CORAM

---

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

ALHAJI (DR) ADO IBRAHIM  APPELLANTS

---

LAWAL

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The stool of the paramount ruler of Ebira-land in Kogi State became vacant on the 10th of July, 1996 following the death of Ohinoyi Muhammed Sani Omolori. The parties in this action as sons of Ebira-land along with others submitted their applications to contest the vacant stool to the Ebira Area Traditional Council which was the body of Kingmakers. The Ebira Area Traditional Council after due deliberation short-listed three names including that of the Defendant/Appellant to the Military Administrator for appointment to the vacant stool. On the 2/6/1997, the Defendant/Appellant was appointed as the Ohinoyi of Ebira-land. Aggrieved by the appointment of the Defendant/Appellant, the 1st – 4th Plaintiffs/Respondents along with two others who are now deceased instituted an action against the Defendant/Appellant and the 5th – 6th Respondent challenging the appointment of the Defendant/Appellant as the Ohinoyi of Ebira-land. After due consideration of the evidence, judgment was entered in favour of the Plaintiffs/Respondents by the trial court. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Defendant/Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed his appeal and allowed the Cross Appeal of the Plaintiffs/Respondents. Hence, the Defendant/Appellant made further appeal to the apex Court.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed.

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether or not the court below was right in affirming the decision of the trial court to enter judgment in favour of the 1st – 4th respondents when the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit having regard to the failure of the 1st-4th respondents to comply with the mandatory pre-condition laid down in Section 4(4) of the  KSCL 1992 (Ground ’14)Whether or not the court below ought to have affirmed the decision of the trial court entering judgment in favour of the 1st – 4th respondents when their suit was statute barred by virtue of the Public Officers protection Act. (Ground 15)

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

STATUTE OF LIMITATION – RATIONALE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF STATUTE OF LIMITATION

---

‘‘One may wonder why a person’s right of access to court should be extinguished by law. The rationale for the existence of statute of limitation is that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them and that a defendant may have lost the evidence to disprove a stale claim and that a person with a good cause of action should pursue it with reasonable diligence. See John Ekeogu V. Aliri (1990) l NWLR (pt.126) 345.” PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C

---

PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT – CONSEQUENCES OF THE PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT

---

“The effect of the Public Officers Protection Act like any other statutes of limitation is to deprive the court of jurisdiction to entertain an action filed outside the time limit prescribed in the statute”. PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C

---

PUBLIC OFFICER- THE MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR IS A PUBLIC OFFICER

---

‘‘The Military Administrator is a public Officer and he comes within the provisions of section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act.’’PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C

---

STATUTE OF LIMITATION – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE PROPERLY OR VALIDLY INSTITUTED AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD IN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION.

---

“More often than not, the laws of this country and elsewhere prescribe certain periods of limitation for instituting certain actions in court. The statutes that prescribe such periods and regulate the subsistence of causes of action are known as statutes of limitation. It follows that where a statute of limitation prescribes the period within which an action must be commenced, legal proceedings cannot be properly or validly instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period.” PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C

---

JURISDICTION OF COURTS –JURISDICTION IS STATUTORILY CONFERRED ON COURTS AND CANNOT BE IMPLIED OR CONFERRED BY AGREEMENT OF PARTIES.

---

“Courts are creatures of statutes predicated on the constitution with their jurisdiction clearly stated or prescribed therein. In view of this state of affairs, it is quite obvious that no court can assume jurisdiction except it is statutorily endowed as jurisdiction cannot be implied nor can it be conferred by agreement of parties. See Anyo V. Ogele (1968) 1 ALLNLR I, Osadebay V. Attorney-General, Bendel State (1991) 22 NCSS (pt. 1) 137 at160, (1991) 1 NWLR (pt. 169) 525 at 572, Gafar V. Governor of Kwara State (2007)4 NWLR (pt.1024) 375 at 463 paras G – H.” PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C

---

FRESH ISSUES ON APPEAL – IMPLICATION OF SEEKING LEAVE TO RAISE FRESH ISSUES ON APPEAL

---

“Where leave is sought and obtained to raise fresh issue on appeal, this cures the failure to have pleaded the issue at the trial court”. PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C

---

FRESH ISSUES ON APPEAL – FRESH ISSUES WOULD BE ALLOWED ON APPEAL ONLY UNDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

---

“The position of the law on raising of fresh issue on appeal is quite clear. It is that no substantial point of law which has not been taken in the court below will be allowed to be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court except under special circumstances. See Mekanjuola V. Balogun (1989) 3 NWLR (pt. 108) 192, Sapo V. Sunmonu (2010) 11NWLR (pt. 1205) 374.”PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C

---

STATUTE BARRED ACTIONS – A CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH IS STATUTE BARRED CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY WAY OF JUDICIAL PROCESS.

---

‘‘Where any action is statute barred, a plaintiff who might otherwise have had a cause of action loses the right to enforce it by judicial process because the period of time laid down by the limitation for instituting such an action has elapsed. See Egbe V. Adefarasin &Anor. (1987) 1 NWLR (pt. 47) 1 at 21; Oba J. A. Aremo II V. Adekanye & 2 Ors. (2004) 13 NWLR (pt. 891) 572, Egbaigbe V. NNPC (1994) 5 NWLR (pt.347) 649, Odubeko V. Fowler (1993) 7 NWLR (pt. 308) 637, Sanda V. Kukawa Local Government (1991)2 NWLR (pt. 174) 379.” PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C

---

APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 2(A) OF THE PUBLIC OFFICER PROTECTION ACT – FOR SECTION 2(A) OF THE PUBLIC OFFICER PROTECTION ACT TO AVAIL A PARTY, THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE ACTION IS COMMENCED MUST BE A PUBLIC OFFICER.

---

‘‘For Section 2(a) of the Protection Act to avail a party, it must be shown that the person against whom the action is commenced is a public officer and the act done by the person in respect of which the action was commenced must be an act done in pursuance or execution of any law or of any public duty or authority.’’PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C

---

LIMITATION LAW – RATIONALE OF LIMITATION LAW

---

‘‘Limitation Law sets out the time within which an action must be brought. It protects a defendant from the injustice of having to face a stale claim. Claims brought a long time after the events in question may be difficult or impossible to proceed with as witnesses may have died or evidence may no longer be available or the memories of witnesses available may have faded.’’PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C

---

STATUTE OF LIMITATION- STATUTE OF LIMITATION IS APPLICABLE TO CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS

---

“Finally, the learned counsel for the 1st – 4th respondents submitted that the statute of limitation does not apply to chieftaincy matters. This is not correct as there is no law which supports that position.”PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C

---

ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED BY ANY PARTY TO THE SUIT OR BY THE COURT SUO MOTU

---

‘‘Issue of jurisdiction is so fundamental that any party to a dispute can raise same. It is often said that jurisdiction is a threshold issue which can be raised at any stage or time of the proceedings by any party or even by the court suo motu. I shall find umbrage for this position in the case of Elugbe V. Omokhafe (200a) 18 NWLR (pt. 905) 219 at 332 paras C – G.’’ PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C

---

DETERMINING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION- IN DETERMINING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION OF AN ACTION, ONE HAS TO LOOK AT THE WRIT AND STATEMENT OF CLAIM TO DETERMINE WHEN THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE

---

‘‘In order to determine the period of limitation, one has to look at the writ of summons and the statement of claim to see when the wrong was committed which gave the plaintiff a cause of action and comparing that date with the date on which the writ of summons was filed. This in my view can be done without taking oral evidence from witnesses. If the time on the writ is beyond the period allowed by the limitation law, then the action is statute barred. See Egbe V. Adefarasin & Anor (supra).’’ PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Interpretation ActKogi State Chiefs (Appointment, Deposition and Establishment of Traditional Councils) law, 1992Procedure for Ascension to the throne of Ohinoyi of Ebira-land Edict No 3 of 1997Public Officers Protection Act

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT