Download PDF
In a notice of preliminary objection filed on 6th November 2017 by counsel for the 3rd and 4th Defendants, an objection to the jurisdiction of this court to entertain this case was raised. The grounds canvassed in the objection are that the suit discloses no reasonable cause of action and the suit is statute barred. Consequent on these grounds, the following orders were sought by the 3rd and 4th Defendants: 1. An order striking out the complaint for being statute barred, or 2. An order striking out the 3rd and 4th Defendants from the suit for lack of reasonable cause of action against them. In his written address in support of the Notice of Preliminary Objection, learned counsel for the 3rd and 4th defendants, Mr. Nnanna Ibom, submitted that the Defendants in the suit are public officers and by Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act, for any legal proceedings to be validly instituted against them, it must be filed within 3 months from the date the cause of action arose failing which the action becomes statute barred. Learned Counsel further submitted that the cause of action of the Claimant in this case arose on 4th April 2017 when his employment was terminated but he filed this suit on 11th October 2017. Counsel argued that the Claimant filed this suit more than 3 months from the date of his cause of action. The suit is therefore statute barred and should be dismissed. The Claimant did not file any written response to the Notice of Preliminary Objection. During the hearing of the NPO however, the Claimant’s counsel, Mrs. Abadumi, submitted that the Claimant’s suit is not statute barred and urged the court to strike out the Notice of Preliminary Objection. Counsel stated that the cause of action arose on 4th April 2017 and the suit was filed on 9th June 2017, which was a period within 3 months from the date of the cause of action. It is not in dispute in this Notice of Preliminary Objection that the Defendants are public officers. Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act POPA provides that actions against public officers in respect of any act done in pursuance or execution of any law, public duty or authority or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of the Act or law, duty or authority, must be instituted within 3 months after the act, or neglect or default complained of. Where the 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 IBRAHIM vs. J.S.C, KADUNA STATE (1998) 12 SC 20; NNAMDI AZIKIWE UNIVERSITY, AWKA vs. NWEKE (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 428) 343; KASANDUBU vs. ULTIMATE PETROLEUM LTD (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 417) 155 at 182. It is trite that to know whether a suit is statute barred, the court will look at the date the cause of action arose and compare it with the date when the suit was filed. Where the period in-between is more than the period limited by the statute under reference, the suit is is statute barred. See SULGRAVE HOLDINGS INC. vs. FGN (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1329) 309. In this case, the Claimant’s cause of action, as disclosed on the Complaint, is the termination of his employment. The Claimant’s averments in paragraph 9 of the amended statement of facts show that the termination occurred on 4th April 2017. This was the date the Claimant’s cause of action arose. The originating Compliant in this suit was filed on 9th June 2017. The period between the date of the cause of action and the filing of this suit was a period of 2 months and 5 days. The suit was filed within 3 months from the date the cause of action arose. In my view, this suit is not statute barred. The 3rd and 4th Defendants have also alleged in the Notice of Preliminary Objection that the Claimant’s suit did not disclose any reasonable cause of action against them. However, counsel to the 3rd and 4th Defendants did not advance any arguments in respect of this ground of the objection to convince me to strike out the name of the 3rd and 4th Defendants from this suit on that account. In any event, upon reading the facts of the Claimant’s case, I find that he has reasonable cause to sue the 3rd and 4th Defendants in this action. In the result, I find no merit in this Notice of Preliminary Objection. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge