has, at any time, implemented the memo with respect to the Claimant and then reneged. Since the act of refusal to promote the Claimant to next grade level of Senior Personal Secretary was not being repeated by the Defendant, I cannot see how the default of the Defendant constitute continuing injury or damage contemplated in Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act.<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";">From the foregoing, the Claimant’s cause of action arose on </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">25<sup>th</sup> June 2003 but he filed this suit on 29<sup>th</sup> April 2016. That is to say this suit was brought 154 months (12 years and 8 months) after the cause of action had arisen. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The facts are thus clear that this suit was filed more than 3 months from the date the cause of action arose. The Claimant’s suit is obviously statute barred and it cannot be maintained.<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";">The cause of action of the Claimant, as I have stated earlier, is the Defendant’s refusal to implement the memo of November 2001 by failing to </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">apply the provision of the memo to the Claimant when he retired from the employment. Issuance of the memo and the content thereof are administrative matters and powers of the Defendant covered in the provision of Sections 6 and 7 of the CBN (Establishment Act) 2007. Section 52 of the Act, 2007 is to the effect that no action, claim or demand can be brought against the Central Bank or any of its officers in respect of anything done or omitted to be done in the execution or in connection with the execution or intended execution of any power conferred by the CBN Act on the Bank or such officer. In view of Section 52 of the Act, the Claimant’s action in respect of the implementation of the memo of November 2001 is barred. <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";">I find in the result that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit. In the circumstance, the appropriate order to make is to dismiss the suit. Accordingly, the 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</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Bookman Old Style", serif;"> </span></p>