IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
—————————————————————
Suit No: NICN/ABJ/172/2015
Petitioner: ADENIJIADEKUNLE BABATUNDE
And
Respondent: FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ANOR
Date Delivered: 2017-02-07
Judge(s): HONOURABLE JUSTICE E. N. AGBAKOBA
Judgment Delivered
REPRESENTATION
- A. OBATERU for the claimant P. P. OMADE for the 1stdefendants with Z.O. ALI Z. O. ALI for the 2nddefendant
J U D G E M E N T
The Claimant instituted this action via a Complaint with the accompanying frontloaded documents filed on 4th June, 2015, against the defendants for the following reliefs:
(a) A Declaration that the various letters of dismissal purportedly given by the Defendants to the Claimant without observing the principles of fair hearing as provided for in the constitution, is wrongful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
(b) An Order setting aside the various letters of dismissal purportedly given by the Defendants to the Claimant without observing the principles of fair hearing as provided for in the constitution
(c) An order of this Honorable Court to the 1st and 2nd Defendants to reinstate the Claimant into the Service on Salary Grade Level 14 with effect from 1/1/2013 to place him at par with his peers with whom he joined the Service in 1983
(d) An Order for the payment of all arrears of salaries, allowances, emolument due from the Defendants to the Claimant from September 1989 till judgment is entered
(e) An Order for damages of fifteen million against the Defendants for all the inconveniences, deprivation and mental/psychological torture that the Claimant is made to pass through by the acts/omissions of the Defendants.
The Defendants filed a NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION on 30th October, 2015, praying the Court for AN ORDER dismissing this suit on the ground that it is statute barred.
GROUNDS OF APPLICATION
- The Claimant’s case is pending before this HonourabLe Court.
- The suit was instituted outside the statutory limitation period of three (3) months as stipulated by Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, 2004.
The defendants in their WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION raised on sole ISSUE:
Whether or not this suit is statute barred having regards to the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, 2004. Learned Counsel to the defendants P. P. Omade Esq. submitted that from the claim and the date on which the cause of action arose against the 1st Defendant/Applicant, the suit is statute barred and as such the court cannot validly assume jurisdiction over this matter as a cause of action is said to be statute-barred if in respect of it, proceedings cannot be brought because the period laid down by the Limitation Law or Act has elapsed. See EGBE V. ADEFARASIN (1987) 1NWLR, PG 3-4.
Furthermore, that the Supreme Court had made it clear that there is no distinction between ‘public offices’ and ‘public officers’ under the Public Officer (Protection) Law. IBRAHIM V. JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMITTEE KADUNA STATE
ANOR. (1997 -1998) All NLR 302, per Iguh JSC. He submitted that it is trite law that in determining whether a particular action is statute barred, the court will seek to know the following:
- a) When the cause of action arose.
- b) When the plaintiff filed the action.
Relying on BANK OF THE NORTH LTD V. GANA (2006) ALL FWLR
(PT 296) Pg. 669 para. 3; BANK OF THE NORTH LTD V. GANA (supra) at par 4.
It is Defence counsel’s submission that the purpose of the Public Officer Protection Act is to protect a public officer from detraction and unnecessary litigation, thus, when an action is found to be statute-barred as in the instant case, the court ought to dismiss the suit. In the case of ADEKOYA V. FH.A (2008) 11 NWLR (PT. 1099) 539; BANK OF THE NORTH LTD V. GANA (supra) at para. 9; LAMINA V. IKEJA LOCAL GOVERNMENT (1993) 8 NWLR (PT.314) 758; OBETA V.
OKPE (1996) 9 NWLR (PT. 473) 401 at 429.
The 2nd defendant also filed a NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION on 11th December, 2015, praying the Court for An order to strike out or dismiss the suit for incompetency on ground that the condition precedent to the jurisdiction of the Honourable court and the competence of the suit at the time the cause of action arose which is the relevant time to institute this action have been irretrievably removed by the law
GROUNDS FOR THE OBJECTION
(i) That contrary to the provision of Section
2 (a) Public Officers Protection Act P.41 LFN 2004 the Claimant neither commenced this action within three months envisaged by this statute.
(ii) That the 2nd Defendant/Applicant lacks the legal personality of suing or being sued in a Court of law.
The 2nd in their WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY
OBJECTION
Raised the following ISSUES;
- Whether by the operation of Sec. 2 (A) Public Officers Protection Act, Cap. P. 41, LFN, 2004, this action has not become statute barred.
- Whether the 2nd defendant/applicant herein has juristic personality capable of suing or being sued as was done in this case.
ON ISSUE 1
Whether by the operation of Sec. 2 (A) Public Officers Protection Act, Cap. P. 41, LFN, 2004, this action has not become statute barred.
Learned Counsel for the 2nd defendant, Z. O. Ali Esq. submitted that the claimant’s action is against the 2nd defendant who is an agent of the Federal Government and that the act of the 2nd defendant complained of by the claimant occurred on 31st January, 2013 while the claimant commenced this action on 4th June, 2015, clearly after the 3 months prescribed by the said law.
OGUN STATE GOVERNMENT v. DALAMI LTD. (2007) 6 M.J.S.C. 187 @ 198, PARAS G.
ON ISSUE 2
Whether the 2nd defendant/applicant herein has juristic personality capable of suing or being sued as was done in this case.
2nd defendant’s Counsel submitted that the 2nd defendant is not a juristic personality, is not a creation of statute neither is it a natural person that can sue and be sued, rather, that the nomenclature attached to the office of the 2nd defendant is for administrative/operational conveniences.
Submitting further, that no action can be brought by or against any party other than a natural person or body of persons, unless such a party has been given by a statute, expressly or impliedly either (a) a legal personality under the name by which it sues or is sued or (b) a right to sue or be sued in that name. AGBOOLA v. SAIBU (1991) 2 NWLR (PT. 566) 576, PARA. D.
The claimant in reaction to the 1st defendant filed their REPLY TO 1ST DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION DATED 30TH OCTOBER, 2015 (dated 26th January, 2016 and filed on 12th February,
2016).
With the sole ISSUE
