CORAM

---

Mohammed Garba-Justice of supreme court Nigeria

Adamu Jauro -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Jummai Hannatu Sankey-Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Obande Festus Ogbuinya-Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Abubakar Sadiq Umar- Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

---

PARTIES

---

PAN ATLANTIC SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT AGENCIES

APPELLANTS 

---

ABAYOMI BABATUNDE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

LAND LAW, LIMITATION OF ACTIONS, CIVIL PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, PROPERTY LAW, TRESPASS, ADVERSE POSSESSION, APPEAL, ORIGINATING SUMMONS

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent assigned his interest in a parcel of land at 22/23 Tin Can Island Road, Apapa, Lagos to the Appellant in 1978. The Appellant immediately took possession and started exercising acts of ownership. The Appellant obtained a Certificate of Occupancy over the land on 27th October, 1986. Several years later, the Respondent subleased the same land to Mobil Oil Nigeria Limited but was unable to put Mobil in possession because the Appellant was already in possession.

Mobil Oil Nigeria Limited sued the Respondent in Suit No. LD/1128/85 for damages occasioned by the Respondent’s inability to put them in possession. This resulted in a consent judgment on 9th December 1986. The Appellant, unaware of this suit until January 1987, then instituted Suit No. LD/166/87 against Mobil Oil Nigeria Limited and the Respondent to set aside the consent judgment on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation.

Suit No. LD/166/87 had a chequered history and was eventually discontinued by the Appellant in 1994. While the appeal from that suit was pending at the Supreme Court, the Respondent allegedly trespassed on the land in 2002, chased away the Appellant’s licensees (mechanics), and started erecting a bonded warehouse structure.

The Appellant then commenced the present suit by Originating Summons on 29th April 2002, seeking declarations of title, injunctive relief, and damages. The Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection claiming the suit was statute-barred as the cause of action accrued over 15 years before the suit was commenced. Both the trial court and Court of Appeal found the suit to be statute-barred and dismissed it.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed.

2. The Court held that in determining whether an action is statute-barred, courts can examine not only the originating processes but also the defendant’s processes, particularly when the preliminary objection is considered alongside the substantive suit.

3. The Court found that the cause of action arose in 1985 when disputes over the land first began, not in 2002 as claimed by the Appellant.

4. The Court affirmed that the suit was statute-barred under Section 16(2)(a) of the Limitation Law of Lagos State.

5. The Court awarded costs of N10,000,000 to the Respondent against the Appellant.

6. The Court held that where facts in an affidavit are not specifically contradicted in a counter-affidavit, they are deemed admitted.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether there was evidence from which the Court of Appeal could have affirmed the decision of the trial court that the action of the Appellant is time barred.?

2. Whether the evidence relied on by the trial court and upheld by the Court of Appeal was not improper as same was not relevant to a consideration of whether the Appellant’s case was time barred.?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

---

DETERMINATION OF STATUTE-BARRED ACTIONS – EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT’S PROCESSES:

“Generally, to determine if an action is statute barred, it is the originating process that the Court should look at to find out the date of the wrong that caused the suit occurred and the date the suit was filed…. Where the objection that the suit is statute barred is considered and determined after the conclusion of evidence by both sides, then the Court cannot ignore the evidence before it and pretend it does not exist and determine the objection only on the basis of the originating process.” – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

LIMITATION LAW – EXAMINATION OF ALL PROCESSES:

---

“At that stage, all the processes and evidence before the Court must be considered, especially where the objection is determined as part of or along with the final judgment on the merit of the dispute in the case, as happened in this case. This approach pursues the substantial justice of the matter and reduces the incidence of unscrupulous litigants, who, knowing very well that their claim is already statute barred, coin or phrase their case in such a manner as to hide or misrepresent the fact that it is statute barred to exploit the principle that only the originating process should be considered.” – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

PURPOSE OF LIMITATION LAWS – PUBLIC INTEREST AND FINALITY:

---

“The purpose of limitation laws is expressed in the Latin phrase interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium, that litigation shall be automatically stifled after a fixed length of time, irrespective of the merits of a particular case. Another factor is the desirability of preventing plaintiffs from prosecuting stale demands, and from protecting defendants from disturbance after a long lapse of time when they have grown accustomed to their position or lost the evidence to defend it.” – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

CAUSE OF ACTION – DEFINITION AND ACCRUAL:

---

“A cause of action is the bundle or aggregate of facts that gives the plaintiff a substantive right to make a claim for the relief being sought. It consists of the wrongful act of the defendant, which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint, and the consequent damage.” – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUAL – WHEN CAUSE OF ACTION BECOMES COMPLETE:

---

“A cause of action accrues when there is in existence a set of facts giving rise to a right to sue and a person who can be sued and all facts have happened which are materials to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed.” – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

EFFECT OF STATUTE-BARRED ACTIONS – LOSS OF JURISDICTION:

---

“The effect of an action being statute barred is simply that it renders the action barren and sterile and therefore incompetent. Where a statute provides for the institution of an action within a prescribed period, proceedings shall not be brought after the time prescribed by such statute, the Limitation Law of Lagos State. Any action that is instituted after the period stipulated by the statute is totally barred as the right of the plaintiff or the aggrieved person to commence the action would have been extinguished by such law.” – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT – PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF NON-CONTRADICTION:

---

“Where facts are deposed to in an affidavit, the purpose of a counter affidavit is to contradict those facts and not merely set up a distinct fact as defence.” – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

ADMISSION BY NON-DENIAL – EFFECT OF FAILURE TO CONTRADICT:

---

“The Appellant, having failed to contradict the Respondent’s depositions that there has been a lingering dispute in respect of the subject matter of the suit, he is deemed to have admitted the contents of the Respondent’s affidavit as true.” – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

CONCURRENT FINDINGS – INTERFERENCE BY SUPREME COURT:

---

“The Supreme Court will generally not interfere with concurrent findings made by the trial Court and the Court of Appeal, unless such findings are perverse; or not supported by the evidence; or are as a result of a wrong application of any principle of substantive law or procedure.” – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

RATIONALE FOR LIMITATION LAWS – PROTECTION OF DEFENDANTS:

---

“The rationale or justification for the existence of statutes of limitation includes: That long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them; That a Defendant might have lost the evidence to disprove a stale claim; and That persons with good causes should pursue them with reasonable diligence.” – Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.

 

---

EFFECT OF LIMITATION LAWS – EXTINGUISHMENT OF RIGHTS:

---

“Thus, Limitation laws extinguish both the remedy and the right of action once the statutory period lapses.” – Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.

 

---

AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE – EFFECT OF NON-CONTRADICTION:

---

“It is settled law that averments in an affidavit which are not contradicted by a counter-affidavit are deemed admitted.” – Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.

 

---

STATUTE-BARRED ACTIONS – EFFECT ON COURT JURISDICTION:

---

“A Court of law is disrobed of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain any soured action on the footing of statute-bar.” – Per OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.S.C.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

• Limitation Law of Lagos State

• Land Use Act

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---