The legal implications of a statute-barred action

CASE TITLE:  UDEZE & ORS v. GOVERNOR OF IMO STATE & ORS (2024) LPELR-62829(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 23RD JULY, 2024

PRACTICE AREA: LIMITATION LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: AMINA AUDI WAMBAI, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on statute barred action.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the National Industrial Court, Owerri Division, delivered on November 17, 2017.

The Appellants as Claimants at the trial Court had by their further amended statement of claim, sought against the Respondents jointly and severally, (1) a declaration that the dissolution of the claimants as the Chairmen and Members of the Five Man ENTRACO Committee for each of the 27 Local Government Areas of Imo State by a radio announcement and the subsequent locking out of the claimants from their respective offices at each of the Local Government Areas of the state by the defendants is wrongful and degrading; (2) The sum of N1,620,000.00 being total remuneration owed the claimants as chairmen and members of the Five Man ENTRACO Committee for each of the 27 Local Government Areas of Imo State from March, 2008 to August, 2010; (3) Five Hundred Million Naira (500,000,000.00) being General damages for wrongful and degrading termination of the Claimant’s appointment.

The Respondent denied the claim through their amended statement of defence.

In proof of their case, the Appellants called two witnesses; CW1 and CW2, and tendered several exhibits, while the Respondents called a sole witness. At the close of evidence and adoption of addresses of counsel, the learned trial Judge suo motu raised the issue of whether the Appellants’ claim was not statute barred by virtue of Section 61(2) of the ENTRACO Law of Imo State, 2008 and thereafter called on the parties to address it on the issue. After listening to the parties, the Court dismissed the suit for being statute barred.

Being dissatisfied with the said judgment, the Appellants appealed.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The appeal was determined on the lone issue viz:

“Whether the defence of Limitation of Action, being a special defence can be waived and if the answer is in the affirmative, whether the Learned Trial Judge was right in dismissing the claim of the Appellants.”

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed.

RATIOS:

• ACTION – CAUSE(S) OF ACTION- When does cause of action accrue and when does limitation period begin to run
• ACTION – STATUTE BARRED ACTION- How to determine whether an action is statute barred; effect of a statute barred action
• ACTION – STATUTE BARRED ACTION– Effect of a statute barred action
• COURT – RAISING ISSUE(S) SUO MOTU- Whether a Court can raise an issue suo motu and determine it without hearing parties; exceptions thereto
• JURISDICTION – PROCEDURAL/SUBSTANTIVE JURISDICTION- Distinction between procedural and substantive jurisdiction
• LIMITATION LAW – STATUTE OF LIMITATION- Whether a defence of statute of limitation must be specifically pleaded; effect of failure to plead same

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol