Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">REPRESENTATION:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Mrs G.N. Onyelukporo holding brief of Dr C. O. Okafor Esq. for the Claimants/Respondents.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Mrs C.T. Ogbu for the Defendants/Applicants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal"><b><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">RULING<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the 2<sup>nd</sup> day of October, 2014 the Claimants approached this Honourable Court with a Complaint dated same day and a Statement of Claim in paragraph 34 of which they claim the following reliefs against the defendants jointly and severally:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">34. WHEREFORE, the Claimants claim against the Defendants jointly and severally as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. A DECLARATION that the compulsory retirement of the Claimants from their employment by the Defendants is premature, wrongful and contrary to the Civil Service Rules.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. A DECLARATION that the compulsory retirement after 35 years of service shall be computed from the period the Claimants obtained their Teachers Grade Two Certificates and were appointed as teachers.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3. A DECLARATION that the rightful retirement period of the Claimants in view of the 35 years of service and 60 years of age is as contained in the document captioned “Premature Retired Teachers Actual Date of Retirement by Age or Service.”<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">4. AN ORDER of Court compelling the Defendants to immediately reinstate the Claimants to their various primary schools as active civil servants of Enugu State with effect from the various dates they were wrongfully retired from public service.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">5. AN ORDER of Court compelling the Defendants to pay to the Claimants all their arrears of full salaries, allowances and other entitlements/benefits based on their various grades in office with effect from their various dates of wrongful retirement up to their lawful date of retirement from service.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">6. AN ORDER of Court that the Defendants should pay the Claimants the sum of Fifty Million Naira (N50,000,000) being consequential damage (sic) for the losses of the Claimants psychologically, physically, financially and otherwise all through the period they were wrongfully denied of their active service as civil servants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">7. The sum of One Million Naira (N1,000,000) being the cost of this action.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Complaint was accompanied with a Statement of Claim, witnesses’ written Statements on oath, list and copies of documents to rely upon at trial.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Upon being served with the processes of the Claimants, the Defendants on 25<sup>th</sup> of November, 2014 filed a memorandum of Conditional Appearance and a motion on notice brought pursuant to Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, Cap P41, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Honourable Court praying it for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">1.<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:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">An Order dismissing this suit in that it is statute barred and incompetent.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">2.<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:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">And for such further order(s) as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The motion was supported by an affidavit of 5 paragraphs deposed to by Mrs Ugwuozor B.U., a litigation officer attached to the Department of Civil Litigation in the Ministry of Justice, Enugu. It is also supported by a written address of counsel. Thereafter on 19<sup>th</sup> December, 2014 the defendants filed a Counter-affidavit of 15 paragraphs deposed to by Mr Clement Ozioko, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Claimant in this case. Attached to the Counter Affidavit are Exhibits A1, A2, B1, B2, B3, B4, C1, C2 and C3. There is also a written address in opposition to the preliminary objection of the Defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The learned counsel for the defendants further filed reply on points of law dated 9<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2015 on 25<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2015. Parties adopted their respective written addresses.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In his written address learned counsel for the defendants formulated and argued a sole issue for the Court’s determination as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> Whether this action as constituted is statute barred?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In his argument learned Defendants counsel stated that Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act Cap P41, LFN 2004 provides that “<i>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, duty or authority, the following shall have effect;<o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">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 continuance of damage or injury, within three months next after the ceasing thereof.”</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He continued that there is no doubt in the circumstances of this case that the defendants/applicants are public officers, referring to the case of <b><i>Ibrahim vs Judicial Service Committee, Kaduna State (1998) 14 NWLR (Pt. 584) 1</i>. </b>That it is also beyond argument that the claimants were retired sometime in 2012 and 2013. They instituted this action on 2<sup>nd</sup> October, 2014, almost two years after their retirement. That this action was instituted after the prescribed three months and would, by provisions of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act Cap P41, LFN 2004, be statute barred. He referred to <b><i>Co-Op Bank Ltd vs LAWAL (2007) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1015) </i></b>on how to determine whether a suit is statute barred and that the court should examine the processes of the Claimant to see when the cause of action arose and when the claimant approached the Court. If the Claimant approaches the court outside the limitation period set by statute in question then the suit must be declared statute barred. He further referred to the case of <b><i>Eboigbe vs NNPC (1994) NWLR (Pt. 347) at 652 </i></b>on the issue of when a statute of limitation begins to run wherein it was held that <i>“for the purpose of instituting an action in court, time begins to run from the date the cause of action accrues.”</i> The court further held that <i>“when a statute of limitation prescribed a period within which an action must be commenced, legal proceedings cannot properly or validly be instituted after the expiration of the period stipulated in the statute of limitation….”</i><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He submitted that the consequence of an action being statute barred is that a claimant who might otherwise have had a cause of action loses the right to enforce the cause of action by judicial process because the period of time laid down by the limitation law for instituting such action has elapsed. He urged the court to hold that the suit is statute barred and dismiss same.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On his own part, learned counsel for the Claimants formulated and argued a sole issue for the court’s determination, namely, whether the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, Cap P41 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 is applicable in this suit? Learned counsel submitted that the said provisions of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, Cap P41, LFN 2004 does not apply to this suit. He referred to the Ruling of this Honourable Court in Suit No. <b><i>NICN/EN/149/2012, Chief John Akaruayen Ewende vs Solomon Ajomate Ala (Unreported)</i></b> in which the court held that matters of labour rights in general are not affected by the limitation law. He added that the court in that Ruling relied on the case of <b><i>NUPENG vs Geco Prakla Nigeria Ltd (2010) NLLR (Pt. 57) 361.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He further urged the court to maintain its position in <b><i>Ewenede’s case, supra, </i></b>and hold that section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act is not applicable to this case. He added that a public officer who breached a contract is not protected by the Public Officers Protection Act, relying on the case of <b><i>National Insurance Commission vs Shehu Aminu & Anor (2012) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1302) 330. <o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned Claimants’ counsel further made the point that the claimants’ case is predicated on breach of contracts of employment and cannot therefore be affected by Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act. He added that for the provisions of section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act to apply the officer must be engaged in the performance of his lawful duty or authority. To him therefore, the unlawful determination of the employment of the Claimants cannot be said to be the exercise of such a lawful duty or authority. He then submitted that since the action of the defendants is unlawful they are not protected by the provisions of section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act urging the court to so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned Claimants’ counsel further argued that Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act does not apply to this case because the claimants’ were employed by Enugu State and not the Federal Government. That the applicable law is therefore the State Proceedings Law, Cap 146, Laws of Enugu State which provides for a limitation period of twelve months.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Lastly learned claimants’ counsel argued that by the authority of the decision in <b><i>Godwin Ogori (2005) 2 FR at 192 </i></b>a declaratory relief is an equitable relief and thus by virtue of Section 4(7) of the Limitation Law of Bendel State, 1976, as applicable in Delta State, the limitation law does not apply to it. He then submitted that time does not run against the declaratory reliefs sought in this claim and he urged the court to so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Replying on points of law, the learned defendants counsel submitted that paragraph 13 a-f of the Claimants’ counter affidavit contains extraneous materials by way of legal arguments and conclusions which offended section 115(2) of the Evidence Act, 2011 and should be discountenanced. He relied on the decision in <b><i>Bamaiyi vs The State (2001) 8 NWLR (Pt. 715) 270, per Uwaifo JSC.</i></b> He also referred to <b><i>Nigeria LNG Ltd vs African Development Insurance Co. Ltd (1995) NWLR (Pt. 416) 677 at 699 p. H.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the issue of the applicability of section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act to Contracts of employment, learned counsel referred to the case of <b><i>Musa vs N.I.M.R. (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1205) 271 CA</i></b>, where it was held that the said provision of section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act applies to contracts of employment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Having carefully considered the processes filed, the arguments and submissions of both parties, the sole issue for determination in relation to the preliminary objection of the defendants is whether or not this suit is statute barred? A suit is said to be statute barred where the claimant files his suit after the expiration of the period of time set by the relevant limitation statute within which the suit must be filed in court. In other words once a party fails to come to court within the time limit set by statute to ventilate his grievance before the court, the suit is said to be statute barred. See <b><i>BAJOWA v. FRN & ORS (2016) LPELR-CA/A/155/2007</i></b> where the Court held that<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Where a statute of limitation prescribes a period within which an action should be brought, legal proceedings cannot be properly or validly instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period. An action instituted after the prescribed time is statute - barred. Once the time for bringing such an action lapses, the affected person is left with a bare or impotent cause of action which cannot be enforced through a judicial process or in a Court of law. See OSUN STATE GOVERNMENT V. DALAMI NIGERIA LTD (2007) 148 LRCN 1311 and AJAYI V. ADEBIYI (2012) 11 NWLR (1310) 137.</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> Per EKANEM, J.C.A. (Pp. 11-12, Paras. E-A)<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In determining whether a suit is statute barred the court is to consider the date on which the cause of action arose as well as the date on which it was filed. See the case of <b><i>FCMB v. NAGOGO (2016) LPELR-CA/A/476/2012</i></b> where the Court of Appeal held Per EKANEM, J.C.A. (P. 7, Paras. B-F), reiterated the principle in the following words:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">In order to determine whether or not a suit is statute - barred, the Court is to look at; (a) The date the cause of action accrued as disclosed in the writ of summons and statement of claim: (b) The date of the commencement of the suit as indicated in the originating process, and; (c) The period of time prescribed for bringing the action as stated in the relevant statute. If the period of time between (a) and (b) is beyond the time prescribed by the relevant statute then the action is statute-barred. See AJAYI V. ADEBIYI supra 169 and ADEJUMO V. OLAWAIYE (2014) 12 NWLR (1421) 252, 284, 283. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In the instant case, the Claimants have pleaded that they were wrongfully retired in 2012 and 2013. See paragraph 17 of the Statement of Claim. This suit was filed on 2<sup>nd</sup> of October, 2014. The said section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act provides that the suit must be filed within three months of the accrual of the cause of action. Therefore the suit must be statute barred as it was not filed within the three months limitation period. This I so find.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">However, the learned Claimants’ counsel has argued that the suit cannot be statute barred because it concerns wrongful determination of employment contract. He even urged the Honourable Court to maintain its decision in the case of <b><i>Ewenede, supra.</i></b> To counter this position the learned Defendant’s counsel has cited the decision in the case of <b><i>Musa vs N.I.M.R. (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1205) 271 CA</i></b>where the Court of Appeal clearly held that contracts of employment are subject to the provisions of limitation statutes. Let me reproduce the dictum of Ogunbiyi JCA (as he then was) in that case at page 292, paras D-H:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">In the said two cases of <b>Bakare vs NRC and NBC vs Bankole </b>reference supra, the plaintiffs in the cases instituted their claims for unlawful termination of their employment after 12 months from the date the cause of action accrued. The Supreme Court held that the actions were statute barred and the defendants were held to have enjoyed the statutory privilege provided under the relevant statutes mentioned earlier supra.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">From this decision it is quite clear that contrary to the arguments and submissions of the learned Claimants’ counsel, contracts of employment are in fact subject to the limitation law in general. Therefore in the instant case the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act are applicable to the facts which means that the Claimants should have presented their grievance to the Court within three months from the date of the accrual of the cause of action in 2012 and 2013.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The learned Claimants’ counsel has equally referred to the decision of this Honourable Court in <b><i>Ewenede’s case, supra.</i></b> The position of this Honourable Court on the issue of labour cases in general not being subject to limitation statutes has changed. In adjusting that position this Court in the case of <b><i>Hon RuniKanu& Ors vs A-G Cross River State & Ors (2013) NLLR (Pt. 91) p. 63 at pp 120-121 </i></b><i>held that:<o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimants had further referred this Court to its decisions in <b>John Ovoh vs The Nigerian WestministerDredging and Marine Company limited and Captain Tony Oghide & Ors vs Shona Jason Nigeria Limited. </b>While it is true that in these cases this court had held that the limitation laws do not apply to labour rights issues especially as to the claims for salary and entitlements/benefits the truth is that this court had had to change that stance in cases other than those relating to salary and benefits giving the weight of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court authorities to the effect that the limitation laws apply to employment cases as of other cases, all of which are binding on this court. In cases of claim for salaries and allowances the decisions of this court in John Ovoh vs The Nigerian Westminster Dredging and Marine Company limited and Captain Tony Oghide & Ors vs Shona Jason Nigeria Ltd would appear to be good law if the test on “continuance of damage or injury” laid down in the recent Supreme Court decision in A-G Rivers State vs A-G Bayelsa State & Anor (2013) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1340) p. 123 at 144-150 is met. In that case, at page 148-149, the Supreme Court held that the case for the deprivation of allocation which the plaintiff was entitled to every month and same has not ceased, was “a situation of continuance of damage or injury which has not ceased”-and so the defence of the Public Officers Protection Act would not avail the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendants who had raised it. I understand this authority to lay down that where an allocation which comes periodically, say, monthly (like salary and allowances, which also come periodically) is deprived a plaintiff state (like salary and allowances deprived to an employee), there is continuing damage or injury for which the Public Officers Protection Act or Law will not apply. In this sense for “continuing injury” exception to apply, the employee would need to be in employment; for otherwise, the claim that the deprivation continues would not stand. In this instant case, the Claimants ceased to be in office in 2010. There is, therefore, no question as the existence of a deprivation of an entitlement which comes in periodically and has not ceased after 2010. This being the case, the Claimants in the instant case cannot claim the benefit of the exception to the Public Officers Protection Law of Cross River State. In any event, the definition of the phrase “continuance of the injury” by case law authorities to mean continuance of the injury “act which caused the injury” and not the injury itself presupposes that this Court’s stance in cases such as<b>John Ovoh vs The Nigerian Westminster Dredging and Marine Company limited and Captain Tony Oghide & Ors vs Shona Jason Nigeria Limited</b>must be understood qualifiedly.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I have quoted this decision at length to show that the stance of the Court has since changed. See also <b><i>Anochiwa Juliet Chinwe vs IsialaMbano Local Government Council & Ors (2015), (Unreported) Suit No. NICN/OW/06/2013 </i></b>Ruling in which was delivered on 12<sup>th</sup> May 2015. The argument of learned claimants’ counsel is therefore hereby discountenanced.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned Claimants’ counsel had equally argued that the provisions of Section 2(a) of the public Officers Protection Act are not applicable because it is a Federal Law and the Claimants and the defendants entered into the contract of employment relationship pursuant to the Enugu state Law. He contended that it is the Enugu State Proceedings Law that should govern the issue of limitation of the suit and not the Federal Law since the Claimants were not employees of the Federal Government but rather of the Enugu State Government. Here this same argument was rejected by this Honourable Court when it was raised in the case of <b><i>GodswillNgene vs Enugu State Broadcasting Service (ESBS) (2016)(Unreported) Suit No. NICN/EN/31/2012 Ruling of which was delivered on 31<sup>st</sup> October, 2016.</i></b>In that case this court held that the conflict between the Public Officers Protection Act (a federal legislation) and Enugu State Broadcasting service Law (a state legislation) should be resolved in favour of the Federal legislation on the basis of the doctrine of Covering the Field. This is what the court said:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">In between the two pieces of legislation the Public Officers Protection Act is a Federal Legislation whereas the Enugu State Broadcasting Corporation Law is a state legislation. Both are on the same subject matter. The doctrine of covering the field has since resolved how such issue should be resolved. It is that the Federal Law takes precedence as the State law stays in abeyance. This Honourable Court in an earlier decision on the issue held as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">By the doctrine of covering the field, the paramount legislation is predominant and the subordinate legislation goes into abeyance and remains inoperative so long as the paramount legislation remains operative. The Public Officers Protection Act being an Act of the National Assembly is the paramount legislation. See A.G. Abia State & 35 Ors v A.G. Federation [2002] 6 NWLR (Pt 763) 265 at 435. The doctrine postulates that where the State and Federal Governments have concurrent powers to legislate on the same subject matter, the Federal Law covers the whole field of the subject matter. See Rector, Kwara Polytechnic v Adefila [2007] 15 NWLR (Pt 1056) 42. In the matter of limitation of actions against Public Officers, the whole field has been covered by the Public Officers Protection Act which is a Federal law. It has dealt exhaustively with the subject matter so as to manifest an intention to exclude any other legislation on the same matter. By the doctrine of covering the field, the Public Officers Protection Act being an Act of the National Assembly, overrides Section 30(1) and 30(2) of the Enugu State Broadcasting Service Law CAP 42 Revised Laws of Enugu State 2004, and Section 11(1) of the State Proceedings Law Cap 146, Laws of Enugu State 2004. See A.G. Abia State & 35 Ors v A.G. Federation [2002] All FWLR (Pt 101) 1447. I therefore hold that Sections 30(1) and 30(2) of the Enugu State Broadcasting Service Law CAP 42 Revised Laws of Enugu State 2004, and Section 11(1) of the State Proceedings Law Cap 146, Laws of Enugu State 2004 are not applicable. Rather, the applicable law is Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act CAP P41, LFN 2004, and I so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">I am not unmindful of the decision in Aiyelabegan vs Local Government Service Commission, Ilorin, Kwara State & Anor (2009), supra, cited and relied upon by the learned Claimant’s counsel. I have gone through the said decision. It was decided on the basis of the principle that where there is a conflict between a general and a specific legislation then the specific should override. In that case however, the conflict was between two pieces of legislation which were both made by the State Legislature, viz., Section 2(a) of the Kwara State Public Officers Protection Law and Section 178 of the Local Government Law of Kwara State, Cap 92, Laws of Kwara State, 1994. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <br>