BABANG GOLOK V. MAMBOK DIYALPWAN
July 15, 2025DOKUN AJAYI LABIYI VS ALHAJI MUSTAPHA MOBERUAGBA ANRETIOLA & ORS
July 15, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1990-06) Legalpedia 05048 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Lagos
Fri Jun 29, 1990
Suit Number: SC 189/1986
CORAM
SYLVESTER U. ONU , JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A.I. IGUH, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A. NNAMANI – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
AKINTOLA O. EJIWUNMI , JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.
A.G. KARIBI-WHYTE – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
S.M.A. BELGORE – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
P. NNAEMEKA-AGU – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
M. BELLO, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
A.O. OBASEKI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
A.O. OBASEKI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
M.L UWAIS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
A.G. KARIBI-WHYTE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
S.M.A. BELGORE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
P. NNAEMEKA-AGU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
FRED EGBE
APPELLANTS
ALHAJI ABUBAKAR ALHAJI
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – STATUTE BARRED ACTIONS- MALICE AND BAD FAITH
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant brought an action for libel in the High Court of Lagos State against the respondents claiming, as per his amended writ of summons, as follows-
“The plaintiff’s claim against the defendants is for the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Naira (N500,000.00) being general and special damages suffered as a result of a conspiracy by the defendants and a libel of the Plaintiff by the first and second Defendants in a letter dated 21st March, 1978 addressed by the first and second Defendants to the Inspector General of Police and repeated by the third defendant to the Commissioner of Police ‘D’ Department on 22nd day of March, 1978.”
HELD
That the act does not require good faith to avail a defendant the special defence of limitation of action nor does it require malice to deprive him of the defence
ISSUES
Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were to inquire into and determine the motives of the defendants/respondents as a prerequisite in availing them the protection of the Public Officers Protection Law Cap.114;
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DAMAGES CAUSED BY PUBLIC OFFICER IN THE CAUSE OF HIS LAWFUL DUTY
“Where it is shown that a cause of action arose out of an act done by a public officer in pursuance or execution of his lawful duty, then malice is irrelevant for the purpose of his protection by the law.” Per Mohammed Bello CJN
WHEN AN ACTION BECOMES STATUTE BARRED
Any action or prosecution or other proceeding commenced outside the 3 months period is totally barred as the right of the injured person to commence the action, prosecution or proceeding has been extinguished by the law. Indeed, it is proper to say that at that state the person has no cause of action. – Per Andrews Otutu Obaseki, JSC
LIMITATION OF ACTION
“In a civil action, where the defendant invokes, in limine, the procedure under Order 22 rule 4 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules, Cap.52, to claim protection under section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Law, Cap. 114 (which is, indeed, a defence by way of limitation of action; it is, as laid down in Fred Egbe v Justice Adefarasin & Anor (supra), not proper for the trial Court to infer or conclude from the pleadings that the protection afforded the defendant by the law, has been vitiated by malice or bad faith. For what the trial court is obliged to decide at that stage is whether – the action is maintainable and not whether the defendant is liable”. (Per M.L UWAIS, J.S.C)
CASES CITED
1. Fred Egbe v. Justice Adefarasin & Anor. (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt.3) 549
2. Olatunji v. Inspector General of Police 21 NLR 52
3. Godwin Nwankwere v. Joseph Adewunmi (1967) 1 NWLR 45
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None.
