CORAM

---

C.E.NWOSU-IHEME JCA

YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPER JCA

MUSLIM SULE HASSAN JCA

---

PARTIES

---

FOR AFRICA PLC

APPELLANTS 

---

ROBERT IGHENE AND 4 ORS

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, EVIDENCE, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 1st to 3rd Respondents are beneficiaries of a judgment obtained against the 4th Respondent upon the enforcement of their fundamental right in the sum of N9,000,000.00 in the year 2001. After obtaining the judgment, the 4th Respondent refused to pay up the N9,000,000.00 until they took out garnishee proceedings attaching the funds of the 4th Respondent in the Appellant’s bank, wherein the Trial court made an order absolute attaching the fund of the 4th Respondent in the Appellant’s bank to the tune of N9,000,000.00. The Appellant still refused, failed, and/or ignored to comply with the order of the court to pay the 1st to 3rd Respondents. The 1st to 3rd Respondents had to attach the funds of the Appellant and the 4th Respondent with the 5th Respondent before the Federal High Court Lagos before the sum of N9,025,000.00 was paid to the Account of Counsel in 2007. According to Counsel, the 1st to 3rd Respondents are statutorily entitled to interest on the judgment sum of N9,000,000.00, and the same by way of computation has amounted to N14,899,980.955. The judgment of the trial court against the 4th Respondent, which the 1st to 3rd Respondents seek to collect interest on, did not grant any interest, and the same had since been paid to the 1st to 3rd Respondents through their counsel, and they have taken benefit of the same. On that note, the Appellant urged the court to refuse the application of the 1st to 3rd Respondents. In a considered Ruling, the trial court granted the request of the 1st to 3rd Respondent in part and held that they are statutorily entitled to interest on their judgment sum but is valid only till the liquidation of the judgment which happened in 2007. This decision is the subject of this Appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal allowed

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether in view of the provisions of Section 8 (1) (e) and 6 of the Limitation Laws of Lagos state, 2003, the lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the 1st to 3rd Respondents’ motion on Notice dated 2nd of July, 2012 and award post-judgment interest in their favor in respect of the debt which accrued on the 4th of October, 2000?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

JURISDICTION – WHEN THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT IS CHALLENGED

---

The law is clear and indeed trite that when the jurisdiction of a court is challenged, it is the process of the Claimant/Applicant or Appellant as the case may be that shall be considered. – Per M. S. Hassan, JCA

 

---

CAUSE OF ACTION – MEANING OF CAUSE OF ACTION

---

It is trite law that a cause of action is a set of facts which form the action or inaction of a party that occasioned injury to a person. The moment those facts materialize, then a cause of action is set to accrue, and the time for an aggrieved party to file his action will begin to run from that moment. Effectively, a cause of action has been judicially defined as the entire set of circumstances giving rise to an enforceable claim. It is, in effect, the fact or combination of facts which give rise to a right to sue and consists of two elements, namely: a. The Wrongful act of Defendant which gives plaintiff his cause of complaint b. The consequent damage. See the decision of the Apex Court in Progress Bank (Nig) Plc v. O.K Contact Point Ltd (2009) FWLR (Pt 478) P 461; Ogbimi v. Ololo (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt 304) at 136; William v. Daodu (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt 87) P. 189 – Per M. S. Hassan, JCA

 

---

STATUTE OF LIMITATION – MEANING AND EFFECT OF STATUTE OF LIMITATION

---

One of the cardinal principles of statutes of limitation is that a person who sleeps over his right should not be assisted by the Court in any action for recovery of his property. It is a common saying that equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent. Delay also defeats equity. The effect of Limitation Law is to take away any legitimate claim a party has. See A.C.N v. INEC (2014) All FWLR (pt.716)463, where the Court, while commenting on what constitutes the statute of limitation and its effect, had this to say: “A statute of limitation is one which provides that no court shall entertain proceedings for the enforcement of certain rights if such proceedings were set on foot after the lapse of a definite period of time. A cause of action is statute-barred if it is brought beyond the period laid down by statute within which such action must be filed in court. A statute of limitation removes the right of action, the right of enforcement, and the right of judicial relief in a plaintiff, and this leaves him with a bare and empty cause of action which he cannot enforce if the alleged cause of action is statute-barred, that is to say, if such cause of action is instituted outside the statutory period allowed by such law.” – Per M. S. Hassan, JCA

 

---

STATUTE BARRED – MEANING AND ESSENCE OF STATUTE BARRED

---

On the nature of statute barred, my Lord, Jauro, JSC., succinctly captured its essence in USENI v. ATTA & ORS (2023) LPELR-59880 (SC) as follows: “An action is said to be statute barred when it is time-barred by the provision of a statute. It means that the suit has been commenced beyond the time stipulated for filing the same by the provisions of a statute or the constitution. Any action brought outside the time limited by statute is incompetent, even if it is late by only one day. Once an action is found to be statute-barred, it is immaterial whether or not the suit has merit; no court has jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. Even if the same will be entertained by a trial or intermediate court, that would only be done to enable the final Court to have the benefit of their opinion in case they are wrong about the action being statute barred. The general rule is that where there is a right there is a remedy; that is to say, whether there is a cause of action, there is a remedy. Nevertheless, the legislature has prescribed certain periods of limitation for instituting certain actions. The rationale for this is the public policy consideration that there must be an end to litigation and the need to stop parties from litigating over stale disputes.” Per JAURO, J.S.C. This court can definitely not turn back the hands of time for the 1st – 3rd Respondents no matter how meritorious their case may be. – Per Y. B. Nimpar, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

NIL

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. High Court of Lagos state (Civil Procedure) Rules 1994

2. High Court of Lagos state (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004

3. Limitation Laws of Lagos state, 2003

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT