Categories: Be the FIRST to KNOW

Application of the Public Officers’ Protection Act/Law

CASE TITLE: SHU’AIBU V. C.O.P KANO & ANOR (2022) LPELR-57293(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 4TH APRIL, 2022

PRACTICE AREA: LEGISLATION.

LEAD JUDGMENT: ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on limitation of action against public officers.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the decision of the Kano State High Court delivered on 30th July, 2018.

The Appellant’s case was that he was arrested in Jos on 23/12/2009, by the agents of 1st Respondent who were looking for his elder brother. That he was brought to Kano and detained by the 1st Respondent until he was later charged to the Kano State High Court by the 2nd Respondent on 21st November 2011, for receiving stolen property. The Kano State High Court however discharged and acquitted him on 21/12/2017.

​Upon his discharge, Appellant took out a writ of summons to protest his travail in the hands of the Respondents.

Upon service of the process on the Respondents, the 2nd Respondent filed a Preliminary Objection challenging the competence of the suit on the grounds that it disclosed no cause of action against the 2nd Respondents and that it was statute-barred.

After hearing the preliminary objection and considering the evidence and addresses of Counsel, the trial judge upheld the preliminary objection, held that the suit was statute-barred and dismissed it.

Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

 The appeal was determined upon consideration of the issue thus:

“Was the trial Court right to hold that Appellant’s Suit was caught by the limitation law, and dismissed it?”

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the appeal succeeded and was allowed. The decision of the trial Court was set aside and the suit was sent back to the Chief Judge of Kano State for reassignment to another Judge other than the trial Judge.

RATIOS:

  • ACTION – STATUTE BARRED ACTION: How to determine whether an action is statute-barred
  • PUBLIC OFFICER – PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT/LAW: Statutory Provisions as regards limitation period for bringing an action against a Public Officer
  • PUBLIC OFFICER – PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT/LAW: Instances when the Public Officers Protection Act will not apply

lawpavilion

Recent Posts

Attorney General’s Consent: A Legal Requirement for Garnishee Proceedings Against the Government?

Introduction The latest decision by the Tax Appeal Tribunal (TAT) on Value Added Tax (VAT)…

3 days ago

5 Ways CaseManager Can Enhance Your Team Performance and Tasks

What is LawPavilion CaseManager Software?Key Features of CaseManager Software:5 Ways CaseManager Can Help Your TeamConclusion…

4 days ago

Whether an Aggrieved Party Must Exhaust All the Remedies Available to Him in Law Before Resorting to Court

CASE TITLE: FADAIRO & ORS v. NASU & ANOR (2024) LPELR-62868(CA) JUDGMENT DATE: 12TH JULY,…

4 days ago

Position of the Law Regarding the Requirement of Consent of the Attorney General Before Garnishee Proceedings Can Lie Against Any Government

CASE TITLE: CBN v. OCHIFE & ORS (2025) LPELR-80220(SC) JUDGMENT DATE: 24TH JANUARY, 2025 PRACTICE…

4 days ago

Application of the Doctrine of Stare Decisis

CASE TITLE:  SUIMING ELECTRICAL LTD v. FRN & ORS (2025) LPELR-80179(SC) JUDGMENT DATE: 29TH JANUARY,…

4 days ago

Whether a Bank is Bound to obey the Mandate of a Customer

CASE TITLE: ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. POLARIS BANK LTD & ANOR (2025) LPELR-80188(SC) JUDGMENT DATE: 17TH…

4 days ago