Whether The Law on Limitation of Action Applies to Cases of Continuous Damage/Injury

CASE TITLE: EFFIONG v. MOBIL PRODUCING (NIG.) UNLTD (2024) LPELR-62930(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: LIMITATION LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: BALKISU BELLO ALIYU, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Civil Procedure.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the ruling of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, sitting at Uyo, Akwa Ibom State (trial Court) delivered on the 25th of April 2023 in respect of a motion on notice raising preliminary objection to the competence of Suit No. FHC/UY/CS/227/2023. The Appellant filed the suit as the plaintiff, vide a writ of summons accompanied with a statement of claim in which he sought declaratory and injunctive reliefs as well as special and general damages against the Respondent which was the Defendant at the trial Court.

The facts of the case are that the Respondent by its negligence, caused a crude oil spill from its facility at Qua Iboe Oil Field Terminal in Ibeno Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom State on the 29th of June 2014, which negatively impacted the economic activities of the Appellants who are fishermen and women. The spill polluted the entire river and the adjoining creeks and swamps, thereby totally paralyzing their fishing operation, being their only means of livelihood. The Appellants further claimed that the crude oil spill that occurred on the 29th of June 2014 is still evident on the surface of the water because the Respondent did not take steps to prevent the crude oil that had already spilled from spreading in the water, which has left the spill unabated till the date of filing of the suit. Consequently, the crude oil left floating around continued to spread and cause damage to the waters and aquatic life in the sea, thereby endangering the Appellants’ means of livelihood. The Appellants alleged that the failure of the Respondent to remedy their fishing and economic environment occasioned a continuity of damages and injury to the Appellants’ economic activities, thereby affecting their economic well-being till date.

The Respondent denied the claims of the Appellant vide its statement of defence and in addition, the Respondent filed a motion on notice on the 11th of January 2023, by which it raised a preliminary objection to the competence of the suit of the Appellants and prayed that same be dismissed or struck out for want of jurisdiction.

The application was supported by affidavit and written address of counsel. It made the case that the Appellants having filed their suit outside the five-year’ period prescribed by Section 16 of the Limitation Law of Akwa Ibom State, the suit is statute barred, thereby robbing the trial Court of jurisdiction to hear and determine it.

After considering the affidavits evidence of the parties and the originating processes, the learned trial Judge delivered the Court’s ruling and held that the Appellants’ suit is statute barred; as such, the trial Court lacks the jurisdiction to determine it. He therefore dismissed the suit in limine. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit, the Appellants filed this appeal

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The appeal was determined on the following issues:

“1. Whether the trial Court was right to uphold the preliminary objection of the Respondent on the basis that continuity of damages and/or injury coupled with equitable reliefs copiously pleaded and claimed are not an exception to statute bar in tortious liability of negligence?

2. Whether the trial Court was right to award cost of N50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) only against the Appellant in view of the submissions in issue one above?”

DECISION/HELD:

On the whole, the appeal was allowed.

RATIOS:

• LIMITATION LAW- LIMITATION OF ACTION: Whether the law on limitation of action applies to cases of continuous damage/injury
• LIMITATION LAW- STATUTE OF LIMITATION: Circumstances in which statute of limitation is not applicable

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