Limitation Law (101)
HELD:
"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.
HELD:
"...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.
HELD:
"It is no longer in dispute that time begins to run for the purpose of limitation law when the cause of action arose, that is, when the plaintiff becomes aware that his legal right has been breached by the defendant.
HELD:
"...Daudu V. University of Agriculture Markurdi & Ors. (2002) 17 NWLR (Pt. 796) at 384; held that:
HELD:
"The Statute of limitation in Law removes the right of action, the right of enforcement, the right of judicial relief and leaves the Plaintiff with a bare and empty cause of action which he cannot enforce.
HELD:
"A successful plea of limitation law, as a shield by an opposing party occasions two pernicious effects against a plaintiff's action. Firstly, he becomes a destitute of the right of action and judicial relief.
HELD:
"...This averment is very crucial, it amply, demonstrates that the disputed land, a heritage of the appellants from their fore bears, was/is subject of customary holding.
HELD:
"The Appellants subject of claim was that relating a claim of title under customary land tenure. It was not inhibited by the statute of limitation, as wrongly held by the trial Court in dismissing their claim.
HELD:
"To begin with, the case-law has endorsed, in toto, a statement of claim as one of the barometer to be employed by the Court to gauge the presence or absence of statue -bar/limitation law,