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/76/2024

BETWEEN

Mr. Lasisi Nureni Kolawole                                                            Claimant

 

AND

1.       The Executive Governor of Oyo State

2.       Head of Service, Oyo State Government

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 for the Defendants

 

JUDGMENT

1.       Introduction & Claims

1.       The Claimant/Respondent, Mr. Lasisi Nureni Kolawole approached this Court via his General Form of Complaint, Statement of Facts, Witness deposition and other originating processes on 10/12/2024 and sought the following reliefs against the Defendants –

1.       A Declaration by this Honourable Court that the purported dismissal of the Claimant from duty of the Claimant with Oyo State Government contained in a letter with Reference No: SUBEB/G16880/211 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(sic) 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 or 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.

11.     An Order for the payment of the cost of this action.

 

2.       On 18/6/2025, the Defendants entered an appearance to this suit and filed a joint statement of defence along with witness statement on oath, list and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial.

 

2.       Case of the Claimant

3.       Trial commenced in this suit on 22/7/2025 when Claimant opened his case. Claimant testified in person as CW1, adopted his witness deposition of 10/2/2024 as his evidence in chief and tendered 13 documents as exhibits. The documents were so admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. NK1 – Exh. NK13.

 

4.       While under cross examination, CW1 testified that he was the Finance Officer of the Defendants; that he stopped being an officer of the Oyo State Government on 24/8/2017; that since 24/8/2017 he had not done any work for Oyo State Government or collected salaries from the Defendants; that his case was filed on 10/12/2024; that he was issued a query dated 13/7/2017, replied same on 17/7/2024; that he appeared before a Panel set up by the Defendants and was dismissed on 24/8/2017.

 

3.       Case of the Defendants

5.       At the close of the case by the Claimant, learned Counsel to the Defendants informed the Court that the Defendants would not call any evidence and would rather rest on the case as presented by the Claimant. Case was thus adjourned for adoption of final written addresses.

 

4.       Final Written Addresses

6.       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.

 

7.       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.

 

8.       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.

 

9.       Finally, learned Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant in its entirety.

 

5.       Final Written Addresses

10.     The final written address of the Claimant dated 24/9/25 was filed on 29/9/2025. In it learned Counsel Chief P. O. Alamu set down these 2 issues for determination –

 

1.                 Whether the Honourable Court possesses the jurisdiction to entertain this suit having 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.

 

11.     On issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that a Court is clothed with jurisdiction in a matter where there is a cause of action, where the Court is competent and where the case has been commenced with due compliance with process and procedure citing Madukolu v. Nkedilim (1962)2 SCNLR 341; that Claimant complied with due process in filing this case and that the case is not caught by the Limitation Act citing NRAMFAC v. Ajibola Johnson (2019) NWLR (Pt. 1656). Counsel submitted further that the parties have been engaged in negotiation and political maneuverings which make the cause of action of the Claimant a continuous injury. Counsel therefore urged the Court to assume jurisdiction in this case.

 

12.     On the second issue, learned Counsel submitted that the termination of the employment of the Claimant by the Defendants was wrongful and in breach of the applicable terms and conditions of service; that Claimant was not found wanting of the offences of illegal promotion of teachers, issuance of fake/forged letters of promotion and overloading of salaries and prayed the Court to resolve this issue in favor of the Claimant.

 

13.     Finally, learned Counsel submitted that the totality of the evidence before the Court and the weight of evidence tilts towards the Claimant. Counsel thus urged the Court to grant all the reliefs sought by the Claimant.

 

6.       Decision

8.       The case of the Claimant/Respondent is that he was dismissed from his employment with the 3rd Defendant by a letter dated 24/8/2017. He approached this Court on10/12/2024. 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. I read and understood all the processes filed by the parties on either side. I heard the testimony of the Claimant at trial, watched his 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 positive intervention by the Court.

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. 

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 to act a Court 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 10/12/2024, 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 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.

 

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.

 

20.     The second issue for determination is 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 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

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

 

22.     I make no order as to cost.

 

23.     Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

__________________

Hon. Justice J. D. Peters

Presiding