WD
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/22/2024
BETWEEN
Mrs. Adijat Bolanle Esanju Claimant
AND
1. Oyo State Universal Basic Education Board
2. Attorney General of Oyo State Defendants
REPRESENTATION
Joseph Adeoye for the Claimant
Abiodun Aikomo, Hon. A.G & Comm. for
Justice, Oyo State
with Mrs. G.O. Sanni, Deputy Director, A.O.
Zubair-Sanni SSC
and K.B. Ayangbade SSC, Min of Justice,
Ibadan for the Defendants
JUDGMENT
1. Introduction
& Claims
1. The Claimant/Respondent, Mrs. Adijat
Bolanle Esanju approached this Court via her General Form of Complaint, Statement of Facts, Witness deposition and
other originating processes on 21/3/2024 and sought the following reliefs
against the Defendants –
1. A Declaration that the query which
emanated from the office of the 1st Defendant was not precise and to
the point as to whom the Claimant illegally promoted, it was equally not clear
as to whom the Claimant issued fake promotion letter to, or those whose salary
the Claimant overloaded and the 24 hours given to the Claimant was not a
reasonable time within 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.
2. An Order setting aside the query of the 1st
Defendant dated 15th July 2017 for not complying with Section 030307
and Section 030303 of the Oyo State of Nigeria Public Service Rules Volume 1 of
2013.
3. A Declaration that the Defendants’ action
in summarily dismissing the Claimant via a letter dated 24th August
2017 with reference number SUBEB/G1680/259 was wrongful, provocative,
null and void.
4. A Declaration that the purported criminal
allegation of illegal promotion of teachers and overloading of teachers’ salary
leveled 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.
5. A Declaration quashing the reports of the
Panel of Enquiry on Alleged Financial Malpractices at Universal Basic Education
Board indicting the Claimant.
6. A restorative Order reinstating the
Claimant as a bona fide employee of the Defendants.
7. An Order directing the Defendants to pay
the Claimant all her salaries, emoluments, allowances and all other perquisites
of office due to the Claimant or would have been due to the Claimant since the
issuance of the said letter ref: SUBEB/G1680/259.
8. An Order directing that all outstanding
salaries and benefits of the Claimant be paid without further delay.
9. An Order directing the Defendants to
refrain from taking any action capable of undermining the reinstatement of the
Claimant back into the service of the Defendants with the appropriate rank.
10. An Order for the payment of general damages
in the sum of =N=5,000,000.00 to the Claimant.
2. The
Defendants filed a memorandum of appearance to this suit and by their further
amended statement of defence filed on 13/6/2025 along with requisite
frontloaded processes denied liability to the suit.
2. Case of the Claimant
3. Claimant
opened her case on 8/7/2025 and testified in chief as CW1, adopted her
witness depositions of 21/3/2024 & 24/2/2025 and tendered 15 documents as
exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. AB1 to
Exh. AB16. While being cross examined, CW1 testified that that she
worked with Oyo SUBEB; that he was unlawfully dismissed in 2017; that he filed
this suit in 2024 and that the 2 cases he referred to were filed in 2017.
3. Case of the Defendants
4. Although
the Defendants filed a joint statement of defence, learned Counsel to the
Defendants elected to not call evidence in defense of the suit.
4. Final Written Addresses
5. A
16-page final written address dated 17/7/2025 was filed on behalf of the
Claimant on 28/7/2025. In it learned Counsel Joseph Adeoye set down these
issues for determination –
1. Whether the Defendant having not pleaded
the Statute of Limitation and Public Officers Protection Law can
take benefit of the two laws.
2. Whether the Claimant’s case does not fall
within the exceptions to the Statute of Limitation and Public Officers
Protection Law.
3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the
reliefs sought by virtue of the evidence adduced before this Honourable Court.
6. Learned
Counsel argued the 3 issues together and submitted that it is now settled that
statutes of limitation apply to contracts with some exceptions citing Okoronkwo
v. INEC (2025)8 NWLR (Pt. 1991) 131; that before a Defendant can rely on
limitation statute, it must be pleaded in his statement of defence otherwise
the statute will not apply citing Akingbola v. Intercontinental Bank Plc
(2025)5 NWLR (Pt. 1984) 343; that after the matter was adjourned for trial,
the Defendants have amended their statement of defence and yet did not plead
the statute of limitations and that failure to so plead the statute of
limitations by the Defendants being a procedural law which can be waived citing
Araka v. Ejeagwu (2000)15 NWLR (Pt. 692) 684, amounts to a waiver of
citing Tonimas (Nig.) Ltd v. Chigbu (2001)15 NWLR (Pt. 736) 259. Counsel
thus urged the Court to hold that the Defendants have waived their right to
statute of limitations.
7. Learned
Counsel submitted further that assuming but without conceding that the
Defendants pleaded the statute of limitation, there are exceptions to the
application of limitation statute one being where the Claimant alleges that the
Defendant acted in bad faith or ultra vires and where there has been a
continuance of damage citing Okoronkwo v. INEC (2025)8 NWLR (Pt. 1991) 131
& Alhaji A.R. Sule v. Mr. J. Orisajimi (2019)10 NWLR (Pt. 1681) 513 &
Abdulrahman v. NNPC (2021)12 NWLR (Pt. 1791) 405. Counsel submitted that
with respect to continuance of damage that the Claimant pleaded in paragraph 24
of the statement of facts and paragraph 24 of her witness deposition that
although she was dismissed in 2017 she appeared before different Panels of the
Defendants till the year 2023 on the same issue and that when the Panels were
not bringing out desired results she filed this suit in 2024; that the
Defendants did not cross examine the
Claimant on these facts and must be taken as admitted citing Okoro v. State
(2012)4 NWLR (Pt. 1290) 351 at 373 and that public officers
protection law would also not avail a public officer where a Claimant is denied
fair hearing citing Muhammed v. ABU, Zaria (2014)7 NWLR (Pt. 1407) 500 at
537 – 538. Learned Counsel submitted that the damage to the Claimant is a
continuance one; that the Claimant was denied fair hearing in the events
leading to her dismissal and hence the plea of limitation law does not avail
the Defendants. Learned Counsel thus appealed to the Court to discountenance
the defence of limitation law by the Defendants and grant all the reliefs sought
by the Claimant.
8. The
final written address of the Defendants was filed on 7/8/2025. Two issues were
set down on behalf of the Defendants for the just determination of this case.
They are-
1.
Whether
this Honourable Court possesses the jurisdiction to entertain this suit, having
been commenced outside the statutory limitation period.
2.
Whether
the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendants was wrongful and
in breach of the applicable terms and conditions of service.
9. Arguing
issue 1, learned Attorney General submitted that the right of a Claimant to
initiate an action can only be entertained by the Court where such action is
brought within the period prescribed by Law to commence same; that a litigant
will lose his right to judicial intervention where a suit is brought outside
the period prescribed for such a suit under the relevant limitation law citing Turaki
v. Major Oil (Nig.) Ltd (2024)6 NWLR (Pt. 1933) 75. Counsel submitted that
the cause of action of the Claimant arose on 24/8/2017 when he was dismissed by
the Defendants; that Claimant had 5 years within which to bring this action
citing Section 18, Limitation Law of Oyo State, 2000 and that Claimant
filed this suit on 10/12/2017 which is well outside the period allowed by the
statute. Learned Counsel submitted that on the authorities of Michael
Idachaba & Ors v. University of Agriculture, Makurdi & Ors (Pt. 1787)
209 & Anolam v. FUTO (2025)5 NWLR (Pt. 1984) 673. Counsel urged the
Court to resolve this issue in favor of the Defendants and decline jurisdiction
in this case.
10. On
issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that while Claimant was in the employment of
the Defendants he was subject to the laws and regulations of Oyo State and can
be investigated for any allegations relating to his conduct or the performance
of his duties by the Oyo State Government citing Buhari v. INEC & Ors
(2008)12 SCM (Pt. 12)237; that Claimant was found wanting in the
performance of his duties and a Panel of Enquiry was set up in 2017 to
investigate the misconduct noticed; that Claimant was afforded opportunity to
defend the misconduct alleged against him and was subsequently dismissed from
the service of the State citing Ovunwo v. Woko (2011)All FWLR (Pt. 587) 596
and tha Defendants complied with the Oyo State Public Service Rules as
the Claimant was invited to and appeared before the Panel of Enquiry before
dismissing the Claimant citing Obaje v. N.A.M.A (2013)11 NWLR (Pt. 1366)527.
The learned Attorney General & Commissioner for Justice prayed the
Court to resolve this issue in favor of the Defendants and hold that the
dismissal of the Claimant was not wrongful.
11. Finally,
learned Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant in its
entirety.
6. Decision
12. The case of the Claimant/Respondent is that
she was dismissed from her employment with the 3rd Defendant by a
letter dated 24/8/2017. She approached this Court on 31/1/2025. Aside from many
declaratory reliefs sought, Claimant also prayed to the Court to set aside her
purported summary dismissal, order payment of her arrears of salaries and her
reinstatement into the service of the 3rd Defendant. The Defendants
argued mainly that the case of the Claimant is caught by the Limitation Law,
Laws of Oyo State having not brought within the 5-year period allowed by
the statute. It was further submitted on behalf of the Claimant the Defendants having
not pleaded the statute of limitation could not take advantage of same and that
in any event the case of the Claimant is one of continuance of damage which is
an exception to the application of the statute of limitation.
13. I read and understood all the processes
filed by the parties on either side. I heard the testimony of the Claimant at
trial, watched her demeanor and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered
and admitted at trial. I also heard the submissions of the learned Counsel at
the stage of adopting their final written addresses. Having done all this, I
set down these 2 issues for the just determination of this case –
1. Whether
the jurisdiction of this Court has been properly activated to warrant its positive
intervention.
2. Whether
the Claimant has led sufficiently cogent and credible evidence in support of
his case to support a grant of all or some of the reliefs sought.
14. 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.
15. Joseph Adeoye of Counsel to the Claimant
had submitted that the cause of action of the Claimant is continuous as the
Claimant kept appearing before different Panels set up by the Defendants till
2023 and that the Defendants having not pleaded the statute of limitation
cannot take advantage of same. 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. I should reiterate the fact that this case was adjourned
for adoption of final written addresses on 8/7/2025. I should also make the
point that on that day and the record of Court shows it that the Court directed
learned Counsel for the parties to also address it on its jurisdiction in this
matter. In other words, this Court specifically ordered the parties to address
it on its jurisdiction. The need for this explanation is to clear the air on
the submission of the learned Counsel to the Claimant that the Defendants did
not plead the statute of limitation and must be deemed to have waived their
right to same. Jurisdiction is a matter of law. The Court is deemed to be the
repository of the law and procedure. It is open to a Court to raise the issue
of jurisdiction suo motu and call on the parties to address it on same
as done in the instant case. It is also open to a Court to determine issue of
jurisdiction, being an issue of law, suo motu without necessarily inviting
parties to proffer address on same. This is trite in situations where the
originating process is incompetent. The Supreme Court per M.D Muhammad, JSC
reiterated the position in the case of NNPC v. Roven Shipping Ltd. 2019) 2
SC (Pt. 1) 60 at 98 - 99, citing Effiom v. C.R.S.l.E.C. (2010) 4 - 7 SC
(Pt. I) 32; Tukur v. Govt, of Gongola State (1989) 9 SC, 1 and Eola Onioniyi v.
Jacob Adeghoyega Alabi (2015) 2 SC (Pt. Il) 92 in the following words-
“… the principle that whenever a Court raises an issue not within the
contemplation of the parties and suo motu, parties should be given a hearing
before a decision on the issue so raised, applied mainly to issues of fact and
that, in special circumstances, an issue of law or jurisdiction may be raised
suo motu without hearing the parties, decision upon the issue so raised."
16. The reason for this position of the law as again
the apex Court pointed out per Garba, J.S.C in FRN v. Orubebe (2024)
LPELR-62010(SC) is “… that once a Court of the law lacks the statutory
jurisdiction over a matter or appeal, as the case may be, no amount or quality
of address or arguments from the parties can change the position to vest or
confer jurisdiction, on the Court since the law remains that the parties,
cannot, either by arguments, consent, agreement or condonation vest or confer
jurisdiction on a Court where it does not exist or is absent”.
17. 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 she 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 her action against the Defendants had arisen.
It means also that the period began to count from that date within which she
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”.
18. 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 position of the prevailing leading
appellate decisions is that the statute of limitation applies to a case of this
nature. 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.
19. 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."
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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."
23. 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”.
24. The cause of action of the Claimant arose
in 2017. She had 5 years within which to seek judicial intervention. For
reasons best known to her or her Counsel or both, she waited for about 7 years
before approaching this Court for intervention. 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.
25. Accordingly, I resolve issue 1 against the
Claimant and in favor of the Defendants. I hold that the case of the Claimant
is caught by the statute of limitation. 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.
26. The second issue for determination is
whether the Claimant has led sufficiently cogent and credible evidence in
support of her case to support a grant of all or some of the sought reliefs.
The resolution of issue 1 is to the effect that this Court lacks jurisdiction
to hear and determine same. In a challenge to the jurisdiction of a Court, the
only jurisdiction inherent in that Court is to pronounce whether it has
jurisdiction. Once a Court rules as in the instant case that it has no
jurisdiction the need to pronounce on the merit of the case becomes otiose. I
according elect to not pronounce on this issue having decline jurisdiction on
the case.
5. Conclusion
27. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for
all the reasons as contained in this Ruling, the case of the Claimant is struck
out.
28. I make no order as to cost.
29. Judgment
is entered accordingly.
__________________
Hon. Justice J. D. Peters
Presiding