Limitation Law (101)
HELD:
"Where a statute provides a legal line of action for determination of an issue, be that issue an administrative matter or chieftaincy matter, the aggrieved party must exhaust all remedies in that law before going to Court.
HELD:
"Section 20 of the Action Law Cap 3, Revised Laws of Anambra State, 1991 provides at Sub-Section 1 as follows: "(1) The following action shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date the cause of action accrued, that is to say: (a) Action founded on simple contract or tort..."
HELD:
"For the purpose of computation of time in this case, time begins to run against the appellant from the 4th September, 2006. He had six years within which to exercise his right of action in this instance, to institute action for malicious prosecution but which he did only on the 14th September, 2012, ten (10) days outside six years permitted by the Statute of limitation.
HELD:
"My learned brother has adequately considered the fundamental issue of jurisdiction as it affects the trial Court in view of Section 18 of the Limitation Law of Oyo State. From June 2010 when the limitation period began to run, the Respondent had up to June 2015 to file an action. But the Respondent filed the suit to recover the debt owed her by the Appellant on the 17 of August, 2015. This is clearly outside the five (5) years limitation period. The cause of action of the Respondent had been extinguished by operation of law. The suit has become statute barred thereby robbing the trial Court of its competence to entertain the suit." OLATUNBOSUN SUNDAY TUNDE v. AJEWOLE MICROFINANCE BANK(2019) LPELR-47939(CA)Per TALBA, J.C.A. (P. 21, Paras. B-E)
FACTS:
HELD:
"Parties are ad idem that the nature of the present action being recovery of debt is contractual. They are also agreed that by virtue of Section 18 of the Limitation Law of Oyo State, such action cannot be brought after the expiration of five years from the date the cause of action accrued. It is trite that time begins to run for the purposes of a Statute of Limitation from the date on which the cause of action arose. It is also the law that a Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an action that is statute barred by a Limitation Law.
HELD:
"It was also submitted that the present action is statute-barred. Faced with the facts of this case as presented supra, can statute of limitation apply where the person to be affected has been fraudulently denied the opportunity to react simultaneously? It will be most unconscionable to allow the provisions of statute of limitation to apply in a situation such as this where the 1st plaintiff - the allottee, was fraudulently denied the service of notice of revocation and more importantly where his application for building approval was never attended to. It is those who denied him all these, that now want to reap the fruit of their fraudulent misdeeds. Whatever pact that might be between the 1st and 2nd defendants and the non - existent 3rd defendant is loaded with malicious intent and no court will even uphold any pact made from malicious intent.Any wrongful act tending to the damage of another must not receive support in the seat of justice." THE ADMINISTRTORS/EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF GEN. SANI ABACHA (DECEASED) V. SAMUEL DAVID EKE-SPIFF & ORS.(2009) LPELR-3152(SC)Per ADEREMI, J.S.C. (Pp. 43-44, paras. F-C)
FACTS
HELD:
"It is now trite that time ceases to run for the purpose of limitation enactment during the pendency of an action, so held the Supreme Court in the fairly recent case of Sifax (Nig.) Ltd. v. Migfo (Nig.) Ltd. (2018) 9 NWLR (pt.1623) 138." NEWGATE MICROFINANCE BANK NIGERIA LIMITED & ORS v. KEYSTONE BANK LIMITED(2019) LPELR-47581(CA) Per IKYEGH, J.C.A. (P. 7, Paras. B-C)
FACTS:
HELD:
"It is a principle of law, that where a statute dictates a period of time for the institution of an action, the action shall not be commenced outside the time dictated by the statute. Where any action is brought outside the time prescribed by the statute such suit is said to be statute-barred. SOSAN V. ADEMUYIWA (1986) 3 NWLR (PT. 27) 241; ODUBEKO V. FOWLER (1993) 7 NWLR (PT. 308) 637; NIGERIAN PORTS AUTHORITY PLC. V. LOTUS PLASTICS LIMITED & ANOR. (2005) 19 NWLR (PT. 959) 158; NATIONAL REVENUE MOBILIZATION ALLOCATION & FISCAL COMMISSION & ORS.V. AJIBOLA JOHNSON & ORS (2019) 2 NWLR (PT. 1656) 247." FATI KAKENNA ALKALI MONGUNO v. ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS & ORS(2019) LPELR-47740(CA)Per ONYEMENAM, J.C.A. (Pp. 17-18, Paras. E-B)
FACTS:
"The law is that period of Limitation is determined by looking at the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim alleging the wrong which gave the Plaintiff a cause of action and comparing that date with the date on which the Writ of Summons was filed. Where a Defendant to an action contends that the action instituted by the Claimant is caught by a Limitation Law, what he is saying is that the Limitation Law has taken away the Claimants right of action leaving him with an empty cause of action which the Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce. See MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR EKITI STATE & 2 ORS VS. ALADEYELU & ORS. (2007) 4 -5 SC 201 AT 232; EGBE VS. ADEFARASIN (1987) 1 NWLR (PT. 47) 1 and IBRAHIM VS. JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION (1998) 14 NWLR (PT. 584) 1." MARANATHA CONSULTANTS LIMITED & ANOR v. MRS. JOY YETUNDE DIRISU(2019) LPELR-47745(CA) Per OJO, J.C.A. (Pp. 34-35, Paras. E-C)
FACTS:
"It is however trite that where the issue of limitation is raised in defence of an action, it is only proper that the issue should be addressed first as it makes no sense to decide the merit of a matter that is statute-barred. In the event of a successful plea of limitation law against a plaintiffs right of action, the action becomes extinguished and unmaintainable at law.