Download PDF
The claimant filed a complaint in this Court on the 30th January 2013, claiming the following reliefs against the defendant- a. A declaration that the action of the Defendant in subjecting the Claimant to the hazards of their machines without first training him on their proper usage is actionable breach to duty of care owed the Claimant by the Defendant. b. A declaration that the action of the Defendant in subjecting the Claimant to work on their machines without proper supervision is actionable breach of duty of care owed the Claimant by the Defendant. c. A declaration that the action of the Defendant in failing to secure a Workmen Compensation Insurance Policy on the Claimant while in their employment is unlawful and contrary to the provisions of the extant labour laws of Nigeria. d. Special damages in the sum N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira Only) against the Defendant. e. The cost of this action, assessed at the sum of N1,500,000.00 (One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira). Accompanying the complaint is a statement of facts and all the other accompanying processes. In reaction the defendant filed its memorandum of appearance, statement of defence, witness statement on oath and followed by a notice of preliminary objection dated 4th of July, 2013 and filed on the same day praying for the following: 1. An order that the writ and statement of fact herein be struck out as being frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of the process of the court and the action dismissed with costs. 2. An order that the costs of and occasioned by this application be borne and paid by the claimant in any event. 3. And for such further orders as the Honourable Court shall deem fit to make in the circumstances. The grounds upon which the objection is brought are: 1. The Claimant’s action is for damages for personal injury sustained on 10th of October, 2009. 2. The Claimant commenced this action by his Writ of Summons and Statement of Fact both dated 30th of January, 2013 seeking damages for negligence/breach of duty. 3. By provisions of Section 9(1)&(2) of Limitation Law of Lagos State, actions claiming damages for negligence or breach of duty in respect of personal injuries to a person must be brought within 3 years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. 4. The Writ and Statement of Fact sets up a cause of action which is not indorsed on the Writ of Summons herein and which was barred by section 9(2) of the Limitation Law of Lagos State at the time of issue of the writ herein. 5. That this suit is incompetent and Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the Claimant. The application is supported by a four (4) paragraph affidavit deposed to by Ismaila Ibrahim. Accompanying the notice is a written address in support wherein a sole issue was raised by the defendant’s counsel i.e Whether in the instant case the claimant’s claim is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of the Limitation Law. Learned counsel submitted that it is trite law that an action is statute barred where it is instituted after the expiration of a statutory prescribed period commencing from the time the cause of action accrued. Counsel cited the locus classicus case of EGBE V ADEFARASIN [1987] 1 NWLR (PT.47) 1 @ P 20 where the Supreme Court defined “cause of action” thus- “Now lets us look at the meaning of cause of action. It is admittedly an expression that defies precise definition. But it can safely be defined as the fact or facts which establish or give rise to a right of action. It is the factual situation which gives a person a right to judicial relief. A cause of action is to distinguished from a right of action. A right of action is the right to enforce presently a cause of action. In other words a cause of action is the operative fact or facts (the factual situation) which gives rise to a right of action which itself is a remedial right......” Continuing, counsel submitted that from the above authority a cause of action can be described as the emergence of a factual situation which enables a party to an action in court. Applying the above principle to the above instant action, he submitted that the claimant’s cause of action is a personal injury and urged the Court to so hold. Learned counsel submitted on the question on how to determine the period of limitation citing Oputa JSC at page 20 in EGBE V ADEFARASIN (Supra) said: “How does one determine the period of limitation? The answer is simply by looking at the writ of summons and the statement of claim alleging when the wrong was committed which gave the plaintiff a cause of action and by comparing that date with the date on which the writ of summons was filed. This can be done without taking oral evidence from witnesses....... ” It was contended that from the circumstance of this case the claimant’s cause of action arose on the 10th October, 2009 being the date the claimant suffered the injury and the writ was issued on the 30th of January, 2013 (over four years after the claimant’s cause of action arose). That by the provisions of Section 9(1)&(2) of the Limitation Law of Lagos State, the claimant’s cause of action is statute barred and was thus extinguished. Section 9(1)&(2) of the Limitation Law is reproduced thus- “ 9(1)this section applies to actions claiming damages for negligence, nuisance, or breach of duty (whether the duty exists by virtue of contract or of a provision made by or under an enactment or independently of any contract or of any such provision), where the damages claimed by the plaintiff for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty consist of or include damages in respect of personal injuries to any person.” “(2) subject to the provisions of this section, no action to which this section applies shall be brought after the expiration of three years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.” Learned counsel further stressed that the statement of claim discloses that the cause of action of the claimant is for damages for personal injury, that the cause of action arose on the 10th of October, 2009 and time began to run from that moment. Consequently, on the 30th January, 2013 when the writ was issued the claim of the plaintiff was already statute barred. Therefore, it was submitted that the claimant’s claim is statute barred and he is in law incapable of making any claim against the defendant and urged the court to so hold. On the issue of jurisdiction, learned counsel while citing the case of ITA V ARCHIBONG [1995] 4 NWLR (PT387) PG 83 AT PG 79, and the decision of the Court of appeal per AKINTAN JCA (as he then was) stated the position of the law categorically as follows: “The question whether action is instituted within the time laid down by the limitation law is an important pre-condition which must be met before the court can assume jurisdiction. It is therefore an issue that goes to jurisdiction which can be raised at any stage of proceedings” He submitted placing reliance on the above case, that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the claimant. He further submitted that it is settled that a court of law has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim that is statute barred and extinguished such a claim is not justiciable in law. He cited in support of this assertion the case of ARAKA V EJEAGWU [2005] 15 NWLR (PT.692) PG 684 where the Supreme Court held that limitation law removes a right of action and a right to judicial reliefs. In conclusion, counsel urged the court to grant his application holding that the claimant’s cause of action is statute barred by virtue of Section 9(1)&(2) of the Limitation Law of Lagos State and to also hold that the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit. The claimant filed a Counter Affidavit in opposition to the defendant’s Notice dated 30th of September, 2013 and filed on the same day. Accompanying the Counter Affidavit is the Written Address in support wherein he also framed a sole issue for the determination of the Court thus- “Whether in view of the provisions of Section 9(2) of the Limitation Law of Lagos State, this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit” Learned counsel submitted that Section 9(2) of the Limitation Law of Lagos State provides that no action involving personal injury can be brought after the expiration of three (3) years from the date on which the cause of action arose. However, Section 9(5) provides thus: “Nothing in this section shall be construed as excluding or otherwise affecting- a. any defence which, in any action to which this section applies, may be available by virtue of any enactment other that subsection (2) of this section (whether it is an enactment imposing a period of limitation or not), or by virtue of any rule of law or equity; b. the operation of any enactment or rule of law or equity which, apart from this section, would enable such an action to be brought after the end of the period of three years from the date on which the cause of action accrued (emphasis supplied) ” To the learned claimant's counsel limitation law does not affect the power of this court to exercise its equitable jurisdiction conferred on it vide Section 13 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 over the instant suit. He stated that it is one of the maxims of Equity that equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy. Thus the wrong that has been done to the claimant/ respondent arising in the course of his employment is one that ought to be remedied by this court in its equitable jurisdiction. It is therefore his submission that in exercise of the equitable jurisdiction of the court, it can entertain this suit. With regards to the peculiar nature of work-related personal injuries, counsel submitted that personal injuries arising in the course of employment are always looked upon with a special lens by the court because first, the employer has a legal obligation to compensate his employees for injuries sustained by them in the course of their employment. Secondly, such injuries could involve those that take time to heal, in which case the limitation period provided could have elapsed. Thus despite limitation of time for instituting work related personal injuries, where there is a reasonable explanation for not instituting such action within the time frame provided, the court would still entertain such matter relying on its equitable jurisdiction. Relying on the case of DUNLOP NIGERIA INDUSTRIES V ALADEYELU [1973] 3 C.C.H.C.J, PG 135, AT PGS 136-137, where Taylor CJ noted thus: “ ... I cannot therefore see from where the learned trial Chief Magistrate culled from the record of proceedings the ‘respondent’s explanation as to his inability to bring the claim within the statutory period of six months’. In fact there was no explanation or attempt at explanation... in the absence of any explanation from the present respondents as to the reasons for not bringing his claim [sic] must be held to be statute barred” Claimant referred the court to paragraphs 3-7 of the counter-affidavit stating that they go to show reasonable explanations why the action wasn’t commenced within the period stipulated by the limitation law and the claimant has in the Counter Affidavit deposed to facts deserving of this Honourable Court’s equitable considerations and invocation of the court’s equitable jurisdiction as envisaged or contemplated in Section 9(5) of the Limitation Laws of Lagos State. Counsel reproduced the special circumstances as deposed to in the counter Affidavit below for ease of reference: (i) That indeed, the injury sustained by him which is the basis for this suit occurred on the 10th of October, 2009; (ii) That however, after he was treated by the defendant/applicant he was returned to continue his work with the defendant ; (iii) As a result of the foregoing, it was inappropriate and indeed impracticable for him to have brought the action against the defendant/applicant who were his employers, considering the peculiar nature of Nigerian workplace climate; (iv) That in view of his present deformity which was a result of the injury sustained by him while in the employment of the defendant/applicant, and which makes it almost impossible for him to secure another employment, he had to accept the readmission to work given him by the defendant/applicant. (v) That after he was laid off by the defendant/applicant, he attempted amicable settlement of this matter by causing his solicitors to write the defendant/applicant. (vi) That it was after he was laid off by the defendant/applicant in November, 2011 and after all efforts to have the defendant/ applicant compensate him for his injury failed in 2012, that he instituted this action. Counsel submitted that it is impracticable for a Nigerian worker (a junior one and with the peculiar physical disadvantage of the claimant/respondent) to drag his employer to court while in the employment of the same employer and it is on record that claimant/respondent after being retrenched by the defendant/applicant caused his solicitors to write the defendant with a view to having this matter resolved without recourse to court. He went on to state that would it be practicable for the claimant/respondent to have instituted this action after he had been readmitted to work by the defendant/applicant and while still in the defendant’s employment to have instituted this action before trying to reach the defendant/ applicant for possible amicable settlement and he answered in the negative. Finally, counsel submitted that the injury sustained by the claimant/respondent is a permanent injury. He is now permanently disabled and would have to live with it for the rest of his life, and also face the attendant difficulty of getting a job as a result of same and it would be inequitable for this court to deny him his right to be compensated. Counsel urged the court to strike out the defendant/applicant’s application and entertain this suit. Having gone through the processes filed and the submissions of both counsel, I framed these issues for the Court's determination. 1. Whether the claimant’s claim is statute barred and thereby impugned on the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this suit, and 2. Whether the defence of equitable jurisdiction of this court can be invoked in the circumstances of this case. In answering issue one raised, it is trite by the joint reading of Section 9(1)&(2) of the Limitation Law of Lagos State that actions claiming damages for negligence, nuisance, or breach of duty by the plaintiff in respect of personal injuries to any person shall not be brought after the expiration of three years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. A cause of action accrues on a date or from the time when a breach of any duty or act occurs which warrants the person thereby injured or the victim who is adversely affected by such breach to take a court action in assertion or protection of his legal right that has been breached. The duration of a right or cause of action which is conferred on an injured party is necessarily limited and does not last till eternity. It lapses after the date the statute of limitation proclaims that no such legal action or proceedings may lawfully be taken or commenced by an injured party and to determine the period of limitation is by looking at the writ of summons and the statement of claim only, to ascertain the alleged date the wrong in question which gave rise to the plaintiff’s cause of action was committed and by comparing such date with the date on which the writ of summons was filed. If the time pleaded in the writ of summons or statement of claim is beyond the period allowed by the limitation law, the action is statute barred. See WOHEREM V EMEREUWA [2004] 13 NWLR (PT.890) 398; UGBA V SUSWAM [2013] 4 NWLR (PT 1345)427. The crux of the defence case is that this action is beyond the prescribed period of 3 years for which the claimant can institute this action and thus urged the Court to by Section 9(1) and (2) of the Lagos State limitation law hold that this action is statute barred. The claimant calls in aid of his case the provisions of Section 9(5) of the limitation law of Lagos State, which according to him allows the Court to apply its equitable jurisdiction to entertain this suit. This Court have severally held in plethora of cases that question of whether or not an action is statute barred, is one touching on or goes to the jurisdiction of the Court. In other words statute of limitation is imapari materia or a twin brother of jurisdiction. They are inseparable Siamese twins. When a cause or action is statute barred, it affects the jurisdiction of the Court to adjudicate on same. See JOSHUA MNENGE V NIG ARMY UNREPORTED SUIT NO NICN/IB/22/2012, DELIVERED ON 18TH DEC, 2012. . EMIATAR V NIG ARMY & 4 ORS [ 1999] 12 NWLR PT 631, 364 @ 372. An action instituted after the expiration of the period stipulated in the statute of limitation is not maintainable in law. It follows therefore, that where a statute of limitation applies, a claimant who may have a cause of action loses the right to enforce it by judicial process because the period of time laid down by the limitation law for instituting such an action has elapsed. See: Oke Vs Oke (2006) 4 NWLR (1008) 224 at 242 C - D. A. Statute of limitation is usually couched in mandatory terms. It follows therefore that the provisions of the law must be strictly complied with. It has become a notorious position of the law that when a Court is faced with this sort of issue, it should first and foremost have a recourse to the writ of summons and statement of facts in order to be able to determine when the cause of action arose vis a vis the date the complaint was filed. See ADEKOYA V FEDERAL HOUSING AUTHORITY[2008] Vol. 6 M.J.S.C 66 at 73-74 paras. G-A, where the apex Court held that limitation of action is determined by looking at the writ of summons or the statement of claim alleging when the wrong was committed which gave the plaintiff the cause of action and by comparing that date on which the writ was filed. Now, a careful perusal of the statement of fact and the Writ of summons filed by claimant/respondent reveal that the cause of action complained against the defendant/applicant arose on the 10th of October, 2009 and this action was filed on the 30th of January, 2013 culminating into four (4) years 3 months and thereby the claimant's action is stale or is beyond the period provided for by Section 9 (1) & (2) Limitation Law of Lagos State. In the instant case, the defendant/applicant has raised in its address that the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this claim filed by the claimant. It has been decided in this ruling above that statute of limitation is synonymous with jurisdiction. A careful look at the writ of summon and statement of claim considering the time the cause of action arose, the time it was filed in court and a joint reading of Section 9 (1)&(2) Limitation Law of Lagos State which provides that no action claiming damages for negligence, nuisance, or a breach of duty consist of or include damages in respect of personal injuries to any person shall be brought after the expiration of three years from the date on which the cause of action accrued clearly oust the jurisdiction of the court to entertain this suit. It was the defence of the claimant that he could not institute this suit earlier because his lawyer was negotiating with the defendant and the Court should consider that period in computing the date the cause of action accrued. It is trite that time runs continually irrespective of intervening acts on behalf of the parties by their counsel or themselves. See UTA FRENCH AIRLINES V WILLIAMS [2000] 14 NWLR 271. On the second issue framed by the court, it was the position of the claimant that by Section 9(5) of the Limitation Law of Lagos State, the limitation law does not affect the powers of this court to exercise its equitable jurisdiction conferred on it vide Section 13 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 which provides that: “Subject to this Act, in every civil causes or matter commenced in the court, law and equity shall be administered by the court concurrently.” It is clear from the above provision that this court may administer both law and equity concurrently in adjudicating on any issue before it. Can the Court in this instance invoke its equitable powers to circumvent the statutory provision like the limitation law as it is in this case ? It was the claimant's defence that he could not have instituted any action against his employer whilst in its employment, assuming but not conceding that he is expedient in his stand, now the claimant/respondent’s employment was terminated on the 19th of November, 2011 by the defendant/applicant. If he had instituted the action at that time whilst not in the defendant's employ, he would have been within the 3 years prescribed by the limitation law , he would be barred from instituting this action after the prescribed period, except the claimant can show that the case comes within any of the laid down exceptions to the law, which the claimant has failed to do in this case. The claimant kept mum and comfortable until 23rd January 2013 when suddenly he woke up realising that he needed to institute this action to claim for a compensation for injury he sustained on 10th of October 2009. This in the humble view of the Court, shows the lackadaisical attitude the claimant had towards this case and it is trite that Equity does not aid the indolent but the vigilant and delay defeats equity. See these cases; A.G RIVERS STATE V UDE [2006] 17 NWLR (Pt.1008) 436; OGBEIDE V OSIFO [2007] ALL FWLR (Pt. 365) 548 at 566 - 567 Paras. B - C. THE COUNCIL OF FEDERAL POLYTECHNIC,EDE & ORS V JOHNSON OLOWOKERE [2012] LPELR -7935. It is thus clear from all that have been alluded above that the attempt made by the claimant to found his case on equity as an exception by urging this Court to apply equity as provided for in Section 13 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 as an exception to the application of Section 9(1) and (2) of the limitation law of Lagos State fails in the light of the authorities and reasons given above, I hold that the notice of preliminary objection filed by the defendant/applicant has merit and thus succeeds. This case is statute barred, this Court thus lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit and consequently this suit filed by the claimant/respondent is dismissed. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. HON.JUSTICE OYEWUMI OYEBIOLA O. JUDGE