Download PDF
The Claimant’s claim against the defendants dated and filed on the 21st day of January 2013 jointly and severally is as follows: 1. The sum of N29,139,995.00 (Twenty Nine Million, One Hundred and Thirty Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred and Ninety Five Naira) only, being the debt owed the Claimants by the defendants arising from the Claimants’ statutory allowances as computed by the 1st and 2nd Defendants. Or alternatively – any other sum or amount as may be effectively or properly calculated by the Honorable Court as arising from the said statutory allowances. 2. The sum of N207,500.00 (Two Hundred and Seven Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) being additional debt owed the 2nd Claimant by the Defendants. 3. Interest at the rate of 21% per annum on the aforesaid sum from January 2010 till the date of Judgment and 10% monthly interest on the judgment sum from the date of judgment till same is finally liquidated. By a Motion on Notice dated the 3rd day of April 2013 and filed on the 10th day of April 2013, and brought a Pursuant to order 11 Rule 2 of the NICN Rules 2007 and under the inherent Jurisdiction of the court, the 2nd & 3rd Defendants is seeking for an order dismissing this suit for being incompetent and for want of Jurisdiction of this court to entertain same, and for such other orders as the court may deem fit to make. The application was brought, upon the following grounds:- (1) That the suit is incompetent, (2) The suit is statute barred; and (3) The suit has not disclosed any reasonable cause of action against the 2nd Defendant. In Support of the Motion is a 5-paragraph Affidavit Deposed to by one Uchenna Dickson, a litigation officer in the Civil Litigation department of the Abia State Ministry of Justice. Counsel also filed a written address in Support of the Motion. The Claimants’ counsel, filed a Written reply brief in response to the 2nd & 3rd Defendants’ Preliminary Objection. The 2nd & 3rd Defendants’ counsel also filed a reply on point of law, to the Claimant’s written reply brief, as well as a written reply in opposition to the Claimants Motion for Amendment. The Claimants’ counsel has also filed a Motion on Notice seeking the leave of this honourable court to correct the name of the 1st Defendant by adding the word “council” thereby reading “Aba South Local Government Council” instead of Aba South Local Government.” The said motion, filed and dated the 31st day of July 2013, is supported by a 3 paragraph Affidavit and a Written Brief. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants’ counsel has also filed a written brief in opposition to the Claimants’ application for amendment. Since the arguments in respect of the two applications before the court overlap one another, the court has decided to take the two applications together and give a considered ruling. I have carefully considered the processes, arguments and submissions of counsel to the parties on both the preliminary objection and the motion for amendment. The issues for determination as formulated by the parties are: 1. Whether the suit is competent. 2. Whether the suit is statute barred. 3. Whether the suit discloses any reasonable cause of action against the 2nd defendant. I shall proceed to first of all consider the 2nd issue as to whether the suit is statute barred. On this, the case of the learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd defendants is that the provisions of section 114 of the Local Government Law (No. 2) of Abia State, 2006 which provides for limitation period for any action to be instituted against the Local Government in Abia State shall apply. The said law provides that any suit intended against any Local Government Council for any act done in pursuance or execution of any law or alleged neglect or default in the execution of such law, duty or authority shall be instituted within three months next after the act. The defence of the claimants to this issue is that section 114 of the Local Government Law (No. 2) of Abia State, 2006 which is in pari-material with Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection law had been overflogged by judicial authorities to the effect that same does not apply to cases based on contract, money or debt owed, claim for work done, or labour. He relied on the authorities of: (a) NPA vs Construzioni Generali FCS & anor (1974) NSCC 622,630-631; (b) FGN vs Zebra Energy (2003) 1 MJSC 1,19-21, paras G-D; (c) Osun State Government vs Danlami Nig. Ltd (2007) 6 MJSC 187, 198-200, paras G-F; (d) NSITFMB vs Klifco Nig. Ltd (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt1211) 307, 329 Paras A-G; 336 para D; (e) Salako vs LEDB and anor 20 NLR 169; (f) Oghide & ors vs Jason Air Ltd (2011) 22 NLLR (Pt. 61) 58; (g) Ordia vs Govt of Delta State (2008) 7WRN 138, 149-150 lines 40-10 Claimant’s counsel further argued that the only limitation law which may arguably apply to the case at hand which deals with claim for money or debt owed, work done, labour and contract, is the Limitation Law CAP 114, Laws of Abia State, Section 18 of which provides that any such action must be brought within 5 years of the commencement of the cause of action. Learned Claimants’ counsel added that S19 of the Limitation Law of Abia State excludes the operation of S114 of the Local Government Law of Abia State to cases founded on contract, money or debt owed, claim for work done, or labour, etc; as is the case in this suit. Having considered arguments in respect of this issue, I am convinced that the claim of the Claimants is for work done, and their claim is for exact sums of money payable for work done. I therefore hold that the action as filed by the Claimants is not statute barred. On the first issue, the case of the learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants is that the suit as filed by the Claimants is incompetent and grossly defective, for the reason that the 1st and 2nd Defendants are not legal personalities known to law, therefore an action cannot be maintained against them. Relying on the authority of Babalola vs Osogbo Local Government (2003) 10 NWLR (Pt. 829) 465@471, counsel submitted that “it is the Aba South Local Government Council that can be sued and not Aba South Local Government”. I shall consider the arguments and submissions of counsel in respect of this issue alongside those with respect to the Claimants’ application for amendment. In support of the Claimant’s Motion for Amendment is a 3 paragraph Affidavit deposing to facts pointing to the omission of the word “Council” as a misnomer or a printer’s error or an inadvertence of counsel. In his written brief, counsel relied on the case of Idanre Local Govt vs. Governor of Ondo State (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt 1214) at pg 504, 512 and 525 and submits that the omission of “Council” in the name of the 1st Defendant was only a misnomer which the court should allow to be corrected. He submitted further that the Claimant’s application was not to substitute a party, but rather, to correct a name, which he stated, can be done by amendment. He referred to the ruling on this honourable court sitting in Enugu in the case of NICN/EN/120/2012 which he says is on all fours with this case. He pointed out that the 1st Defendant has never complained about the use of the name. Counsel to the 2nd and 3rd Defendant, in his written address, conceded to the fact that this court has the capacity to allow the correction of a misnomer, even suo moto. He however submitted that a correction would not be allowed to change a non-legal person to a legal person. He contends that “Aba South Local Government” is not a legal person and the error in suing it is fatal, and adding the word “council” would not be permissible. On the same point in the 2nd and 3rd Defendant’s counsel’s written address in support of his preliminary objection, he contends that Aba South Local Govt. Area, being a creation of statute, is a mere geographical location, not clothed with legal personality, and cannot perform any function leading to a cause of action. He referred court to the case of Fawehinmi vs. Nigeria Bar Association (No. 2) (1989) 2 NWLR 558 at 595. Having considered the submissions of counsel on this point, I hold that it is not in doubt that the 1st defendant is Aba South Local Government which the Claimants served as elected leaders. If there is an error in the name of the 1st defendant, such can be corrected, especially as the Claimants have brought an application to that effect, and the 1st defendant who is represented in this suit, and has not objected to the amendment. The motion for amendment is therefore granted, and the word “Council” is hereby ordered to be added to the 1st defendant’s name in all the processes in this case. On the third issue, the case of the 2nd & 3rd defendant’s counsel is that no reasonable cause of action has been disclosed against the 2nd & 3rd defendants, and that the Claimants Statement of Claim has not disclosed how the 2nd and 3rd defendants have wronged them. I have carefully considered the Statement of Claim, and the arguments of the parties on this issue. The defendants are sued jointly and severally. Paragraph 2 of the Claimants’ Statement of Facts states that: “The defendants are establishments of the law. The 1st defendant is the said Aba South Local Government. The 2nd defendant is the supervisory ministry of Abia State in charge of Local Government activities and manages the funds of Local Governments in Abia State including that of the 1st defendant. The 3rd defendant is the chief law officer of the Abia State Government and who represents the state and its agencies in all matters concerning and/or affecting her. The Defendants carry on their businesses in Nigeria including Abia and Enugu States.” Paragraph 1 of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants’ Statement of Defence states that: “Paragraph 1 and 2 of the Claimants’ Statement of facts are admitted”. Paragraph 1 of the 1st Defendants’ Statement of Defence states that: “Paragraph 1 and 2 of the Claimants’ Statement of facts are admitted”. These facts were admitted by all the defendants. Having considered all the arguments and submissions of counsel on this point, I therefore hold that there is a reasonable cause of action against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants in this suit. On the whole, I hold that the preliminary objection of the 2nd and 3rd defendants’ counsel in this suit fails and is hereby dismissed. The Claimant’s motion for amendment hereby succeeds. The word “Council” shall be added to the name of the 1st defendant in all processes in this suit. The case shall now proceed to hearing. I make no order as to costs. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Presiding Judge