CASE TITLE: EFA v. EFA (2022) LPELR-56562(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 18TH JANUARY, 2022
PRACTICE AREA: LIMITATION LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: ADEMOLA SAMUEL BOLA, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION
This appeal borders on Limitation of Action.
FACTS
This is an appeal challenging the ruling of Honourable Justice Ofem I. Ofem of the High Court of Justice, Cross River State sitting at Calabar which ruling was delivered on the 14th day of November, 2017 in Suit No. HCA/ 10/2016.
This action is in respect of a chieftaincy tussle. The Appellant commenced the action at the trial Court vide a writ of summons claiming the following reliefs:
a. A DECLARATION that the Claimant is the rightful person to be recognized, installed and issued with Certificate of Recognition as the Village Head of Idebe Ikot Esu Village, Akpabuyo Local Government Area.
b. AN ORDER directing the 2nd Defendant to issue Certificate of Recognition of the Plaintiff as the Village Head of Idebe Ikot Esu Village, Akpabuyo Local Government Area.
c. AN ORDER restraining the 2nd Defendants from recognizing, installing and issuing Certificate of Recognition to the 1st Defendant as Village Head of Idebe Ikot Esu.
d. AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant from parading himself as the Village Head of Idebe Ikot Esu Village, Akpabuyo Local Government Area.
e. General damages of N5m (Five Million Naira) only.
f. Cost of Litigation N1. 5m.
The Claimant/Appellant and the 1st Defendant/Respondent joined issues as per their pleadings. The 1st Defendant/Respondent subsequently filed a motion on notice praying the trial Court to dismiss the suit on grounds that the action was statute-barred.
The trial judge delivered his considered ruling. It was adjudged that the action was statute-barred, the action having been instituted 10 months after the cause of action arose.
Being dissatisfied with the Ruling of the trial Court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The Court determined the appeal based on the following issues for determination:
1. Whether the trial Court’s consideration of the representation and submission of a Counsel who was not briefed by that party does not amount to a nullity.
2. Whether in consideration of the facts of this case, the action of the Appellant was statute-barred.
3. Whether it is in the intent of the Nigerian Law to regard a village head as a Public Officer.
DECISION/HELD
In the final analysis, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The ruling of the trial Court delivered by Ofem I. Ofem, J., on 14th November, 2017 in suit No. HCA/10/2016 to the effect that the substantive action was statute-barred was affirmed.
RATIOS:
- LIMITATION LAW – LIMITATION PERIOD: Effect of an action brought outside a statutorily limited period
- PUBLIC OFFICER – PUBLIC OFFICERS: Definition of a Public Officer
- PUBLIC OFFICER – PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT/LAW: Whether a successful plea of limitation of action under the Public Officers Protection Act/Law enures to the benefit of other defendants who are not public officers
- PUBLIC OFFICER – PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT/LAW: Conditions that must exist for the provision of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act/Law to avail any person
- PUBLIC OFFICER – PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT/LAW: Whether traditional rulers qualify as public officers to benefit from the provisions of the Public Officers Protection Act
