Color

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT IBADAN

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J.D. PETERS

 

DATE: 2ND DECEMBER 2025                           SUITNO: NICN/IB/04/2025

BETWEEN

Mr. Olatunbosun Sunday Dele                                                          Claimant

 

AND

1.       Oyo State Universal Basic Education Board

2.       Attorney General of Oyo State

3.       Chairman, Oyo State Universal Basic

Education Board, (OYO SUBEB)                                          Defendants

REPRESENTATION

Chief P. O. Alamu for the Claimant

Abiodun Aikomo, Hon. A.G & Comm. for Justice, Oyo State

with A.O. Zubair-Sanni SSC & A.T. Alabi for the Defendants

 

JUDGMENT

1.       Introduction & Claims

1.       The Claimant/Respondent, Mr. Olatunbosun Sunday     Dele approached this Court via her General Form of Complaint, Statement of Facts, Witness deposition and other originating processes on 31/1/2025 and sought the following reliefs against the Defendants –

1.       Declaration that the purported dismissal of the Claimant from duty of the Claimant with Oyo State Government contained in a letter with Reference No: SUBEB/G16880/210 and dated 24th August, 2017 addressed to the Claimant by one B. T. Ogunjimi for Executive Chairman, the 3rd Defendant is null and void, ineffectual and unlawful by reason of the effusion of time, gross irregularity, lack of reasonable cause, denial of natural justice and non-compliance with the Oyo State Civil Service Commission Regulation Part 6, Sections 36, 39, 41, 42, 44, 48, 49 and 56 Laws of Oyo State, 2000.

2.       An Order of this Honourable Court setting aside the said letter with Reference No: SUBEB/G1680/210 and dated 24th August 2017 by which the Defendants purportedly dismissed the Claimant

3.       A Declaration that it is only the office of the Head of Service that can exercise disciplinary and dismissal power on the Claimant being a level 10 officer as at the time of his unlawful dismissal, and not the office of the 3rd Defendant, thereby rendering the query issued by the 3rd Defendant on the Claimant null, void, illegal, ultra vires, unlawful and does not have basis for being issued contrary to section 0300103 of the Oyo State of Nigeria Public Service Rules Volume 1 of 2013.

4.       A Declaration that the Query which emanated from the office of the 3rd Defendant was not precise and to the point, and the length of time given to the Claimant was not reasonable time within which to respond to the query. Thereby not complying with Section 030307 and Section 030303 of the Oyo State of Nigeria Public Service Rules Volume 1 of 2013.

5.       A Declaration that the purported criminal allegation of illegal promotion of teachers, issuance of fake/forged letters of promotion and overloading of salaries levied against the Claimant cannot be deliberated upon by the Panel of Enquiry on Alleged Financial Malpractices at Universal Basic Education Board such that there exists a real likelihood of bias, and the Claimant will not get fair hearing.

6.       A Declaration that the Claimant is not saddled with the responsibility of promotion of teachers and therefore cannot be alleged and or dismissed for an offence which he cannot commit.

7.       A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to remain and continue in employment of the Oyo State Universal Basic Education Board, (OYO SUBEB).

8.       An Order of this Honourable Court setting aside the purported summary dismissal of the Claimant and restoring all his rights and benefits; including the right to collect all his outstanding salaries and his right to continue in the employment of Oyo State Universal Basic Education Board, (OYO-SUBEB) until he attains the age of retirement as prescribed by the law or until he is otherwise earlier retired on ground of ill-health of other lawful cause.

9.       An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendants to reinstate the Claimant to his rightful post and pay all his outstanding salary arrears and allowances from 24th August, 2017 when he was summarily dismissed.

10.     An Order for the payment of General Damages to the Claimant by the Defendants.

 

2.       Court’s Direction

2.       On 22/7/2025, the Court suo motu directed that parties to address it on whether it has jurisdiction to hear and determine this case. Pursuant to this direction learned Counsel on either side filed their addresses.

 

3.       Written Addresses

3.       Learned Counsel to the Claimant filed a 5-page address on 30/7/2025 in which Counsel set down 2 main issues for determination as follows –

 

1.                 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain this matter.

2.                 Whether this matter has been caught by Limitation Act.

 

4.       On the first issue, learned Counsel submitted that there is a cause of action in this matter which is the termination of the employment of the Claimant; that the cause of action is triable and that this Court has jurisdiction to try same.

 

5.       With respect to the second issue, learned Counsel submitted that this suit is not caught by the Limitation Act; that the transaction between the parties is a continuous one where there has been continuous negotiation, appeal letters and political maneuverings between the parties and that act of continuous negotiation has not created room for Limitation Act to work and that by NRAMFAC v. Ajibola Johnson (2019) NWLR (Pt. 1656) limitation laws do not apply to contract of employment. Counsel therefore urged the Court to assume and exercise its jurisdiction in this matter.

 

6.       On 31/7/2025, the learned Attorney General & Commissioner for Justice representing the Defendants filed a 7-page address on issue of jurisdiction and set down a lone issue for determination as follows –

 

Whether in the circumstances of this Suit, this Honourable Court has the jurisdiction to hear and determine the same.

 

7.       Counsel submitted that jurisdiction is the legal capacity of a Court to hear and determine a matter citing Nsirim v. Amadi (2016)5 NWLR (Pt. 1504) 42; that in a challenge to jurisdiction of a Court the only jurisdiction the Court has is to determine whether it has jurisdiction in the matter citing Britannia U (Nig.) Ltd v. Seplat Petroleum Development Co. Ltd (2016)All FWLR (Pt. 1503) 541; that this suit as constituted is statute- barred by the express provision of Section18, Limitation Law, Cap. 76, Vol. III, Laws of Oyo State, 2000; that the cause of action in this suit accrued on 24/8/2017 when the employment of the Claimant was terminated by dismissal and that while the Claimant has within 5 years within which to file an action he approached the Court for redress 8 years after the cause of action arose. Learned Counsel in urging the Court to decline jurisdiction submitting that the case is statute-barred cited Michael Idachaba & Ors v. University of Agriculture, Markudi & 4  Others (2021)11 NWLR (Pt. 1787) 209, Anolam v. FUTO (2025)5 NWLR (Pt. 1984) 673 & Okoronkwo v. INEC (2025)8 NWLR (Pt. 1991) 131. Learned Counsel urged the Court to decline jurisdiction and dismiss this case.

4.       Decision

8.       The case of the Claimant/Respondent is that he was dismissed from his employment with the 1st Defendant by a letter dated 24/8/2017. He approached this Court on 31/1/2025. Aside from many declaratory reliefs sought, Claimant also prayed to the Court to set aside his purported summary dismissal, order payment of his arrears of salaries and his reinstatement into the service of the 3rd Defendant.

 

9.       Jurisdiction is an essential component for the Court to exercise its adjudicatory powers over a cause or matter. By jurisdiction it means the legal capacity to activate the adjudicatory power of a Cout to make intervention in a cause or matter. It is either a Court has jurisdiction to act as such or it does not have it. Jurisdiction is conferred usually by a statute. Parties cannot confer power on a Court to hear their matter if that Court is not conferred with the power to act as such. Thus, it is imperative for a Court to be sure it has power to preside over the parties as well as their dispute before doing so. If a Court does not have jurisdiction whatever efforts dissipated by the Judex becomes efforts in futility irrespective of the erudition and the genuine desire of the presiding Judicial Officer to dispense justice between the parties. Where therefore a Court is apprehensive as to whether it has jurisdiction over a cause or matter or parties, the most appropriate step to take is to direct the parties to address the Court accordingly.

 

10.     Chief P. O. Alamu of Counsel to the Claimant had submitted that the cause of action of the Claimant is a continuous one since parties were exploring possibilities of amicable resolution of the impasse. On the other hand the learned Counsel to the Defendants, Abiodun Aikomo, the Hon Attorney General & Commissioner for Justice submitted that the case of the Claimant is statute-barred citing the Limitation Law of Oyo State.

 

11.     When a litigant contends that the suit against him is barred by the statute, it raises question as to the competency of the suit before the Court. It is also a challenge to the Court before which the suit is filed to exercise its judicial power over the parties and the suit. The point was made earlier on and I repeat same that once a Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine a cause or matter, it is immaterial the erudition and the genuine intention of the Judex, any effort dissipated in resolving same is an effort in futility. Now in a matter of this nature, it is imperative for the Court to first find out when the cause of action arose. This is determined by looking at the statement of facts filed; find out the date the cause of action arose; compare same with the date when the Claimant filed his suit and the period allowed by the statute. By paragraph 12 of the statement of facts dated 28/1/2025 and filed on 31/1/2025, Claimant attested to the fact that he was dismissed from service by the 1st Defendant by a letter dated 24/8/17. This fact is also reflected in the reliefs sought against the Defendants. It portends therefore that from the date Claimant was served the letter of dismissal, the cause of his action against the Defendants had arisen. It means also that the period began to count from that date within which he was to approach the Court for redress. Now, how long did the Claimant have within which to file his action within the confines of the statute? Learned Counsel to the Defendants cited section 18, Limitation Law of Oyo State, 2000. The legislation provides that –

 

“No action founded on contract, tort or any other action not specifically provided for in Parts 2 and 3 of this Law shall be brought after the expiration of five years from the date on which the cause of action accrued”.

 

12.     I have read all the submissions of both learned Counsel especially on the prevailing state of the law on the application of the statute of limitation to employment matters.  The Supreme Court so held in Micheal Idachaba & Ors v University of Agriculture, Makurdi & 4 Ors (2021) LPELR- 53081 (SC). Again, the apex Court maintained and reaffirmed the same position in Dr. Moses U. Anolam v. The Federal University of Technology Owerri (FUTO) & Ors (2025) LPELR-80027(SC) delivered on 17/1/25. The facts which were not contested were that in 1989, the Appellant became a Lecturer in the 1st Respondent's institution established by the Federal University of Technology Act. In the course of his employment, the Appellant was alleged to have without authorization levied a fee of =N=500 (Five Hundred Naira) on all the students of his Department. The 1st Respondent discovered same and queried the Appellant and was subsequently asked to appear before two administrative Panels set up by the 1st Respondent. The Appellant was indicted for gross misconduct hence his employment was terminated on the 21st day of February 2003.

 

13.     Dissatisfied with the termination of his employment by the 1st Respondent, the Appellant having lost in the 2 Courts below appealed to the Supreme Court. One of the issues the Court had to consider was whether the Statute of Limitation, such as the Public Officers Protection Act, is applicable to contract of employment with statutory flavor. The Court per Stephen Jonah Adah JSC considered the provisions of the relevant legislation and held quoting Aba Aji JSC in Mr. Michael Idachaba & Ors. v. The University of Agriculture, Makurdi (2021) LPELR-53081 (SC) inter alia -

 

“By the above provision, they appellants were by law supposed to institute their grievances, if any, within 3 months of the purported termination of their employment. It is noted that the cause of action arose supposedly on 30/4/1999. Thus, the appellants' action was maintained only within 3 months after the cause of action arose. In all actions, suits and other proceedings at law and 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 he has waived or abandoned his right. See Per GALADIMA, JSC, in INEC v. Ogbadibo Local Govt. & Ors. (2015) LPELR - 24839 (SC) (PP. 30 -31, Para. D). It is therefore trite that where the law prescribes a period for instituting an action, proceedings cannot be instituted after the prescribed period." This decision makes it settled that the Public Officers' Protection Act is applicable to issues of employment with statutory flavour such as the employment of the appellant in the instant case."

 

14.     Again, in Chukwuka Okoronkwo v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2025) LPELR-80425(SC) delivered on 7/2/25 the Appellant was employed by the Respondent in 1989 as an Administrative Officer. In January 1997, he was appointed an Electoral Officer by the Respondent and posted to Anambra State. On September 13, 1997, he was suspended from work by the Respondent. In an action commenced at the Federal High Court in April 2000 challenging his suspension, the Claimant had sought inter alia (i). Declaration that the purported suspension of the plaintiff and confirmed in Defendant's correspondence Ref NECON/AN/P.59/90 of 13th September 1997 from the service of the Defendant is wrongful, ultra vires, null and void and of no effect whatsoever, (ii). Declaration that Plaintiff is entitled to be continued in his employment in the service of the Defendant uninhibited by the letter of suspension and (iii). Declaration that Plaintiff is entitled to his salary, promotion and other emoluments and benefits from 13th September 1997. By an Amended Statement of Defence thereof, the Respondent denied the claim and equally raised a preliminary objection, thereby challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit.

 

15.     The trial Federal High Court entered Judgment in favour of the Appellant, thereby granting all the reliefs sought. On an appeal the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. In a further appeal to the Supreme Court, the apex Court was to determine among others (i). Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in law to have discountenanced the fact that in the circumstances, the Appellant's suspension was a continuing injury or damage as stipulated under Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act Cap 379 Laws of Federation of Nigeria 1990 and not limited to the date of the letter of suspension - 13th day of September, 1997 only, and in so doing held that the Appellant's cause of action is statute barred & (ii). Whether the Public Officers Protection Act Cap 379 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 applies to a cause of action founded on breach of contract of service/employment and as a corollary, whether the failure/omission of the Court of Appeal to determine the application or otherwise of the said limitation law did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.

 

16.     The Supreme Court per Jummai Hannatu Sankey, JSC held emphatically that by the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, 1990 (which has replica provisions as Section 18, Limitation Law of Oyo State under consideration). His lordship held that -

“…it is mandatory for any action commenced against any public act by a public officer to be so commenced within three months from the date of which the cause of action arose. In juxtaposition to the instant case, the Appellant commenced this action at the trial Court in April of the year 2000, essentially challenging his suspension by the Respondent. The said suspension occurred on 13-09-1997. Contrary to the argument of the Appellant that the cause of action is one that is continuing in nature, the cause of action apparently arose on the 13-09-1997. Thus, the Appellant's suit ought to have been commenced three months from that date and not beyond. In other words, the action is statute barred."

 

17.     The Claimant chose to file this action outside the five-year period of accrual of cause of action. The position of the law is that where a Claimant who might have had a legitimate cause of action brings such an action outside a limitation period created by statute, the action is statute barred and he loses his right to enforce the cause of action by Judicial process because the period of time laid down by the limitation law for instituting such action has lapsed. It is worthy of note, as the Court of Appeal pointed out in Bernard Nwobele & Ors v. Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (2023) LPELR-60151(CA) that the importance of statute of limitation which is founded on the principles of equity and fairness is to prevent a sleeping or an indolent Plaintiff to wake up at his own peril to commence a suit or action against a Defendant. In the case of Abdulrahman v. NNPC (2020) LPELR-55519 (SC) where the apex Court of the land had to consider Section 12 (1) of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Act, the Court had espoused that -

 

“Statute of limitation is a law that bars claim after a specified period. It is a statute which establishes a time limit for swing in civil cases based on the date the claim accrued. The purpose of such a statute is to require diligent prosecution of known claims thereby providing finality and predictability in legal affairs. The purpose of limitations, like equitable doctrine of lashes, in their conclusive effects are designed to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber”.

 

18.     The cause of action of the Claimant arose in 2017. He had 5 years within which to seek judicial intervention. For reasons best known to him or his Counsel or both of them, he waited for about 8 years before approaching this Court. This action is barred by the statute and unfortunately this Court cannot help the Claimant. The effect of an action that is statute barred is that it renders the action barren, sterile, incompetent and the Court is robbed of the exercise of its judicial powers.

 

19.     Accordingly, I hold that this application succeeds. Having been filed outside the period allowed by the statute this action becomes incompetent, barred by the statute and the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain same. In Bernard Nwobele & Ors v. Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (2023) LPELR-60151(CA) the Court of Appeal citing BUA Ent. Ltd v. Obong, (2016) LPELR-42051 (CA) and Sanda v. MRS Oil (Nig.) Plc and Anor (2020) LPELR-51401 directed that where an action is statute barred, it is incompetent and the proper order to make is to strike the case out. Accordingly, having found this case to be barred by the statute of limitation I strike same out.

 

5.       Conclusion

20.     Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Ruling, the case of the Claimant is struck out.

 

21.     I make no order as to cost.

 

22.     Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

__________________

Hon. Justice J. D. Peters

Presiding