CHIEF SYLVANUS AMAECHI & ORS v. APOSTLE MATTHEW AYOZIE
(2018)LCN/12290(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 17th day of December, 2018
CA/OW/196/2014
RATIO
COURT AND PROCEDURE: WHEN AN ACTION IS STATUTE- BARRED
“Once it is established that an action is statute barred, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine same. This is because jurisdiction is a threshold matter. It is the live wire of the matter before the Court. It has been variously described as the blood, live wire, or threshold of an action before the Court. It strikes at the root of every case before the Court. Unless the Court is vested or clothed with the appropriate jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter, the beauty, eloquence, excellence, the industry invested in the conduct, adjudication and judgment in the matter are wasted judicial investments, dead abinito. See HUMBE VS. A.G. BENUE STATE (2000) 3 NWLR (Pt. 649) 419 AT 433-439.” PER IBRAHIM ALI ANDENYANGTSO, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ITA GEORGE MBABA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
IBRAHIM ALI ANDENYANGTSO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. CHIEF SYLVANUS AMAECHI
2. CLEMENT MBADIWE
3. MRS. DENNIS NWANKWO
4. UMULOGHO TOWN UNION Appellant(s)
AND
APOSTLE MATTHEW AYOZIE Respondent(s)
IBRAHIM ALI ANDENYANGTSO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
On the 21st day of December, 2005, the Plaintiff took out a writ of summons against the Defendants claiming the following reliefs:-
1. DECLARATION that the plaintiff is entitled to the Grant of Customary Right of Occupancy in respect of his portion of Okeohia Ayozie land situate and lying at Umuokpa Umulogho Obowo within jurisdiction.
2. N100,000,000 (One Hundred Million Naira) special and general damages for trespass to the said land by the Defendants who erected buildings on the land without the leave or consent of the Plaintiff.
3. ACCOUNT for rents collected.
4. ORDER FOR REPOSSESSION of the land by the plaintiff.
5. PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants by themselves, their Agents and/or privies from further acts of trespass to the said land of Plaintiff.”
On 19/12/2005, the Defendants entered their appearance vide their counsel and on 15/2/2006 Plaintiff filed his statement of claim. The 1st Defendant filed his statement of Defence and counter claim on 25/6/2007. In 2008 Imo State High Court (Civil procedure) Rules came into effect and the parties filed their witnesses’ depositions on oath. Hearing in the suit commenced on 23/11/2010.
At the end of trial, the learned trial Judge Hon. Justice E.O. Agada, J., delivered his judgment on 26/3/2013 in favour of the Plaintiff. Dissatisfied with the decision the Defendants appealed to this Court vide a Notice of Appeal filed on 24/5/13 with a lone Ground of Appeal as follows:-
3. GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he proceeded to hear and determine this suit when he lacked the necessary jurisdiction to do so.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
1. By the averments of paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Statement of Claim the cause of action arose in 1970.
2. By the provisions of Section 3 of Imo State Limitation Law 1994, the Respondent?s action became statute barred after ten years.
3. By 2005 when the Respondent commenced the action, the cause of action has become statute barred thereby denying the Court of the necessary jurisdiction to entertain same.
4. It is trite law that a Court will cease to have jurisdiction in a matter which affects its jurisdiction.?
The following reliefs were sought:
1. An Order allowing the Appeal.
2. An Order setting aside the judgment and Orders of the lower Court.
3. An Order dismissing the suit for being statute barred.
4. An Order awarding cost to the Appellants both in this Court and the Court below.”
Henceforth in this judgment, I shall refer to the Plaintiff in the Court below as the ‘Respondent’ while the Defendants as the ‘Appellants’. The Appellants filed a motion for stay of execution of the judgment of the lower Court which was granted on 9/11/2015 by this Court. Again they sought for and obtained leave of this Court to raise and argue for the first time before this Court, the legal issue of statute of limitation as couched in Ground one of their Notice of Appeal filed on 24/5/13 and a deeming Order made on the 24/5/13 and argued in the Appellants’ Brief of Argument filed on 2/6/17 as properly raised and argued. The Appellants’ Brief of Argument was deemed as properly filed on 17/1/2018.
The Respondent did not file any brief in this appeal and so same was heard on 22/10/2018 only on the Appellants’ Brief.
Now in the Brief of Argument settled by Chief Okey Ehieze (KSC), solicitor to the Appellants, one issue was distilled from the sole ground of appeal as follows:
“WHETHER THE LOWER COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE CASE HAVING REGARDS TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3 OF THE LIMITATION LAW OF IMO STATE, 1994.”
By this issue, the Appellants’ learned Counsel raised the question whether the action of the Respondent is not statute barred having regard to the facts pleaded in his statement of claim.
He submitted that where the law provides for the bringing of an action within a prescribed period in respect of a cause of action accruing to the Plaintiff, proceedings shall not be brought after the time prescribed by the statute, relying on HASSAN VS. ALIYU (2010) ALL FWLR (Pt. 673) 631 at 643. He cited the provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Law of Imo State 1994, and submitted, again relying on EKEOGU VS. ALIRI (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 179) 258 and OKUMAGBA VS. EGBE (1965) 1 ALL NLR 62, that in interpreting the provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Laws of Imo State, the words should be given the ordinary and natural meaning as they are plain and unambiguous.
Thus the duty of the Court is to adopt the liberal interpretation which means that, where the provisions of the statute are clear and unambiguous, they require no resort to any canon of construction but they must be read in their plain and ordinary words which best give their meaning as expounded in the case of A.G. FEDERATION VS. ABUBAKAR (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 389) 1264 at 1290 – 1291.
It is submitted that it is the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim that determine whether or not the action of the Plaintiff is statute barred. Counsel cited and relied on D.A.M. & C. CO. LTD. VS. J.M.I LTD. (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 390) 1531 at 1543, and ELABANJO VS. DAWODU (2006) ALL FWLR (Pt. 328) 604 at 646. Furthermore it is submitted that it is the period between the day the cause of action arose and the day the action was filed and if the time on the writ is beyond the period allowed by the Limitation Law then the action is statute barred. He relied on:-
a) UNION BANK OF NIGERIA VS. UMEODUAGU (2004) ALL FWLR (Pt. 221) 1552;
b) OMOTAYO VS. NRC (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 254) 471;
c) MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR, EKITI STATE VS. ALADEYELU (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 369) 1218 – 1219.
It is submitted further that, where there exists a Law on the Limitation of time within which all actions and matters should be taken or where a law exists prescribing a period of time within which an action may be instituted, time begins to run automatically from the date of accrual of the cause of action, relying on HUMBE VS. A.G. BENUE STATE (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 649) 419 at 433 and 439. Furthermore, that time begins to run when there is in existence a person who can sue and another who can be sued and all facts have happened which are material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed. He relied on ADIMORA VS. AJUFO(1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 1.
Learned Appellants’ Counsel, Chief Okey Ehieze (KSC) summarized the general Rule of Law as stated by the Supreme Court in the cases of ODUBEKO VS. FOWLER (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 308) 637 at 660 and ELABANJO Vs. DAWODU (Supra) and several other authorities and submitted that the law does not prohibit parties from engaging in negotiation, even though that would not stop the period of limitation, except where there is an admission.
Learned Counsel then referred to paragraphs 13-21 of the statement of claim which he reproduced and submitted that the case of the Respondent has been caught up by the statute of limitation. He argued that the cause of action arose in 1970 over 35 years before the Respondent filed the suit in 2005. He referred to OKUMAGBA Vs. EGBE (1965) 1 ALL NLR 62, ARGUNGU Vs. ARGUNGU (2010) ALL FWLR (Pt. 510) 681 at 696, A.G. FEDERATION Vs. ABACHA (2011) ALL FWLR (Pt. 556) 445 to 464 and paragraphs 13-21 of the statement of claim and submitted that the cause of action arose a long time which has affected the Jurisdiction of the Court. He submitted that Jurisdiction is a threshold issue. He then urged us to hold that the case of the Respondent having been caught up by a statute of limitation ought not to have been accepted, adjudicated upon and determined by the lower Court and finally that we grant all the reliefs sought by the appellants.
RESOLUTION
In Paragraph 16 of the statement of claim, the Respondent as Plaintiff, averred as follows:-
16. At the end of civil war in 1970, the Umulogho Community by force entered the land in dispute and the adjoining parcels of land and commenced massive uprooting of trees on the parcels of land.
Paragraph 19 of same contains the following:-
“19. The 1st defendant against the vehement protestations of my mother Mrs. Naomy Ayozie built a nine-room house on my portion of Okeohia Ayozie land in dispute. The second defendant threatened my mother and told her that the government had taken over the land. He also built a nine-room house on the land in dispute. The third defendant is wife of a former Eze who used force to enter the land in dispute and erected thereon a four-room house against the protestation of my father.”
It is clear from the above and many more paragraphs as highlighted by the Learned Counsel for the appellants that the cause of action in this case arose in 1970 or even before that. It is correct to say that 1970 would appear to be the year after the entire problem or trespass came to the peak. The mother of the Respondent could only carry out a ‘vehement protestation’. It was only in 2005 that the Respondent went to Court to seek redress.
Now Section 3 of the Imo State Limitation Law 1994 provides thus:-
“No action shall be brought by any person to recover land after the expiration of ten years from the date on which the right of action accrued to him or if it first accrued to some person through whom he claims, to other person.”
The writ of summons was dated 19th day of December, 2005. The statement of claim was dated the 30th day of January, 2006. From the year or the period the Appellants entered the land in dispute to 2005 was 35 years. The Respondent did nothing beyond ‘protestation’.
Now even from the year the Limitation Law of Imo State was promulgated to 2005 is eleven (11) years. Obviously the Respondent did nothing when it was clear that a law has been passed. The Respondent waited for 11 years from the year of promulgation of the Limitation law of the Imo State (1994) before bringing this action.
Limitation Laws or statutes have been given a node by our apex Court, the Supreme Court and also this Court. Hence in MERCHANT BANK (NIG.) LTD. Vs. PETCO (NIG.) LTD. (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt. 540) 143 at page 156- 166 it was held thus:-
“A Limitation of action is designed to stop or avoid a situation where a plaintiff can commence action anytime he feels like doing so even when human memory would have normally faded and therefore failed. Putting it in another language, the plaintiff has not the freedom of the air to sleep or slumber and wake up at his own time to commence action against a defendant. The different statutes of limitation are founded on the principles of equity and fair play and would not allow such sleeping plaintiff. He will be stopped from commencing the action and that is a just and fair situation. A plaintiff who suddenly wakes up from a very deep sleep only to remember that the defendant has wronged him, can, I think, be rightly ‘greeted’ by the defendant with the appropriate limitation statute, waving same as basis for redress. That was what the Respondent did and I think the law allows it to do so. A plaintiff has no right to give the impression to a defendant by his sleep or slumber that he is no more interested in pursuing his legal right, only to wake up suddenly and quite late in the day to do so. That cannot be justice. A law which is designed to police such a situation cannot, with respect to Learned Counsel for the appellant, be called technical justice.”
Once it is established that an action is statute barred, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine same. This is because jurisdiction is a threshold matter. It is the live wire of the matter before the Court. It has been variously described as the blood, live wire, or threshold of an action before the Court. It strikes at the root of every case before the Court. Unless the Court is vested or clothed with the appropriate jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter, the beauty, eloquence, excellence, the industry invested in the conduct, adjudication and judgment in the matter are wasted judicial investments, dead abinito. See HUMBE VS. A.G. BENUE STATE (2000) 3 NWLR (Pt. 649) 419 AT 433-439.
In the instant case, the suit was filed many years from the accrual of the cause of action. Even if it was calculated from the year the Limitation law was passed, the Respondent was 11 years over and above the period of Limitation.
Consequently the appeal is meritorious and same is allowed. The judgment of the Trial Court is hereby set aside together with all the orders made. I grant all the reliefs sought by the Appellants. I award cost of N20, 000.00 and N10, 000.00 for the appeal and Court below respectively.
THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA, J.C.A.: I had the advantage of reading before now the leading judgment in this appeal just delivered by my learned brother, Andenyangtso, J.C.A., and I cannot but agree with him that the action that gave rise to this appeal was caught up by the Statute of Limitation.
It is trite that where the law provides for the bringing of an action within a prescribed period in respect of a cause of action accruing to a plaintiff, proceedings shall not be brought after the time prescribed by the statute had expired. See Nigerian Ports Authority Plc. vs. Lotus Plastics Ltd. (2005) 19 NWLR 959 page 158.
Consequently, I allow the appeal and hereby abide by the decision in the leading judgment of this Court.
ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading the lead judgment, just delivered by my learned brother, Andenyangtso, JCA and I agree with him that the Appeal has merit and should be allowed.
The evidence at the trial Court shows that the alleged forceful entry into the land or trespass occurred about the year 1970 and that Appellants, as defendants, had built on the land about 35 years before the Respondent took out the action in 2005 to challenge the Appellants on the land. The law relating to statute of limitation may appear harsh and unconscionable, but it remains the law, unfortunately. There are authorities, even by the Supreme Court, on the application of statute of limitation, and Section 3 of the Imo State Limitation Law, 1994 is quite explicit, when it says:
“No action shall be brought by any person to recover land after the expiration of ten years from the date on which the right of action accrued to him or if it first accrued to some person through whom he claims, to that other person. ”
In the case of Atunrase Vs Sunmola (1985) NWLR (Pt. 1) 105 at 120, the Supreme Court advanced reasons to justify when a person’s good cause of action can be defeated by his indolence, thus:
“In all actions, suits and other proceedings at law and in equity, the diligent and careful actor or suitor is favoured to the prejudice to him who is careless and slothful, who sleeps over his rights. The law may, therefore, deny relief to a party who by his conduct has acquiesced or assented to the infraction of his rights, or has led the opposite party responsible for or guilty of such infringement, to believe that the has lived (sic) or abandoned his right.”
I have acknowledged that there could be injustice in the application of the Limitation Law, but the Court cannot help the indolent or slothful. In the recent case of Obika Vs Obika (2018) LPELR – 43965 (CA), my Lord, Oredola JCA said:
“It is pertinent to emphasize herein the effect of an action which is statute barred. When an action is held to be statute barred, the Plaintiff’s right of action is held to have abated and no relief can validly be sought or given in order to enforce the stated claim, notwithstanding the injustice that may have been done to the Plaintiff and/or how credible the Plaintiffs claim may appear. See Nwadiaro Vs SPDC Ltd (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 150) 322; Unity Bank Plc vs Nwadike (2008) LPELR – 5067.”
I too allow the Appeal and abide by the consequential orders in the lead judgment.
Appearances:
Chief Okey Ehieze (KSC)For Appellant(s)
Respondent was unrepresented.For Respondent(s)
