CAMERON OFFSHORE SYSTEM (NIG) LTD v. AKWA IBOM ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION & WASTE MANAGEMENT AGENCY & ANOR
May 28, 2021MUHAMMADU BELLO (DALDO) & ANOR v. KABIRU GARBA & ANOR.
May 28, 2021COMMISSIONER FOR AGRICULTURE, ADAMAWA STATE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE & ANOR v. GLOBAL INVESTMENT NIG LTD. & ORS
COMMISSIONER FOR AGRICULTURE, ADAMAWA STATE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE & ANOR v. GLOBAL INVESTMENT NIG LTD. & ORS
(2021) Legalpedia (CA) 93131
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT YOLA
Wednesday, February 10, 2021
Suite Number: CA/YL/179/19
CORAM
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA
JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI
ABDULLAHI M. BAYERO
COMMISSIONER FOR AGRICULTURE || GLOBAL INVESTMENT NIG LTD.
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
STATUTE OF LIMITATION
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The 1st Respondent instituted this action against the Defendants jointly and severally before the Adamawa State High Court, wherein it sought for declaratory reliefs, Orders, 10% interest in the judgment sum and Cost of litigation. The lower court delivered its Ruling on the 10th day of May, 2018 on a preliminary objection in this suit filed by the 1st and 2ndAppellants who were the 3rd and 4th Defendants before the lower court that struck out the Notice of preliminary objection without hearing same on the merit despite the Counter Affidavit filed by the 1st Respondent. The 1st and 2nd Appellants also filed a reply on points of law. The lower court in its Ruling, held that since the 3rd and 4th Defendants did not move their motion on Notice seeking for leave to file their statement of defence out of time, it implied that the 3rd and 4th Defendants did not file any defence to the suit. The application was struck out. Aggrieved by the Ruling the Appellants appealed against same.
||INTERESTED IN GETTING SUMMARIES LIKE THIS FOR FREE?||
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Was the learned trial judge right when he struck out the Appellants’ Notice of Preliminary Objection raising the plea of Statute of Limitation, the appellants having failed to file their Statement of Defence in violation of the rule against demurrer and refusing to determine the 3rd and 4th defendants’ preliminary objection on merit?
RATIONES
“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.-
LIMITATION LAWS – ESSENCE OF PLEADING THE LIMITATION LAWS AS A DEFENCE
“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”. –
RULES OF COURT – RULES OF COURT ARE MEANT TO BE OBEYED
“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. –
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Adamawa State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2013|Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)|Court of Appeal Act, 2004|Court of Appeal Rules, 2016|
COUNSEL
M.A. Umar Esq. Senior State Counsel II Adamawa State Ministry of Justice for the Appellants.|G.L. Bako Esq. with Y.M. Pam Esq. and Mohammed Bamanga Esq. for the 1st Respondent.|
||INTERESTED IN GETTING SUMMARIES LIKE THIS FOR FREE?||