NATIONAL UNION OF ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS & ORS v. FIRST CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
(2019)LCN/13534(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 21st day of June, 2019
CA/L/559/2013
RATIO
LIMITATION LAW : GENERALLY APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES
The principles of law, generally, on the application of a limitation law to an action filed or brought in a Court of law, are now firmly established in our superior Courts of record in Nigeria such that they are common knowledge.
They include: –
(i) Limitation laws/statutes impose and limit the period of time within which named claims for the enforcement of legal right/s or obligation/s by use of the instrumentality of the processes of a Court of law in a legal action, shall be initiated or commenced;
(ii) That any legal action initiated or commenced after the expiration or outside the period stipulated, prescribed or limited by a limitation law/statute for the initiation or commencement of such an action, is barred by the relevant statute and so becomes legally invalid and judicially competent;
(iii) That the time limited by law/statute for the purpose of the initiation or commencement of a legal action, starts to run from the date the cause of the action arose and accrued to the claimant.
(iv) That the cause of an action is the fact or combination of such facts which if proved in a Court of law, would entitle a claimant to a judicial remedy against another party;
(v) That ordinarily, the relevant and material documents or processes to be looked at and considered for the determination of the question whether an action was statute barred or barred by the provisions of a particular limitation law/statute, are the originating processes used or filed to commence or initiate the action which are usually, the writ of summons and Statement of Claim as well as originating summons, as the case may be;
(vi) That the date on which the cause of action is shown or indicated to have arisen and accrued to the claimant from the facts set out in the processes and the date on which the processes were filed to initiate or commence the action, would be carefully compared by a Court;
(vii) That where the date on the initiating processes is found to be after the expiration of or outside the period of time stipulated and limited for the initiation or commencement of such an action, from the date the cause of action arose and accrued to the claimant, the action becomes barred by the law/statute and incompetent;
(viii) That the law/statute of limitation takes away from a claimant, not the cause of action, but the right to enforce it by the judicial process of a Court of law;
(ix) That the application of limitation law/statute to an action deprives and rob a Court of law, the requisite jurisdiction and competence to adjudicate over the action on the ground that it is barred by the law/statute.
See Sanda v. Kukawa Local Government (supra), Egbe v. Adefarasin (1987) 1 SCNJ, 1, Adimora v. Ajufo (1988) 6 SCNJ 18, (1988) 1 NJSCC, 1005, Obiefuna v. Okoye (1961) 15 SCNLR, 144, Ekeogu v. Aliri (1991) 3 NWLR, (179) 258, Eboigbe v. NNPC (1994) 5 NWLR (346) 649, Iweka v. SCOA (2000) 7 NWLR (664) 325, Aremo II v. Adekanye (2004) ALLFWLR (224) 2114,Owie v. Ighiwi (2005) 1 SC (Pt. II) 16 @ 31,Arabella v. N.AI.C.(2008) 32 WRN, 1 @ 26.PER MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: HOW TO DETERMINE IF A COURT HAS JURISDICTION
For a Court of law to be properly seized of the requisite judicial power and authority to exercise jurisdiction to adjudicate over an action, there must be a valid and competent action brought before it. Once it is determined that an action is incompetent on any cognizable ground in law, the incompetence does not end with the action alone, but contiguously and as a matter of course, goes to, fatally affects and thereby deprive or rob the Court of the competence or jurisdiction to adjudicate over the action, by the operation of the limitation law/statute which it has the duty to uphold and apply. The question or issue of limitation law/statute is one of substantive law which supersedes and overrides the Rules of practice and procedures of Courts, which only regulate the manner or way the statutory jurisdiction of Courts is exercised and do not themselves, confer or vest jurisdiction on a Court. See Dogo v. State (2011) LPELR-3748 (CA), Atanda v. Ajani (1989) 3 NWLR (111) 511, Akanbi v. Alao (1989) 3 (108) 118 @ 136, Clement & Anor v Iwuanyanwu & Anor (1989) 4 SC (Pt. II) 89.
JURISDICTION: WHEN THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED
Although the law says that an issue of jurisdiction of a Court to adjudicate over an action or case can be raised at any stage of the proceedings; from trial to the final Court of the land, it only allows the issue to be raised for the first time and not repeatedly at every or all stages of the proceedings in a case, let alone where it was decidedly determined on the merit in the course of the proceedings by a trial Court.
JURISDICTION: WHEN THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL WITHOUT LEAVE
Whereas the issue of jurisdiction can be raised for the first time as stated above, at the appellate stage of the proceedings of a case; without the requirement of leave from the Appellate Court; See Agbiti v. Nigeria Navy (2011) 4 NWLR (1236) 175, Boko v. Nungwa (2019) 1 NWLR (1654) 395 @ 429 & 43 (SC), after the expiration of the prescribed time within which an appeal may be brought to this Court against the decision of a Lower Court as provided for in Section 24 of the Court of Appeal Act, an appeal can only validly be filed in the Court after an order was sought and obtained for extension of the stipulated time within which to bring the appeal and, in case of an interlocutory decision, what has now become popularly known as the trinity prayers/orders of extension on time to seek leave to appeal, leave to appeal and extension of time to file the Notice of Appeal. In the absence of an order extending the time within which to appeal or the trinity orders, as the case may be, there can be no valid and competent appeal against the decision of a Lower Court to this Court even on issue of jurisdiction, after the expiration of the periods of periods of time stipulated and prescribed in the provisions of Section 24 of the Court of Appeal Act. See Owena Bank Nigeria Plc v. OBC Limited (2000) 7 NWLR (66) 678, FBN Plc v. Tsokwa (2004) 5 NWLR (866) 2271, Alor v. Ngene (2007) 17 NWLR (1062) 163, N.I.D.B. v. Rolisco Nigeria Limited (2010) 1 NWLR (1175) 387, Lovleen Toys Industry Limited v. Komolafe (2013) 14 NWLR (1375) 542.
APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER: EFFECT
The position was restated by Salami, JCA inS.E.A.P.S. Limited v. Ogunnaike (2008) 14 NWLR (1106) 1 @ 12 when he said that: –
The consequence of the appointment of a receiver is to paralyze the powers of the owners from dealing with it. The company does not forfeit its legal personality nor are the goods vested in the receiver on appointment.? (Underline supplied)
See also Spring Bank Plc v. ACB Int. Bank, Plc (2016) 18 NWLR (1544) 245, CCB Nigeria Limited v. Mbakwe (2002) 3 NWLR (755) 523,Nzom v. Jinadu(supra), CCB Nigeria Limited v. Onwuchekwa (2000) 3 NWLR (647) 65, Progress Bank Nigeria Plc v O.K. Contact Point Limited (2008) 1 NWLR (1069) 514.PER MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.
CONTRACT: HOW TO DETERMINE IF A CONTRACT IS VALID
The first point to be determined is on the existence of a valid and binding contract between the parties. As a foundation, the law is known that, in simple terms, a contract, is an agreement; oral or written, freely and voluntary reached between or entered by two or more persons with a clear intention to create a binding legal relationship. For there to be a valid, enforceable and binding contract between the parties, the following basic essential elements must be present
(a) A definite offer,
(b) Unqualified acceptance,
(c) Intention to create a binding legal relationship,
(d) Consideration, and
(e) Legal capacity to contract.
The law requires that all these basic elements must be present or co-exist in order for a binding and enforceable contract to be reached and arise on the authority of Orient Bank Nigeria Plc v. Bilante Int. Limited (1997) 8 NWLR (515) 37 @ 76, Green Finger Agro-Industries Limited v. Yusufu (2003) 12 NWLR (835) 488 @ 506, Omega Bank Plc v. O.B.C. Limited (2005) 8 NWLR (928) 547, Amana Suits Hotels Limited v. P.D.P. (2007) 6 NWLR (1031) 453, Akinyemi v. Odua Investment Company Limited (2012) 17 NWLR (1329) 209, Mudiaga Odje (2014) 5 NWLR (1400) 412, Inna v. FBN, Plc (2016) 2 NWLR (1495) 89, among the legion of judicial authorities on the principle.PER MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.
CONTRACT: THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSENSUS AD IDEM IN CONRACTS: MEETING OF THE MINDS
However the recognized foundation of a legally binding and enforceable contract between parties is the meeting of the minds, the agreement or on consensus ad idem by them on the subject matter as well as terms and conditions agreed to. Sona Breweries, Plc v. Peters (2005)1 NWLR (908) 478 @ 488, Amana Suits Hotels Limited v. P.D.P. (supra), Abba v. SPDCN (2013) LPELR-20338 (SC), Ogundalu v. Macjob (2006) 7 NWLR (989) 148,Olowofoyeku v. Attorney General, Oyo State (1990) 2 NWLR (132) 369, Yadis Nigeria Limited v. Great Nigeria Ins. Company (2007) 4-5 SC, 236, Green Fingers Agro Ind. Limited v. Yusufu (2003) 12 NWLR (835) 488.PER MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.
GUARANTEE: WHEN A PERSON PERSONALLY GUARANTESS THE LIABILITY OF A THIRD PARTY
It is settled law that where a person personally guarantees the liability of a third party by entering into a contract of guarantee or surety ship, a distinct and separate contract from the principal debtor?s, is thereby created between the guarantor and the creditor. The contract of guarantee so created can be enforced against the guarantor without the necessity of joining the principal debtor in the proceedings to enforce same.?
See also F. I. B. Plc. v. Pegasus Trad. Office (2004) 4 NWLR (863) (369); Dragetanos Const. Nig. Ltd v. Friv Ltd (2011) 16 NWLR (1273) 308; South Trust Bank v. Pheranzy Gas Ltd (2014) 16 NWLR (1432) 1.PER MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.
EVIDENCE ACT: THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS DEPENDENT ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE EVIDENCE ACT
In any case, the admissibility of any piece of evidence; oral or documentary, in the judicial proceedings of a Court of law, is primarily governed by the provisions of the Evidence Act which is a specific and special legislation enacted for the purpose which takes precedent over any general legislation. FBN, Plc v. Maiwada (2013) 5 NWLR (1348) 444; C. A. C. v. Gov. Council, I. T. F. (2015) 1 NWLR (1439) 114; Nobis-Elendu v. INEC (2015) 16 NWLR (1485) 197.PER MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.
BREACH OF CONTRACT MAKES ONE ENTITLED TO DAMAGES SIMPLICITER
This is because, in contracts, it is damages simpliciter arising from the breach by a party that are to be claimed and are to be proved to be in the contemplation of the parties or as derivable from the terms and conditions of the contract and so the loss claimed must be real, not imagined or speculative. See Barau v. Cubitts Nig. Ltd (1990) 5 NWLR (152) 630; P. Z. & Co
