Legalpedia Citation: (2024-01) Legalpedia 25907 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden At Calabar

Fri Jan 5, 2024

Suit Number: CA/C/237/2019

CORAM

Hamma Akawu Barka Justice, Court of Appeal

Balkisu Bello Aliyu Justice, Court of Appeal

Peter Chudi Obiora Justice, Court of Appeal

PARTIES

1. ERETE SULAIMAN OFFIONG
2. CHIEF ADAM EFA EYAMBA

APPELLANTS

NTUNKAE (BARR.) GRACE EYO ITA

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LAND, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, PROPERTY AND CONVEYANCING

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The suit was filed by the Respondent at the High Court of Cross River State as the Plaintiff against the Appellants as the defendants. The subject matter of the dispute is the property situate and known as NO. 2B Edibe Edibe Road, Calabar and registered as NO. 8 in volume 138 of the Lands Registry Calabar.

The Respondent claimed to have bought the disputed property from late Mrs. Mary Essien Eyamba on the 1/3/1993 and the 2nd Appellant was a sitting tenant in the property. The Respondent claimed that she permitted the former owner to continue residing on the property being an elderly person and her friend and to continue collecting rent from the 2nd Appellant, who was also a tenant on the property.

The Appellant stopped paying rent to the Respondent’s friend and former owner and contrived a plan with the former owner of the property purporting that the Respondent has relinquished ownership and surrendered possession of the property back to the former owner. In pursuance of this connivance, the Appellants employed the services of a lawyer who drafted a letter containing their contrivance and requested the Respondent to sign it.

It was after the demise of the Mrs. Mary Essien Eyamba, the former owner in 1998 that the Respondent applied to the Land’s Registry to register her title to the property, but the husband of Mrs. Eyamba, 1st Appellant relied on the letter written by the 2nd Appellant to enter a caveat on the property at the Ministry of Lands Calabar on the ground that since the Respondent wrote that letter, the property reverted back to his late wife and now belongs to him after her demise.

The Respondent filed Suit No: HC/141/2000 against the 1st Appellant but the suit was struck out when the issue of the caveat was amicably settled with the intervention of the former counsel who wrote the letter of revertal of the property to the former owner. The property was then registered in the name of the Respondent. The Respondent appointed an attorney who collected rents for the property from the 2nd Appellant for many years.

In 2009, when the Respondent sought to eject the 2nd Appellant from the property after the 2nd appellant embarked on illegal renovation of the property, the 2nd Appellant through his lawyers claimed that he had bought the property from the 1st Appellant and the property has been assigned to him. The Respondent then filed this suit to establish her rights to the property.

In response, the Appellants filed statement of defence and counter-claimed the said property. In addition, the Appellants filed a notice of preliminary objection by which they prayed the trial Court for an order dismissing the suit on the ground that the suit is statute barred and therefore incompetent.

The Respondent insisted that her suit filed on the 20th December, 2016 is not caught up by the Limitation Law of Cross River State.

The learned trial Judge delivered the trial Court’s ruling that to determine exactly when the cause of action accrued in order to determine whether the limitation period has indeed elapsed, would require hearing evidence from both sides. In view of the above, the Trial Judge rule that this issue can be tackled as one of the issues for determination after the hearing of the matter and consideration of the peculiar circumstances of this case.

The Appellants felt aggrieved with the ruling of the trial Court and filed the instant appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Whether the suit is not statute barred?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

JURISDICTION – THE IMPORTANCE OF COMPETENCE OR JURISDICTION IN ADJUDICATION – CONDUCT OF COURTS WHERE THE ISSUE OF COMPETENCE OR JURISDICTION IS RAISED

It is pertinent for me to first point out that the learned trial Judge failed to resolve the complaint of the Appellants contained in their notice of preliminary objection on the ground that; “in order to determine whether the limitation period has indeed elapsed, would require hearing evidence from both sides”. However, the settled position of the law vide uncountable decisions of this Court and the Apex Court is that the issue of limitation law when raised in a suit is a jurisdictional issue which must be determined first and foremost one way or the other. See AJE PRINTING (NIG.) LTD VS. EKITI L.G.A. (2021) 13 NWLR (PT. 1794) 498 (SC), where this position of law was re-iterated that:

“The issue of limitation of action or statute bar touches on the jurisdictional competence of a Court. Once raised, the Court is duty bound to determine it one way or the other.

See also SALISU & ANOR VS. MOBOLAJI & ORS (2013) LPELR-22019 (SC).”

The reason for the settled principle of law supra is obviously because any proceedings embarked upon without jurisdiction will amount to nullify and a total waste of time. In the case of SCHEEP & ANOR. VS. MV “S.ARAZ” & ANOR (2000) LPELR-1866(SC), it was held in page 46, para. A, per KARIBI-WHITE, JSC that:

“The determination of the question whether the Court before whom an action comes for adjudication has jurisdiction is a radical and crucial matter relating to its competence to hear the action. Hence, whenever the issue of competence and/or jurisdiction is raised before a Court, it has invariably been considered both imperative and appropriate first to settle the question…. The way the issue is settled will determine whether the Court can proceed to hear the matter before it.”

Also, in the case of BESONG VS. OCHINKE & ORS. (2022) LPELR-59622 (SC), JAURO, JSC speaking for the Apex Court held in page 25, para. B that:

“Where a Court proceeds to hear and determine a matter without the requisite jurisdiction, it amounts to an exercise in futility and the proceedings and judgment generated therefrom are null, void and of no effect, no matter how well conducted.” – Per B. B. Aliyu, JCA

LIMITATION LAW – WHERE AN ISSUE BORDERING ON JURISDICTION IS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEAL

Besides as already found supra, the issue of limitation law is that of jurisdiction and being a threshold issue, it can be raised even for the first time before this Court. See the cases of OBIONWU & ORS. VS. INEC (2013) LPELR-22573 (CA) and SANGODARE VS. OLADOKUN & ANOR. (2014) LPELR-22737 (CA). – Per B. B. Aliyu, JCA

CAUSE OF ACTION – MEANING AND EFFECT OF CAUSE OF ACTION

In simple terms, and by several judicial authorities, a cause of action is the factual situation and events that will crystallize to give a party the right to sue and seek redress from the Court. See Egbe v. Adefarasin (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 47) at 20, Amata v. Omofuma & Ors (1997) 2 NWLR (Pt. 485) 93, Ojie & Ors v. Govt. of Cross River State & Anor (2016) LPELR-41381(CA) and Woherem v. Emereuwa (2000) 3 NWLR (Pt. 650) 529 at 538.

Like every statute of limitation, the question now is how to determine this period of limitation which is the foundation for checking if the case is statute barred. The answer to the question appears quite simple and three indices are used:

(a) the date when the cause of action accrued;

(b) the date of commencement of the suit; and

(c) the period of time prescribed by the statute for bringing an action. – Per P. C. Obiorah, JCA

COURTS – CONDUCT OF COURTS IN DETERMINING IF A SUIT IS STATUTE BARRED

In deciding whether this suit is statute barred or not, the Court will take a holistic appraisal and study of the facts pleaded in the statement of claim to determine when the cause of action arose. See APC v. Enwerem (2022) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1853) 389, Adimora v. Ajufo (1988) NWLR (Pt. 80) 1. at 17, A. G. Rivers State v. A. G. Bayelsa State (2013) All FWLR (pt. 699) 1087 at 1106 and Nwankwo v. Nwankwo (2017) LPELR-42832(CA). – Per P. C. Obiorah, JCA

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Limitation Law of Cross River State, 2004.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT