“Order 25 Rule 4 (1) of the Adamawa State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2013 provides thus: “4 (1) A party shall plead specifically any matter (for example, must performance, release, any relevant statute of limitation, fraud or any fact showing illegality) which, if not specifically pleaded might take the opposite party by surprise.” The above provision spelt out the procedure prescribed on how a plea of time bar is to be raised, the Rules having provided a method by which a plea of time bar could be raised, that method has to be used and no other. See, Ikechukwu Vs. FRN & Ors (2012) LPELR – 14843 (CA) PP. 7 – 8, Paras. F – C, where his lordship Bada, JCA on the issue of non-compliance with the rules of court held thus: “Whenever there is non-compliance with the Rules of court, the court should not remain passive and helpless but, should sanction the party who has failed to comply, otherwise the purpose of enacting the Rules of Court will be defeated. See, the following cases:- Owners Of The MV “ARABELLA” Vs. Nigeria Agricultural Insurance Corporation (2008) 11 NWLR PART 1097 PAGE 182, Duke Vs. Akpabuyo Local Government (2005) 19 NWLR Part 959 PAGE 130:- Aromolaran Vs. Oladele (1990) 7 NWLR Part 162 Page 359:- Bango Vs. Chado (1998) 9 NWLR PART 564 PAGE 139.” See, also Ifeanyichukwu Trading Investment Ventures Ltd & Anor Vs. Onyesom Community Bank Ltd (2015) LPELR – 2481 (SC). It is apt at this point to also reproduce the provisions of Order 24 Rule 2 of the Adamawa State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2013, which provides thus: 24 (2): “Any party shall be entitled to raise by his pleading any point of law and any points so raised shall be disposed of by the judge before or at the trial.” Order 25 Rule 4 (1) and Order 24 Rule (2) are clear and unambiguous, by the Rules a defendant who intends to rely on the plea of time bar is enjoined to file his statement of Defence therefore, in the absence of the defendants’ pleadings, by the filing of a Statement of Defence, the appellants’ plea of Statute of Limitation was not properly raised at the lower court. See, Ebenogwu & Anor Vs. Onyema Obim (2007) LPELR – 8160 (CA) PP. 26 – 27, PARAS. D – C, Olateru & Ors Vs. OPIC (2018) LPELR – 44874 (CA) PP. 11 – 12, PARAS. E – B and In Sanni Vs. Okere Local Government & Anor (2005) LPELR – 11315 (CA) PP. 8 – 9 PARAS. F – A, his lordship Rhodes – Vivour, JCA (as he then was) summarized the position of the law thus: “The position of the law is that a defence of Limitation must be specifically pleaded and this is done by stating the statutory provision relied on. See, Savage Vs. Rotibi (1944) 10 WACA at 264; Iheanacho Vs. Ejiogu (1995) 4 NWLR (PT. 389) P. 324.” See, also Mekaowulu Vs. Ukwa West Local Government Council (2018) LPELR – 43807 (CA) PP. 11 – 12, PARAS. D – A and Omotosho Vs. Bank Of The North Ltd & Anor (2006) 9 NWLR (PT. 986) 573.-

“The essence of pleading the limitation laws as a defence is to avoid taking the opposite side by surprise, pleadings have to be filed and exchanged for it to be properly raised in defence, especially where as in this case demurrer has been abolished”. –

“On the other hand, Rules of Court are meant to be obeyed as they are not made for fancy, moreso where the word “shall” has been used in the Rules as in this case, it must be mandatorily complied with. See, Ononye & Ors Vs. Chukwuma (2005) LPELR – 7526O (CA) P. 33, PARAS. A – B, where his lordship Augie, JCA (as he then was) held thus: “Laws and Rules are not made to operate in the breach but are to be obeyed by citizens in order to satisfy the spirit and intendment for which they are promulgated, as this court observed in Integrated Builders Vs. Domzaq Ventures (Nig.) Ltd (supra).” See, also Ape Vs. Olomo (2010) LPELR – 4988 (CA) PP. 31 – 32, Paras. D – C and Ibitoye Vs. Nigerian Navy Board (2016) LPELR – 40058 (CA) P. 13, PARAS. C – E. –