Download PDF
The Claimant complaint is dated 28th March, 2013 and filed same day. Accompanying the complaint is a statement of claim, Claimant’s list of witnesses, claimant’s witness statement on oath and list of document to be relied upon at the trial. The learned counsel to the 1st to 3rd defendants filed a notice of preliminary objection dated 3rd June, 2013 and filed same day. Praying for the following orders; AN ORDER of this court dismissing the suit of the claimant/respondent for lack of Jurisdiction. In the Alternative, AN ORDER of court dismissing the suit of the Claimant/respondent for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action. AND FOR SUCH ORDER OR FURTHER ORDERS as this Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance. The grounds upon which the application is brought are as follows:- 1.The Suit of the Claimant/respondent is statute-barred by virtue of section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, Cap. P41 Laws of the Federation 2004. i. The Suit of the claimant/respondent is tied to the Federal Government of Nigeria/SSANU Agreement of Nov, 2009 which purportedly increased retirement age of Senior Staff of Nigerian Universities to 65 Years from 60 Years. ii. Claimant voluntarily retired after 35 Years of service in the employment of the 1st defendant on 10th February, 2012. iii. Claimant’s cause of action, if any, against the 1st – 3rd respondents arose on the 10th of February, 2012 when he retired after 35 Years in service at the of 59 Years as against the proposed age of 65 Years under the said Federal Government/SSANU Agreement of Nov, 2009. iv. Claimant’s alleged grouse against the defendants before this Honourable Court is the failure/refusal/neglect of the 1st – 3rd defendants to implement/enforce the said Federal Government/SSANU Agreement. v. Claimant had 3 months from the date of the said failure/refusal/neglect of the 1st – 3rd defendants to implement the said Federal government/SSANU Agreement, i.e. 10th February, 2012, to commence an action against the 1st – 3rd Defendants. vi. Claimant did not commence his Suit against the 1st – 3rd respondents until the 28th of March, 2013, a period of 13 Months after the cause of action arose. vii. The said Federal Government/SSANU Agreement is inapplicable to the claimant who is no longer an employee of the 1st defendant and consequently not a member of SSANU. Therefore claimant lacks the locus standi to institute this action. The preliminary objection is supported by a 4 paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Abiola Ayinde, a litigation Assistant of 2A, Ireti Street off Thouburn Avenue, Yaba, Lagos on the 3rd of June, 2013. On the 16th August, 2013 the applicant also filed a 6 paragraph further affidavit along with reply on points of law. Attached to the further Affidavit are 10 exhibits. In the affidavit deposed to by Abiola Ayinde he averred that the claimant/respondent is no longer an employee of the 1st defendant having voluntarily retired from the service of the 1st defendant vide a letter dated 9th December, 2011 which resignation was duty accepted by the 1st defendant on 8th February, 2012. To wit he attached 2 documents. The documents are marked as exhibits AA1 and AA2. The defendants/applicants in their written address submitted two issues for the Court's determination as follows: 1. Whether the suit of the Claimant is not statute-barred under and by virtue of section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act. 2. Whether the suit of the Claimant discloses a reasonable cause of action. Learned counsel arguing the above issues posited that jurisdiction is the life-wire of litigation and any proceedings conducted in the absence of jurisdiction amounts to a nullity. He cited the case of MADUKOLU V. NKEMDILIM [1962] 2SCNLR and A.G. ANAMBRA STATE V. AG FEDERATION [1993] 6NWLR (Pt. 302) 692 at 737 para A-C to support his submission. Learned counsel submitted further that to determine jurisdiction, the court need to examine the relevant processes i.e writ of summons and statement of claim. To wit, he cited the cases of R.T.E.A. V. NURTW [1996] 8 NWLR (Pt. 469) 737 at 743 para F-H, ABDUL-RAHEEM V. OLORUNTOBA OJU [2006] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1003) 581 at 624 para F – G and ADELEKE V. O. S. H. A. [2006] 16 NWLR (Pt. 1006) 608 at 714 para H. Reproducing paragraphs 8, 12, 13, 30, 31 and 35 of the statement of claim, learned counsel submitted that by the Claimant’s own showing in the afore mentioned paragraphs and the reliefs being sought from this court, the Claimant’s cause of action is the alleged failure of the defendant to enforce FGN/SSANU Agreement of November 05, 2009 which was purportedly passed into law on January 2012 in favour of the Claimant who retired on 10th February, 2012. Learned counsel added that the Claimant’s cause of action flowing from the above averments, arose on the 10th of February, 2012 when the Claimant retired from the service of the 1st defendant. He added that the Claimant was duty bound to commence an action against the 1st – 3rd defendants within a period of 3 months from the accrual of his cause of action by virtue of section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, cap P. 41, laws of the Federation 2004. Learned counsel submitted that failure to commence the action against the defendants who are Public Officers, fall within the purview of section 2(a) of the Public Officer’s Protection Act which makes any suit filed outside of the 3 months period as statute-barred. Citing the cases of IBRAHIM V. J.S.C. [1998] 14 NWLR (Pt. 584) pg 1 at 31 – 32 para H-B, C.BN V. ADEDEJI [2004] 13 NWLR (Pt. 890) pg. 226 at 245 para F and WOHEREM V. EMERUWA [2004] 13 NWLR (Pt. 890) 398 at 415 para F- H. On issue two, learned counsel contended that the Claimant voluntarily retired his employment from the services of the 1st Defendant through a notice of retirement dated 9th December, 2011, exhibit AA1. Learned counsel added that upon receiving the letter, the 1st defendant accepted the Claimant’s retirement vide a letter dated 8th February, 2012, exhibit AA2. Thereby making the contract of employment between the claimant and the 1st defendant determined on the 10th of February, 2012. To the defendant/applicant, consequent upon the above, the Claimant cannot seek redress/enforce the FGN/SSANU Agreement. He added that the agreement only applies to serving senior members of the Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities (SSANU). Learned counsel further added that the claimant not being a contracting party to the agreement lacks the locus standi to enforce it. Relying on the cases of NNPC V A.I.C. LTD [2003] 2 NWLR (Pt. 805) 560 at 581 para B – C, UBA V. FOLARIN [2003] 7 NWLR (Pt 818) 18 at 38 – 39 para H – A and ADENUGA V. ODUMERU [2002] 8 NWLR (Pt. 821) 163 at 184 para E-F he submitted that only a contracting party/privy to an agreement can sue or be sued on the agreement. It was the position of learned counsel to the defendant/applicant that since the Claimant/respondent is not a privy to the contract because his employment was determined, then no wrong has been committed to him and if no wrong has been committed to him then he cannot seek for any remedy. He placed reliance on the Latin maxim Übi jns ubi remedium”and the cases MCFOY V. UAC [1961] 3 WLR 405 at 409, LADEJOBI V. OGUNTAYO [2004] 18 NWLR (Pt. 904) 149 at 173 para C, SEAGULL OIL LTD V. MONI PULO LTD [2011] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1271) Pg 525 at 548 para B-C, OGUNDIPE V. NDIC [2009] 1NWLR (Pt. 1123) pg 413 at 493 at 495 para C-D, SHUIBU V. UBN PLC [1995] 4 NWLR (Pt. 388) 173 at 180 and ODINKEMERE V. IMPRESIT BAKOLORI (NIG) LTD [1995] 8 NWLR (Pt. 411) 52 at 66. Learned counsel submitted that the processes before this court relied upon by the claimant is subject to an amendment of the relevant law/Act dealing with retirement and before a proper amendment can be made, a bill must be passed by the National Assembly, must be assented to by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as provided under section 58 (3) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of the claimant offered to retire, there was no amendment of the relevant law, thereby, making the claimant not to have any legal basis for the claims that he is entitled to retire at the age of 65years. Learned counsel finally concluded his argument by urging the court to dismiss the suit of the Claimant. In response, the Claimant filed a 55 paragraphs Counter Affidavit dated and filed 10th July, 2013. The affidavit is deposed to by Obed Enikuomehin the Claimant in this suit. To wit he attached 10 Exhibits. Also attached is a process titled ''reply on points of law against the preliminary objection dated and filed on the 3rd day of June, 2013.' In the address, learned counsel to the Claimant framed 6 issues for determination of the Court as follows; 1. Whether or not the Defendants/applicants are entitled to being heard when their arguments are not founded on umbrella issues, arguments are misconceived and unfounded. 2. Whether or not the claimant is not entitled to the exception of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act for the reasons that the 1st Defendant has been and is still reducing the pension Salary of the Claimant/respondent and reducing salaries of the Claimant/respondent’s wife for the payment of PHCN Bills consumed by and in the name of the claimant. 3. Whether or not the Claimant/respondent to the motion on notice of the preliminary objection of the 1st – 3rd defendants/applicants is not entitled to enforce his fundamental Human Rights under the Nigerian Constitution and The African Charter to work and be paid therefore, own property and/or interest therein irrespective of the manner in which the claims are being couched before this Honourable Court. 4. Whether or not the decision of this Honourable Court to strike-out this suit would not lead to a miscarriage of justice considering the fact that the Claimant/respondent would have dissipate energy, resources, finances and time in his 35years of diligent work for the 1st defendant by gaining nothing commensurate in return. 5. Whether or not the objection of the defendants/Applicants to strike out this suit cannot be taken, for the sake of conducting speedy trial, with the merits of the case as initiated by the claim of the Claimant/respondent as the unchallenged/undefended/un-replied Claimant, especially where the welfare/health/existence of the Claimant is being threatened and is deteriorating. 6. Whether or not this Honourable Court has the power to create an umbrella under which the Claimant/respondent’s rights/entitlements/benefits can be accommodated/listed in line with the motto of the legal profession – ubi jus ibi remedium. The grounds upon which he framed the above issues are-- 1. Violation of the Constitutional Rights of the Claimant; 2. Violation of the African Charter Rights of the Claimant. While arguing issue one the Claimant/respondent submitted that the argument of the 1st – 3rd defendants/applicants are not entitled to be heard because their application is not founded on the umbrella issues and that is a ploy to mislead this Court. To the Claimant/respondent hearing the arguments of the defendants/respondents mean guiding the applicants and / or delving into the arena. He relied on the case of IN RE OZOBIA [1999] 13 NWLR (Pt. 634) 279, he quoted the Court of Appeal for having held that a notice of preliminary objection without an affidavit evidence should be discountenanced. He urged the Court to strike out the Notice of Preliminary Objection. Learned counsel to the Claimant/respondent contended that the 1st – 3rd defendants/applicants cannot be heard by way of motion when they have not filed a defence before this court. Commending the cases of FEDERAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION OYO V. CHIEF AKIN AKINYEMI [2008] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1109) 21 CA. On the authorities of the cases of ALHAJI OYEBAMIJI 950RS V. IYABO LAWANSON & 2 ORS [2008] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1109) 122 SC and AKINSANYA V. COCA-COLA NIGERIA LIMITED & 2 ORS (2012) 28 NLLR 72 at 191-192, learned counsel submitted that a party wishing to rely on statute of limitation must plead same in his pleadings which the 1st -3rd defendants/applicants have not deem it fit to file and thus their Preliminary objection cannot stand. In the alternative, it was posited by the Claimant in his argument in support of issue two framed, which is whether or not he is entitled to the exception of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers' Protection Act for the reason that the 1st defendant has been, is being and may continue to reduce the pension salary of the claimant and deducting the salaries of Claimant's wife for payment of PHCN Bills consumed by the Claimant. His answer in this regard was in the affirmative and submitted that where there is a continuation in the damages caused the Claimant. The alleged continuation of damages in this regard according to the Claimant are seizure of his 3 months salary, monthly deductions of his wife's salaries for payment of PHCN Bill, just paid hazard/call duty allowances paid by the 1st defendant to the colleagues of the claimant. The Claimant is in agreement with the applicant that it is the case of the Claimant that determines the jurisdiction of the Court. cited in support of this assertion is the case of OSUN STATE GOVERNMENT V DANLAMI NIG. LTD, 9 NWLR, PT 1038, P 66. It was the contention of the Claimant that the 1st defendant paid the long withheld allowances approved by the Federal Government to staff including his colleagues, but withheld his own. It was submitted that where there is an acknowledgement of debt which must be in writing and signed by the party that is liable, the right to recover the debt by action is revived. The case of NSITFMB VS KLIFCO [2010] 13 NWLR (PT1211)307; was cited to support the above assertion. It was the argument of the Claimant that the above mention actions of the 1st defendant has ignited and revived this suit even if it was statute barred. Heavy reliance was placed on the case of CBN V AMAO [2010] 16 NWLR (PT.1219) 271, and he submitted that this case is in all fours with this instant case. He urged the Court to hold as was decided in AMAO'S case and hold that this case is not statute barred. On issue 3, the Claimant contended that he is entitled to enforce his fundamental Human Rights as provided for in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the African Charter. To the Claimant, Order 11, Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights(Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 made pursuant to Chapter 1V of the Constitution. He reproduced the provisions thus; '' Any person who alleges that any of the Fundamental Rights provided under or for in the Constitution or African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights ( Ratification and Commencement ) Act and to which he is entitled, has been, is being or is likely to be infringed, may apply to the Court in the State where the infringement occurs or is likely to occur, for redress'' It was argued that the Claimant has a right to enforce his right under the above provision, in view of the fact that the defendants have continued to deprive the Claimant of his entitlement, his right to his salaries of 3 months, reduced pensions and unpaid hazard & call duty allowances. The Claimant likened his salary to Property as provided for in Section 44 (1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended. The Claimant was of the view that since the contravention of the propriety right of the Claimant was in Lagos, it is the National Industrial Court of Nigeria that has jurisdiction for the enforcement of his right as provided for under the enforcement rights procedure. It was the stand of the Claimant that if the Court grants this application and struck out this suit, it would lead to a miscarriage of justice. Whilst citing the case of RV SUSSEX JUSTICES EX PARTE MCARTHY [1924] 1 KB, 256 @ 259, it was contended that justice must not only be seen to be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. In view of the 35 years of service of the Claimant in the employ of the defendants. The case of OKOMU OIL PALM LTD V OKPAME [2007] 3 NWLR (PT1020) 71 was cited in support of his position. It was contended that in considering this case, the Court may consider it along with the substantive case, that this application is subsumed in the substantive case. The cases of TEJUOSHO V OMOJOWOGBE [1998] 7 NWLR (PT559) 628 @ 635; AMADI V CNB Supra; AKINSANYA V COCA COLA [2012]28 NLLR. 72 @ 191-192; were commended to the Court and he urged the Court to follow the wisdom applied by the Apex Court and my Learned brother Hon. Justice B.B. Kanyip to resolve the issue at hand. To the Claimant, the Court should create an umbrella under which his rights/entitlement/benefits can be accommodated in line with the Latin maxim ubi jus ibi remedium, which means where there is a right, there must always be a remedy. He contended that assuming but not conceding that where issues 1-5 framed by the claimant fails, this Court has the power to create under which his rights may be accommodated. He commended again the case of AMAO V CBN Supra and Order 5 Rule 3 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria rules 2007. He finally urged the Court to over rule the 1- 3rd defendants applicants and strike out the application with cost of N100,000.00 awarded against them for being vexatious, frivolous and a ploy to delay and deny the Claimant of Justice. The 1st -3rd defendants/applicants filed a further affidavit deposed to by one Kabir Garba, legal Practitioner in the law firm of the 1-3rd defendants counsel's chambers dated and filed on the 16th of August, 2013 and 10 exhibits; i.e. exhibit AA3, Certified True Copy of letter specifying the effective date of the FGN/SSANU Agreement, AA4 i.e. letter of demand of keys to the quarters occupied by the Claimant, AA5, AA6 and AA7, are terms of contract of employment, Claimant's offer of appointment and memorandum of appointment, AA8 and AA9 are Claimant's plea for accommodation and award of accommodation and Certified True Copy of the ruling of the Lagos High Court striking out the employment related issues and retaining the relief on accommodation. also filed was a reply on points of law. Wherein learned defence counsel submitted that the cases cited by the learned Claimant counsel i.e. the cases of OYEBAMIJI V LAWANSON supra, CBN V AMAO Supra are distinguishable from this case, according to him unlike the LAWANSON'S case, where the issue of limitation law was not raised until at the appellate Court, in this case it has been raised timeously and the case of AMAO supra where the cause of action was the withholding of the respondents pensions by the CBN. Which action was said to be continuing as long as the pensions remained unpaid, whilst in this case the Claimant's cause of action is his purported early retirement for which he is seeking reinstatement in line with FG/SSANU Agreement. To the defence this is not an exception to the limitation law, since Claimant has retired. It was submitted that the 1st defendant is not owing the Claimant any salary and there is no document exhibited by the Claimant in support of such a claim. Placing reliance on the cases of GUINESS(NIG) LTD V UDEANI [2000] 14 NWLR (PT. 687) 367 @ 391-392 and BRIGHT MOTORS LTD V HONDA MOTORS CO. LTD [1998] 12 NWLR (PT 577) P 230, the defence contended that a person who is not a party to a suit is not bound by the result of the action. It was submitted that the Claimant's wife is not a party to this suit, neither is National Pension Commission, Crusader Sterling Pension Ltd and thus cannot be bound by the decision of the Court. In his response to issues 3,4, 5 and 6 raised by the Claimant, it was posited that they are not relevant to the determination of the 1st-3rd defendants application. To him the Claimant's submissions in that regard are misconceived and sentimental and Courts do not act on sentiment. Finally, it was submitted that the issue of accommodation is pending before the Lagos High Court and thus he has no legal right worthy of protection in this Court and thus urged the Court to grant their application. After a careful and calm consideration of the processes filed, the notice of preliminary objection, Counter affidavit, further affidavit, written addresses filed by both parties, annexures attached to their respective affidavits, statutes and case law authorities cited by both parties. I framed these issues-- 1. Whether or not the contract of employment between the Claimant and the 1st defendant has been determined; 2. Whether or not this suit is caught up by Section 2(a) of Public Officers Protection Act.; 3. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain matters under the Fundamental Rights(Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009. It is germane to settle certain preliminary issues before going into the main gamut of the issues raised in this ruling. The Claimant filed a process titled ''reply on points of law against the preliminary objection dated and filed on the 3rd day of June, 2013' instead of the title ''written address in support of the Counter affidavit''. The heading is wrong, however, the content is that of a written address. Therefore, for the purpose of this ruling, the heading “reply on points of law” posited by the Claimant/respondent instead of written address will be taken as a mere irregularity in the overall interest of justice, which this Court stands for. The Claimant contended that the 1st-3rd defendants should not be given the right of hearing in this case , having failed to file their pleadings in this case before filing the Notice of Preliminary Objection. He cited the case of IN RE OZOBIA Supra, In that case the respondent did not file any affidavit in support of his notice of preliminary objection on which his grounds of objection was hinged, thus the Court held in that case that his submission cannot take the place of affidavit evidence. This is in contradistinction from the instance case. The applicant in this case filed an affidavit and further affidavit in support of their application, thus the ratio in that case is not applicable in this case. Now on the non filing of any pleading by the 1st - 3rd defendant before filing this notice of preliminary objection; It is the law as decided in plethora of cases that issue of jurisdiction are issues that affect the life, body and soul of a case. It is a thresh hold issue that affects the vires of a suit which must be decided upon one way or the other before the Court can proceed. It may also be raised at any stage of a proceeding, it may even be raised at the Apex Court. See these relevant case law authorities; MUSACONI LTD V ASINALL [2013] 14 NWLR( PT. 1375) P. 435 @ P 459; OKEKE V SEC & ORS [2013] LPELR, 20355 DANGOTE V AFRICAN PETROLEUM PLC & ORS [ 2012] LPELR 7980; OHAKIM v.AGBASO (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1226) 172 S.C; ADELEKAN V. ECU-LINE NV [2006] 12 NWLR (Pt.993) 33; It is interesting to note also that the Court would not chicken out in considering a suit challenging its jurisdiction only because there is no statement of claim filed yet in the case. The Apex Court has held per Karibi Whyte JSC, IN KWARA STATE V OLAWOLE [1993]NWLR (PT.272) 645 @6674-675. '' There is no doubt the issue of whether a plaintiff's action is properly within the jurisdiction or indeed justiciable can be determined even on the endorsement of the writ of summons, as to the capacity in which the action was being brought, or against who action is brought. It may also be determined on the subject matter endorsed on the writ of summons if this is not justiciable'' The Apex Court in the recent case of MUSACONI LTD V ASPINALL Supra lend credence to the above reasoning. It is therefore, the law as stated in different ways above that Limitation law is a thresh hold issue that affects the soul and goes to the root of a suit being a fundamental issue and thus can be raised at any time of the proceedings, must be first heard irrespective of whether or not the applicant filed a statement of defence or not; and I so find and hold. Now, as rightly alluded to by both parties in this suit, that a careful examination of the endorsement on the writ of summons ( complaint) in this case and the statement of facts will assist the Court in determining whether it has the competence to handle a case or not. See GAFAR V GOVT. KWARA STATE [2007] 4 NWLR (PT. 1024), 375; [2007] 1-2 S.C. 189. The claims of the claimant are as follows- i. A Declaration that the Agreement executed by the Federal Government of Nigeria being represented by the 4th and 5th Defendants and the Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities (SSANU) on November 05, 2009, the subsequent passage of the Agreement into law on January 19, 2012 or thereabout, as well as the FGN-established Circulars/Salary Structure amendments enhancing its workforce dated December 8, 2009 are valid for immediate enforcement to accommodate the complaints of the Complainant and that any act of the defendants or any step ;there against are illegal and invalid. ii. A Declaration that the withdrawal or stoppage of the Claimant’s Salaries and entitlement, three months to his influenced/coerced retirement on February 2012 from December 1, 2011 till February 10, 2012 by the 1st -3rd Defendants were invalid and contrary to the contract of employment of the claimant. iii. A Declaration that 4th and 5th defendants are legal representatives of the Federal Government of Nigeria that may take any decision in their capacities as such representatives to bind the Federal Government of Nigeria with regard to the running and supervision/operations of the 1st – 3rd Defendants. iv. An Order directing the 4th and 5th Defendants to compel the 1st Defendant through the 2nd and 3rd Defendants to carry out Federal Government Agreements, Directives, Fiats, Circulars, Suggestions, Policies, Principles, etc. v. An Order directing the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants, jointly and severally to re-instate the Claimant to his position with due promotions and salaries in line with the Agreement executed by the Federal Government of Nigeria represented by the 4th and 5th Defendants and the Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities (SSANU) on November 05, 2009 OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE pay the Plaintiff’s salaries/emoluments from December 1, 2011 until he attains the age of 65 on February 10, 2019. vi. An Order directing the payment to the claimant, his N281,750.83 monthly salary from the day of influenced/coerced retirement on February 10, 2012 until February 10, 2019 (84 months) when the claimant would have attained 65 years; every outstanding entitlements which have remained unpaid for years now namely the Work Hazard, Teaching and Call Duty Allowances of the claimant to the tune of over Three Million and Five Hundred Thousand naira only, known as CONHESS which was approved by the FGN and also the other allowances stated in the Agreement between FGN and SSANU & account for or pay back the deducted contributions of the claimant by the 1st, 3rd Defendants from claimants salaries vii. An Order against the 1st – 3rd Defendants, jointly and severally, to pay N30,00,000.00 Damages for the defendants’ failure to give effect to the claimant’s entitlements derived from the Agreement executed by the Federal Government of Nigeria represented by the 4th and 5th Defendants and the Senior Staff association of Nigerian universities (SSANU) on November 05, 2009 which caused the claimant heavy shock and financial, moral & psychological disaster. viii. Interest on the sums in (vi) and (v) above at the rate of 21% per annum from their due dates. ix. And thereafter interest on the sum above at 10% per annum from the date of Judgment until liquidation; x. N2,000,000.00 being cost of this suit. The above claims are in no doubt within the competence of this Court as statutorily provided by Section 254 C (1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended ( third alteration) conferring on this Court with jurisdiction over employment and Industrial relations issues etc. The third alteration is indeed the primary source of jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria. The cause of action of the Claimant in this suit as distilled from the Claims above is the failure of the 1st defendant to enforce the FGN/SSANU Agreement which was according to him passed into law on 19th January, 2012 in favour of the Claimant, inspite of his retirement from the service of the 1st defendant on 10th February, 2012, which is the date the cause of action arose. It is germane to deal with issue three framed by the Court first, the Claimant had argued that the Court can create an umbrella under which his rights/ entitlement/ benefit can be accommodated. He placed reliance on Order 11 Rule 1 of fundamental rights( ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE) Rules, 2009; He continued by stating that this will protect his fundamental right of interest in his seized properties like his salary, coerced resignation date, reduced pensions and unpaid hazard & call duty allowance. First and foremost, the property right of a party envisaged by Section 44(1) 0f the 1999 Constitution as amended is not in relation to salaries and allowances as argued by the Claimant. This Court had in several cases held that Section 254 C (1) (d) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, cannot be used as the basis of filing claims under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules; and that the NIC is not contemplated under that Rules. See COMRADE (EVANG.) OLOWO PREYE GRACE V PENGASSAN & 3 ORS; UNREPORTED SUIT NO. NIC/EN/10/2011, DELIVERED ON JULY, 5TH 2011; and ALHAJI LATEEF AKINSOLA V NURTW & ORS, UNREPORTED SUIT NO. NIC/LA/333/2012, DELIVERED ON MARCH 20, 2013. Even where a party alleges unlawful suspension from work without salary, he can seek redress by filing a writ of summons, not by an application under the Fundamental Right Enforcement Procedure Rules. EFFIONG V EBONG [2006] 18 NWLR (PT1010) 109. The law is of common place for instance, that an employer has a right to suspend an employee when necessary, with or without pay or half pay which by AKINYANJU V UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN [2005] 7 NWLR (PT 923) 87 and LONGE V FBN PLC [2010] 6 NWLR (PT 1189) 1.S.C, cannot amount to breach of the employee's fundamental rights as it has no bearing with issues of fundamental right under the Constitution. The guidance giving by the Apex Court in that regard is expedient to follow thus, In ascertaining the justiceability or competence of a suit commenced by way of an application under Fundamental Rights ( Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009, the Court must ensure that the enforcement of the Fundamental rights under Chapter 1V of the Constitution is the main claim and not an ancillary claim. See ERONINI V ERONINI [2013] 14 NWLR, (PT.1373) P 32 @ P55; WEST AFRICAN EXAMINATION COUNCIL V AKINOLA OLADIPO AKINKUNMI [2008] 4 S.C; In other words where the main claim is not the enforcement of a fundamental right the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be said to be properly invoked and the action will be liable to be struck out for incompetence. It is obvious in the instance case that none of the paragraphs of the Claimant's claim specifically mentioned the issue of fundamental right enforcement. It thus, does not form part of the suit as constituted and the Court cannot formulate a different claim for the Claimant; it was an afterthought and as stoutly stated in this ruling, this Court is not envisaged as one of the Courts that can handle such cases. In answer to the position of the Claimant, to the effect that this Court should find an umbrella under which his rights may be enforced; I wish to state categorically without mincing words that the National Industrial Court of Nigeria is a creation of the Constitution and does not, cannot and will not arrogate to itself powers it's not clothe with by the same Constitution, to do so will amount to the usurpation of the powers of the legislature on whose shoulders rests the power to enact the Constitution and amend same if need be. The Constitution being the groundnorm, can neither be altered or added to by any other enactment except by the due process of Constitutional amendment. To urge the Court to find a way of accommodating the enforcement of the fundamental rights of the Claimant by any means is by asking this Court to go behind the face of the Constitution and find a short caught at arriving at Justice, which I must emphatically say, is impossible. When the foundation is destroyed, the saying goes, what can the righteous do. A synonym of this is, you cannot put something on nothing. The proceedings and competence of this Court to adjudicate on any matter before it is guided by the Constitution and other statutory provisions on employment matters, but not on enforcement of human rights issues and the National Industrial Court of Nigeria cannot arrogate to itself that power. The judex in this clime is not emotive, affectional and stirring in its decision on any issue. The provision of the law must and should be followed by the judex as an arbiter at all times. I so hold and find. On whether or not the contract of employment between the Claimant and the 1st defendant has been determined. It was the position of the Claimant that he was coerced into tendering his resignation letter and that the Court should compel the 1st defendant to reinstate him back to his former position. He continued by stating that the Court should equally urged the 1st defendant to enforce the FGN/SSANU agreement which has reviewed the retirement age of non academic staff and academic staff to 65 and 70 years respectively. It was further contended that he is not yet 60 years but just reached the statutory age of 35 years in service. He annexed his letter of voluntary retirement and the acceptance by the 1st defendant of his voluntary retirement, also annexed is the FGN/SSANU agreement. On their own part the 1st - 3rd defendants argued that the Claimant voluntarily wrote a letter dated 9th December 2011, informing the 1st defendant of his desire to proceed on his retirement having reached the statutory age of 35 years in service and they replied him confirming and accepting his date of retirement which is 10th of February 2012, this they did vide a letter dated 9th February 2012. The 1st - 3rd defendants went on to state that the Claimant cannot enjoy the FGN/SSANU agreement, the Claimant having retired before the effective date of the allege agreement, which according to them was on the 12th May 2012. The law is trite that Contract of employment is either governed by common law or by statute, the former is ordinary relationship of master servant, the second is one where the tenure of the employee is protected in one form or the other by statute, this is also called contract of employment with statutory flavour. C.B.N V IGWILO[ 2007] 14 NWLR (PT.1054) 393, Valid determination of such appointment is predicated upon the fulfilment of the statutory provisions. See FAKUADE V O.A.U.T.H [1993] 5 NWLR (PT 291) 47, S.C. The employment of the Claimant in this suit is regulated by the law establishing the 1st defendant and an annexed conditions of service which specifies that a non academic staff would retire after serving for 35 years or reaching 60 years which one comes first. The Claimant had, however argued that his age of retirement should be 65 years and not 35 years in service. He urged the Court to enforce the FGN/SSANU agreement which pegged the retirement age of non academic staff for 65 years. But the appellate Court in ADEFEMI V ABEGUNDE [2004] 15 NWLR (PT 895) 1, @ 28 PARAS. F, held that where a party resigns his appointment by giving a required notice or payment in lieu of notice as the case may be suffices. It was equally the position of the Appeal Court in that case that there is absolute power to resign and no discretion to refuse to accept the notice. It does not matter whether or not the employer accept it. It is obvious as evidenced on record vide the letter titled 'NOTICE TO RETIREMENT' written by the Claimant dated 9th December, 2011,and the reply to same by the 1st defendant, the content of the letters are reproduced hereunder for avoidance of doubt, '' I wish to inform you that I will be 35 years in service on the 10th of February, 2012, because I joined the University on 10th February, 1977, though l will be 60 years old by the year 2014. I am hereby using this medium to show my gratitude and appreciation to the Almighty God and to the University Authority for counting me privileged for such an honor of serving my father land faithfully, industriously and with a great commitment in a wonderful establishment as the University of Lagos. I wish l could still be favorably given more opportunity to enable me utilize my abilities to its full capacity for the service of this University Community again. Thanks and all the best for the entire University of Lagos Staff and Authority. Yours faithfully, Enikuomehin, O.E. Principal Laboratory Technologist''. The 1st defendant's reply is equally reproduced thus- ''Dear Mr. Enikuomehin, RETIREMENT FROM UNIVERSITY SERVICE Please refer to your letter dated 9th December, 2011 in respect of the above mentioned subject matter. I write to inform you that the University has accepted your notice of retirement from the services of the university with effect from 11th February, 2012; 10th February, 2012 being your last day at work. In accepting the notice of retirement from service, we would like to put on record our deep appreciation for the services, which you have rendered to the University community in general. Our records show that you joined the services of the University on 10th February, 1977. Your length of service therefore is 35 years. Please, note the provisions of the circular of the National Pension Commission on Pensions Reform Act 2004, which state as follows: (i) "All categories of employees in the public service of the Federation (with the exception of those exempted by virtue of section 8 of the PRA) are covered by the Contributory Pension Scheme. (ii) "The retirement benefits, which consist of the value/proceeds of their FGN Retirement Bands plus their contributions up to the date of retirement, shall be paid through their respective RSAs". (iii) "The RSA can only be accessed at the age of 50 years or upon medical advice or permanent disability". Consequently, you are advised to liaise with your PFA; for your retirement benefits immediately after your retirement. The Bursar is being informed accordingly. Your record of service shows that you were born on 13th February, 1954. In addition, you are retiring on CONTISS II Step 7 Please, ensure that you prepare detailed handing-over notes, submit the keys to your office and your identity card through your Head of Department with effect from the date of your retirement. Your clearance papers are attached for distribution to the departments concerned. Please ensure that you return the ORIGINAL as well as PHOTOCOPIES of all endorsed clearance paper to Directorate of Personnel Affairs. We wish you long life, a peaceful retirement and success in all your future endeavours. Your sincerely, Director Personnel University of Lagos.'' show that the Claimant voluntarily retired from the services of the 1st defendant/applicant and same was accepted by the 1st defendant vide the two letters reproduced above, thereby determining the appointment of the Claimant. There is no shred of evidence in proof of the stand of the Claimant that he was coerced into retirement. The law is settled that he who asserts must prove the assertion, the apex Court case of REPTICO S.A. GENEVA V AFRIBANK (NIG).PLC. [ 2013] 14 NWLR, PT 1373, P 172 @ P 211 Parags B-D is apt; thus the onus of proving coercion which is on the Claimant has not been shifted and thus remained unproven. It is thus a mere fallacy and not believed. The above two letters speak for themselves. Consequently, the contract of employment between the Claimant and the 1st defendant was determined by the notice of retirement written by the claimant to the 1st defendant and the acceptance of same by the 1st defendant on the 10th of February 2012. To hold otherwise would mean to change the rules at the middle of the game and that is alien to law, I so hold and find. Finally, on issue two, which is whether or not this suit is caught up by the Section 2 (a) of Public Officers Protection Act, Cap p. 41, LFN 2004 ( hereafter called 'The Act' ). Aptly put, is this suit statute barred? It was the argument of the 1st- 3rd defendants that the Claimant's action is statute barred having been filed way far beyond the 3 months period allowed by the above Act. The Section is hereunder reproduced thus; ''where any action, prosecution, or other proceeding is commenced against any person for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of any Act or Law or of any public duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such Act, Law, duty or authority, the following provisions shall have effect- 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''. It was the contention of the 1st -3rd defendants in this suit that the failure of the Claimant to commence the action against the defendants within a period of three months is fatal to his case, as same is statute barred. It was the argument of the defendants that where a statute makes provisions for institution of an action within a prescribed period, any action instituted after the prescribed period is statute barred, as the right or injury of the Claimant have been extinguished by the above law. Reliance was placed on the case of FRED EGBE VADEFARASIN(NO2) Supra, CBN V ADEDEJI Supra. The defendants continued by stating that the Claimant's cause of action commenced on the 10th of February, 2012, when his contract of employment was determined. On his own part the Claimant posited that his case falls under the exception to the Act. In determining whether an action is statute barred or not, the most crucial consideration is when the cause of action arose. A cause of action arises the moment a wrong is done to the Claimant by the Defendant. Limitation of action is also determined by looking at the complaint and the statement of facts alleging when the wrong was committed which gave the Plaintiff the cause of action and by comparing the date on which the writ of summons was filed. See the locus clasicus on the subject; EGBE V HON. JUSTICE ADEFARASIN [1987] 1 NWLR (Pt.47) 1; ADEKOYA V. FHA [2008] Vol. 6 M.J.S.C 66 at 79-80 paras. G-D; Forestry Research Institute of Nig. v. Gold [2007] 5 S.C 213 at 223 - 225; Paras 40 - 25 (SC); MILITARY ADMIN EKITI STATE v. ALADEYELU (2007) 4-5 S.C. 201. The relevant portion of the Claimant's claim from which the cause of action is distilled are these paragraphs- "12. The Claimant avers that he worked with the 1st defendant Medical Services Department until retirement, as principal Laboratory Technologist on February 10, 2012. The 1 defendant did a letter of Record of Service dated June 13, 2011 to the Director General of the National Pension Commission Abuja. Same is hereby pleaded." "13. The Claimant was until February 10, 2012, the Principal Laboratory Technologist with the 1st Defendant Medical Services Department and was on Level USS 11 before the retired from the employment." "30. The Claimant states that he did a letter dated January 30, 2012 to the 2nd Defendant through the 3rd Defendant requesting the implementation of the 65 years age of retirement as stated in the Agreement executed by the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities (SSANU) on November 05, 2009. We hereby plead same." "35. The Claimant further avers that irrespective of the clearly stated effective date of the Agreement, the 1st defendant still went ahead to issue a letter dated February 11, 2011 with Ref. No. AD/REG/4968 stating that the Claimant was due for retirement which was and still is in violation of the Agreement between the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Senior Staff Association of Nigeria Universities." It is apparent from the above paragraphs of the Claimant's Statement of facts that the cause of action arose on the Claimant retirement date i.e the 10th of February, 2012 and when the defendants refused to reinstate him based on the alleged FGN/SSANU Agreement. The action became statute barred three months after this action. It is deduced from the date the cause of action arose which is the 10th of February 2012 and the date this suit was filed which was on the 28th March, 2013. Thus, the Claimant went into deep sleep and did not wake up until after 13 months which is beyond the period allowed by the limitation Act thus making the action statute barred. It was the contention of the Claimant that the circumstances in this case brings same under the exceptions to the limitation Act, he placed heavy reliance on the cases of NSITFMB V KLIFCO Supra, and C.B.N V AMAO; supra. I have gone through the two authorities and wish to state that the authorities cited by learned counsel to the Claimant on exceptions to the limitation law, though apposite are not relevant in this case. The Claimant argued that nonpayment of his hazard / call duty allowance, deductions of PHCN Bills from his wife's salary and holding on to his three months salary bring his claims under the exceptions. He likened all these to debt owed him by the 1st defendant. It is desirable at this stage to state unequivocally that the National Industrial Court of Nigeria is not a debt collector. I must pause here to observe as it is also obvious as evidenced on record the Claimant did not produce any document/s or material facts in proof of the alleged three months salary being purportedly owed him by the 1st defendant. The pay slip annexed are that of his wife which is distinct, and has the name of his wife. There are documents showing that he is in possession of the staff quarters allocated to him, which issue is outside of the competence of this Court but before the Lagos High Court. I therefore consciously refrain myself from touching on that issue. However, I must not fail to state that, it would have been a different case which would have brought this case under the exception to the limitation law if the deductions had been made from the Claimant's salary, but that is not the case here because his contract of employment with the 1st defendant is determined. I am constrained to observe vide the documents frontloaded by the Claimant on record, as it is a settled principle of law that a Court in its decision may consider all documents filed on record, that the Claimant had taken steps and had in fact collected his pension benefit after his retirement. For instance in July, 2012, he wrote to his PFA, Crusader Sterling Pensions, complaining of short payment of his pension, In 21st, of Sept, 2012, he wrote another letter to his PFA requesting for the release of the sum of N4, 134, 485.06 to Leadway Assurance company for the purchase of life annuity for his retirement, on that same date he signed his annuity agreement. These are all positive steps taken by the Claimant subsequent to his retirement, thereby condoning his retirement. Thus, the determination of his contract of employment with the 1st defendant by his conduct has rendered the determination mutual. The continuation of injury envisaged by the Act cannot be said to include the situation painted by the Claimant in his submissions above. These are not the exceptions contemplated by the Act. This case as stated above is quiet distinct from C.B.N V AMAO'S CASE SUPRA. This case does not fall under the exceptions. Consequently, this suit is statute barred. I so hold and find. I make no order as to cost. Accordingly, this case is dismissed. HON. JUSTICE OYEWUMI O.O. JUDGE