JOHN EBOIGBE AND OTHERS V NIGERIAN NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION

CORAM

MUHAMMADU LAWAL UWAIS (Presided), JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

OLAJIDE OLATAWURA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

EMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUEGBU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

YEKINI OLAYIWOLA ADIO (Read the Leading Judgment), JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

JOHN EBOIGBE (For himself and on behalf of 6 other members of his family). APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant, in the High Court instituted legal proceedings against the respondent. The writ was filed, and the appellant’s claim was for special and general damages for the destruction, of the economic crops of the appellant. Pleadings were duly filed and exchanged by the parties. The respondent then filed an application for an order dismissing the appellant’s claim on the ground that the appellant’s action was statute-barred. The learned trial Judge dismissed the application. He held that the appellant’s contention that the respondent was estopped from raising or relying on the aforesaid Laws was valid. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal in which the appeal was allowed. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

The appeal was dismissed. The judgment of the court below was affirmed.

ISSUES

Whether considering the entire conduct and representations of the defendant, especially as highlighted by the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim, the defendant is not estopped from taking the benefit and/ or advantage of any statute of limitation.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

THE BEST CAUSE FOR A PERSON TO WHOM A RIGHT HAS ACCRUED

“The best cause for a person to whom a right has accrued is to institute an action against the other party so as to protect his interest or right in case the negotiation fails.” Per ADIO, J.S.C.

WHERE AN ACTION IS STATUTE-BARRED

“Where an action is statute-barred a plaintiff who might have had a cause of action loses the right to enforce the cause of action by judicial process because the period of time laid down by the limitation Law for instituting such an action has elapsed.” Per ADIO, J.S.C.

NEGOTIATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SETTLING DISPUTE IS ALLOWED

“The law does not prohibit parties to a dispute from engaging in negotiation for the purpose of settling the dispute. Except where as a result there is what can be reasonably regarded as a settlement of the dispute or an admission of liability on the part of a defendant, the limitation time continues to run.” Per ADIO, J.S.C.