IKECHUKWU OKPOKIRI v. VINCENT NWOGWUGWU & ANOR
(2014)LCN/6838(CA)
RATIO
WHERE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION IS RAISED ON ACCOUNT OF AN ACTION BEING STATUTE BARRED THE COURT LACKS ABSOLUTELY THE JURISDICTION TO TOUCH OR DETERMINE THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE ACTION ON THE MERIT.
No court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit or matter that is statute barred. The principle does not admit of whether a claim is in the main or in the alternative. The onslaught of a Statute of Limitation is total as it is directed against the entirety of the action itself. See ARAKA vs. EJEAGWU (2000) 4 NSCQR 308.
There is nothing in this appeal showing that the challenge to the jurisdiction of the court was only against the alternative relief. The issue of jurisdiction raised is against the suit of the Appellant. It did not lie in the province of the Lower Court to give any separate consideration to the main claim or the principal reliefs of the Appellant and alternative relief since his jurisdiction was assailed concerning the land in dispute in the action.
KOLAWOLE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LIMITED vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & ORS (2012) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1320) 221 at 243 C-D per OGUNWUMIJI, JCA who said:
“Now back to the issue of whether the action is statute barred or not. The law sometimes place limitation in bringing certain actions in court where the time stipulated within which an action can be brought has elapsed, the action will be statute barred. See EGBE vs. ADEFARASIN (1987) 1 SCNJ 1 (No. 2) (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 47). Thus, the effect of time of limitation is that the right of action is lost if it is not brought within the stipulated time. Ignorance of the limitation of time or time taken by negotiation between parties are no defences – JOHN EBOIGBE vs. NNPC (1994) 5 NWLR (PT. 347) 649” Per PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.
