JALINGO MUSA V. SUVA UMARU & ANOR
March 23, 2025BONITAS NIGERIA LTD V. TEJU INVESTMENT AND PROPERTY COMPANY LTD.
March 23, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2022-06) Legalpedia 54282 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
Holden at Lagos
Thu Jun 9, 2022
Suit Number: CA/L/1418/2016
CORAM
OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA
MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO
ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI BANJOKO
PARTIES
PASTOR SAMUEL BORTIER AHIA
APPELLANTS
STARPOLE INVESTMENT LTD
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
ACTION, APPEAL, COURT, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, LIMITATION LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
In 1993, the Appellant purchased a parcel of land, situate at No. 5 Amusa Oduyomi Street, Igbogbo, Ikorodu, Lagos, from Chief E.A. Amokumosa, and took possession of it and exercised acts of ownership thereon without let or hindrance from anybody. In November 1993, the Appellant solicited for financial assistance from the 2nd Respondent, the Managing Director and alter ego of the 1st Respondent, to establish bakery business. Between November 1993 – May 1994, the first Respondent granted a venture capital loan of N300, 000.00 to the Appellant. The Appellant’s friend, Pastor Augustine Dogo, stood as surety for the facility and released his landed property, situated at Egbe in Ikeja Local Government Area of Lagos, as the collateral for it. The Appellant, in the operation of the bakery business, paid N135,000.00 to the 1st Respondent as part payment for the loan but was unable to liquidate/complete the repayment of the loan, so he handed over the management of the bakery business to the 1st and 2nd Respondents, for a year, to enable them release the balance of the loan and they realised about N480,000.00, within the one year. Surprisingly, after the expiration of the one year, at the end of October, 1996, the Appellant found the 3rd Respondent (whose name was struck out on 16th March, 2022) on the property who claimed that the 1st and 2nd Respondents sold it to him at the sum of N200, 00.00. The Appellant’s effort to recover possession from the Respondents failed whilst their action caused him embarrassment and hardships. Sequel to these, the Appellant commenced this action before the High Court of Lagos State, Ikeja Division via a writ of summons and sought against the Respondents, jointly and severally, several declaratory, executory and injunctive reliefs. In reaction, the Respondents joined issue with the Appellant and denied liability to the suit. In their joint statement of defence, they asserted that the Appellant defaulted in the repayment of the loan, the 1st and 2nd Respondent never managed the bakery business and the Appellant consented to the sale of the property to the 3rd Respondent. The ousted 3rd Respondent filed a counter-claim wherein he claimed declaratory reliefs, damages and injunction against the Appellant. At the end of the trial, the lower Court declared the suit as statute-barred and dismissed it. Aggrieved by the lower Court’s judgment, the Appellant appealed against same vide his Notice of Appeal containing three Grounds of Appeal.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Whether from the totality of the evidence before the trial court, it can be said that the Claimant action is statute barred and his right to relief is accordingly extinguished in totality.
Whether having held that the sale of the plot of land belonging to the Claimant i.e. the Appellant by the 1st and 2nd Respondents to the 3rd Respondent without a court order is contrary to the Agreement between the parties and has no legal foundation in the agreement between the parties whether the conclusion of the Learned High Trial Judge was not perverse.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PERIOD OF LIMITATION – CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE TO COMMENCE AN ACTION WITHIN THE STATUTORILY TIME LIMIT
“As a necessary prelude, where a statute prescribes a time-bar within which an action should be commenced, such legislation bears the name of limitation law. If an aggrieved person exhibits tardiness by suing his wrong doer outside the statutorily allowed time-bracket, his action is usually declared as statute-barred. Thus, a cause of action is statute-barred when no proceedings can be brought to enforce it because the period laid down by the limitation law has expired by effluxion of time, see Egbe v. Adefarasin(No. 2) (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 47) 47; Nasir v. C.S.C., Kano State (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1190) 253;CotecnaInt’ Ltd. v. Churchgate (Nig.) Ltd. (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 346; A-G., Adamawa State v. A-G., Fed. (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1428) 515; Mulima v. Usman (2014) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1432) 160; Ibrahim v. Lawal (2015) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1489); N.R.M.A & F.C. v. Johnson (2019) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1656) 247; Daniel v. Ayala (2019) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1703) 25. -PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A
LIMITATION LAW – PURPOSE FOR THE LIMITATION LAW
“The raison d’etre for limitation law are to ginger up aggrieved persons to be vigilant, to discourage cruel actions and to preserve the evidence by which a defendant will defend the action, see Aremo II v. Adekanye (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 891) 572;Olagunju v. PHCN Plc. (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1254) 113;Lafia L.G. v. Gov., Nasarawa State (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1328) 943; Sulgrave Holdings Inc. v. FGN (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1329) 309; Awolola v. Gov., Ekiti State (2019) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1668) 247; Obazee v. Ekhosuehi (2019) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1701) 245; APC v. Lere (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1705) 254. Its other purpose is ingrained in the Latin maxim: interest recipublicae ut sit finis litium – it is in the interest of the state that there be a limit to Litigation, see Asaboro v. Pan Ocean Oil Corp. (Nig) Ltd. (2017) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1563) 42;Oteri Holdings Ltd. v. Oluwa (2021) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1766). -PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Limitation Law of Lagos State, 1994
Limitation Law of Lagos State Cap. Vol. 5, Laws of Lagos State, 2003
