Download PDF
<p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">REPRESENTATION</span></u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Olalekan Matti, for the claimant.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Mrs Abimbola Odusote, for the </span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT">defendant.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">RULING</span></u><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">1. The claimants filed this action on 24th June 2016 vide a General Form of Complaint accompanied by the statement of facts, list of witnesses, witness statement on oath, list of documents and copies of the documents. By the statement of facts, the claimant is claiming against the defendant for the following reliefs –</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(1)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">A declaration that the withhold (sic) of the claimants’ Earned Allowance from the year 2011 to the year 2014 is discriminatory and void.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(2)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">An order that the Earned Allowance from the year 2011 to 2014 be paid to the claimants.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(3)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">An order for the payment of N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) for the cost of instituting this action.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">2. The defendant entered formal appearance filed its defense processes, and then filed a preliminary objection for the following orders:</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">1)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">An order setting down for hearing, the points of law raised in the applicant’s statement of defense, and argued in this motion.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">2)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">An order declining jurisdiction to entertain this suit in relation to the applicant.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">3)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">An order striking out the claimant’s action in relation to the applicant.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">4)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">And for such further order or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">3. The grounds upon which the preliminary objection is based are:</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">1)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">The claimants did not institute the action within the 3 month limitation period provided under section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act Cap. P41 LFN 2004 and as such is statute-barred.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">2)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">The pre-condition for the assumption of jurisdiction by this Honorable Court over the applicant was not satisfied by the claimants.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">3)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">This suit violates the provisions of section 42(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">4. In support of the preliminary objection is an affidavit and a written address. In response, the claimants filed a counter-affidavit and a written address; to which the defendant filed a reply on points of law.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">5. The case of the defendant is that a reading of the reliefs claimed and paragraphs 4 - 17 of the statement of facts will show that what the claimants are praying for is a declaration that withholding the payment to them of their earned allowance from 2001 to 2014 is discriminatory and void; and paying to them the withheld earned allowance from 2011 to 2014. The defendant accordingly framed one issue for determination: whether this Court should not decline jurisdiction on the grounds set out in the motion paper. It is the submission of the defendant that this case is statute-barred and so this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear it (<i>Egbe v. Adefarasin</i> [1987] 1 NWLR (Pt. 47) 1, <i>Ejifodomi v. Okonkwo</i> [1982] Vol. 13 NSCC 422 at 435 - 436 and <i>Owie v. Ighiwi</i> [2005] 5 NWLR (Pt. 917) 184 at 223) since the suit was not instituted within the 3 month limitation period pursuant to section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act (POPA). That the case of the claimants is hinged on the failure to pay them their earned allowance for the period 2011 to 2014. That this is the cause of action giving the claimants the right to come to court, citing <i>Bello v. AG Oyo State</i> [1986] 5 NWLR (Pt. 45) 828 and <i>Akilu v. Fawehinmi (No. 2)</i> [1089] 2 NWLR (Pt. 102) 122, and which arose in 2014 (<i>Okenwa v. Military Gov., Imo State</i> [1997] 6 NWLR (Pt. 50) 154 at 167). That the instant suit was filed on 24th June 2016, clearly more than 3 months since the accrual of the cause of action. Accordingly, that this suit is statute-barred, citing <i>Osun State Govt v. Dalami (Nig.) Ltd</i> 9 NWLR (Pt. 1038) 66 at 82 and <i>Ibrahim v. JSC</i> [1989] 14 NWLR (Pt. 584) 1. Given the provision of section 318(1)(e) and (g) of the 1999 Constitution, which defines “public service of the Federation”, section 18 of the Interpretation Act, which defines “persons” and <i>Ibrahim v. JSC</i> (<i>supra</i>), the defendant submitted that the defendant and its employees are protected by and can claim the benefit of POPA.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">6. On the issue whether this suit violates section 42(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides the right against discrimination, the defendant submitted that the grounds upon which an act can be declared discriminatory are listed out in section 42(1), and they are: community, ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion and political opinion. To the defendant, any claim of discrimination must be situated within these prohibited grounds; failure to do so makes the claim of discriminatory practice void. That in the instant case, the claimants have not been able to establish in their statement of facts that they have been discriminated against in respect of earned allowance based on any of the prohibited grounds listed out, citing <i>Adeyinka Badejo v. Minister of Education</i> (CA/L/405/88) 2 WBRN 48 (CA). The defendant then submitted that the claimants have not been able to establish in their statement of claim and writ of summons that they have been discriminated against on any of the prohibited grounds; as such this case should be dismissed. In conclusion, the defendant urged the Court to decline jurisdiction over this case.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">7. The claimants in response framed two issues for determination, namely:</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(a)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Whether section 2(a) of POPA is applicable to cases of arrears of allowances and entitlement that is continuous for a period yet to be fixed.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(b)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Whether he act of depriving the claimants of allowance that they worked does not amount to continue damage.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">8. The claimants argued the two issues together. The argument of the claimants is that POPA does not apply in all instances. That it does not apply to claims relating to pension, continuous damages, continuing injury, unpaid salaries, unpaid severance package, contracts of employment and acts of a person who abuses his office, citing <i>FGN v. Zebra Energy Ltd</i> [2002] 12 SC (Pt. II) 136, <i>AG, Rivers State v. AG, Bayelsa State & anor</i> [2013] 3 NWLR (Pt. 1340) 123 at 144 - 150, <i>CBN v. Adedeji</i> [2005] 26 WRN 38, <i>John Ovoh v. Nigeria Westminster Dredging and Marine</i> Suit No. NIC/9/2002, the ruling of which was delivered on 1st April 2008, <i>Dr Aina Simeon Abiodun & ors v. The Governing Council, Oyo State College of Education & ors</i> Suit No. NIC/LA/46/2009 delivered on 8th February 2011 and <i>Adamu v. NSPMC Plc</i> unreported Suit No. NIC/LA/163/2011 delivered on 4th July 2012. The claimants then submitted that in the instant case, POPA does to apply to claims in labour, including non-payment of pension, salaries, severance package and contract of employment; and that the defendant act in bad faith, abused its office and so should not be allowed to take the benefit of POPA. The claimants urged the Court to dismiss the preliminary objection and proceed to the trial of the case. The claimants said nothing of the argument of the defendant as to section 42(1) of the 1999 Constitution. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">9. In reacting on points of law, the defendant submitted that the argument of the claimants that the POPA does bot apply to employment contracts is misconceived. To start with, that the claimants’ employment has been determined and they are no longer in employment. That the defendant is not owing the claimants and no document showing indebtedness to the claimants by the defendant has been exhibited. That the Federal Government who pays monetization is not a party to this suit, neither is the National Pension Commission, citing cases that state that a decision of a Court is binding only on parties before it. On the applicability of POPA to contracts of employment, the defendant referred to <i>Hon. Prince Timothy Enwubaliri Nsirim v. Obio/Akpor LGC</i> Suit No. NICN?OW/75/2014, which applied POPA to an employment contract. That in <i>Mrs Ogbonne Idam v. WAEC</i> NICN/LA/201/2015, this Court held POPA to apply to claims for allowance; and in <i>Mr Lawrence Agwu v. FRCN</i> Suit No. NICN/EN/33/2014, a statute of limitation was held to apply to labour matters and claim for allowance. Other cases which applied th limitation law to employment cases are: <i>Ntuks v. NPA</i> [2007] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1051) 392, <i>Bakare v. NRC</i> [2007] 17 NWLR (Pt. 1064), <i>FRN v. Gold</i> [2007] 11 NWLR (Pt. 1044) 1, <i>Fajimolu v. Unicorn</i> [2007] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1017) 74, <i>Williams O. Olagunju & anor v. PHCN Plc</i> [2011] 4 SC (Pt. I) 152 at 163, <i>Okon Antigua Essien v. Cross River State Civil Service Commission & anor</i> [2014] LPELR-23527(CA) and <i>Mathias Oko Offoboche v. Ogoja Local Government & anor</i> [2001] LPELR-2265(SC); [2001] 16 NWLR (Pt. 739) 458. In any event, that POPA talks of any action without distinction, citing <i>Adigun v. Ayinde</i> [1993] 8 NWLR (Pt. 313) 516, <i>NBC v. Bankole</i> [1972] 1 All NLR (Pt. 1) 2 and <i>Forestry Research Institute of Nigeria v. Gold</i> [2007] 11 NWLR (Pt. 1044) 1. The defendant concluded by urging the Court to grant its application.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">COURT</span></u><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’</span></u><u><span lang="ES-TRAD" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:ES-TRAD">S DECISION</span></u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">10. Before considering the merit of the preliminary objection, I need to point out that in paragraph 2.2 of the claimants’ written address, counsel to the claimants made a quotation without indicating where he got the quotation from. If the thinking of counsel is that the quotation comes from the immediately preceding case, <i>AG, Rivers State v. AG, Bayelsa State & anor</i> [2013] 3 NWLR (Pt. 1340) 123 at 144 - 150, cited at the end of paragraph 2.1, then counsel must be wrong as <i>AG, Rivers State v. AG, Bayelsa State & anor</i> [2013] 3 NWLR (Pt. 1340) 123 at 144 - 150 has no such quotation.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">11. A second point I need to make is, in paragraph 2.4 of the defendant’s reply on points of law, the defendant submitted that the Federal Government who pays the monetization is not a party to this suit, neither is the National Pension Commission. This issue is being raised for the first time in a reply on points of law when the defendant knows fully well that the claimants would have no right to answer. A reply on points of law should not be used to either extend the scope of the arguments or to raise issues that did not arise as new issues or matters in the opposing party’s brief. See </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">SPDC & ors v. Agbara & ors</span></i><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: PT"> [2015] LPELR-25987(SC), </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Ejiogu v. Irona & ors</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [2008] LPELR-4083(CA) and </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:IT">Tetrazzini Foods Ltd v. Abbacy Investment Ltd & anor</span></i><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT"> [2015] LPELR-25007(CA).</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">12. I now proceed to the merit of the preliminary objection. The issue before this Court is whether it has jurisdiction over this case. The claimants think that this Court has the jurisdiction. The defendant thinks not giving two reasons: the first, that the suit is statute-barred; and the second that the claimants did not framed their case within any of the prohibited grounds listed in section 42(1) of the 1999 Constitution given the manner in which relief (1) is couched. I start off with this second reason. The defendant relied on section 42(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that “a citizen of Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion or political opinion shall not, by reason only that he is such a person” be discriminated or subjected to disabilities or restrictions on those grounds. This provision does not state that the categories of the grounds of discrimination are closed. Even in using the word “only” in section 42(1), it must be appreciated the context in which it is used. The provision that “a citizen of Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion or political opinion shall not, by reason <i>only</i> that he is such a person” means that citizens without more cannot be discriminated on just the ground that he/she is of a particular community, ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion or political opinion. The statement cannot be read to mean that these grounds of discrimination are the only grounds of discrimination. In other words, it cannot be read to mean that discrimination on grounds other than the listed out would thereby be valid and legal (and so not remediable in law) simply because the discrimination was not done on any of the listed constitutional grounds. To uphold the argument of the defendant would mean, for instance, that albinos discriminated against as albinos or a worker with HIV/AIDS discriminated against as such would have no remedy in law. May be, if the defendant’s argument is taken within the strict confines of constitutional law (even at this, I have my doubts as I have shown), as was the case in </span><i><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">Festus Odafe & </span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">o</span></i><i><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">rs v</span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">. Attorney General, Federation & ors unreported</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> Suit No. FHC/PH/CS/680/2003, where the Federal High Court held that there was no breach of the constitutional right against discrimination for a prisoner living with HIV/AIDS because the Constitution did not expressly state HIV/AIDS as a prohibited ground of discrimination, that conclusion may be reached, erroneously I dare say. The point is that even if an act, to go by the defendant’s argument, is outside of the constitutionally listed grounds for discrimination, there is nothing that says that it cannot be discriminatory on grounds recognized as such by other laws, other than the Constitution. Discrimination at the workplace encompasses actions of an employer way outside of the constitutionally listed grounds in section 42. Is the defendant saying that this Court, with its jurisdiction under section 254C(1) of the 1999 Constitution to apply international best practices, and Treaties, Conventions, Recommendations and Protocols pertaining to labour law and ratified by Nigeria, should turn a blind eye to such discriminatory practices simply because they are not listed in section 42 of the Constitution? I do not think the defendant gave this issue a second thought before advancing its argument. I must accordingly discountenance the defendant’s argument on that score. I so hold.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">13. The second reason advanced by the defendant is that this case is statute-barred and so this Court cannot assume jurisdiction. Reliefs (1) and (2) as claimed relates to a claim for earned allowance for the period 2011 to 2014. As its name implies, the allowance claimed has already been earned; and it is not in doubt that the claimants are no longer in the employment of the defendant since 16th September 2014. See paragraphs 7, 9, 12, 14 and 17 of the statement of facts. In determining whether an action is statute-barred, it is imperative to determine what the cause of action is and when it arose. This is then to be compared with when the case was filed. If the period in between the accrual of the cause of action and the date of filing the action is more than the limitation period, then the action is said to be statute-barred. By the reliefs and statement of facts of the claimants, the cause of action is the defendant having to withhold their earned allowance from 2011 to 2014. This is the cause of action, which arose on 16th September 2014 when the claimants’s employment was verbally terminated. In any event, <i>LUTH & MB v. Adewole</i></span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT"> [1998] 5 NWLR (Pt. 550) 406</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> held that where a claim is that payment of salaries has been wrongfully withheld, the cause of action accrues from the date the salaries are due for payment. The earned allowance was due for payment within the period 2011 to 2014 but was not paid. It was then that the cause of action regarding the payment of earned allowance arose. The claimants did not file this action until 24th June 2016 i.e. a little less than 2 years after the accrual of the cause of action. This is way out of the 3 months allowed by section 2(a) of POPA. It is accordingly my finding and holding that this suit was filed outside of the 3 months allowed by POPA; as such the suit is statute-barred.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">14. However, the claimants argued that this action comes within the exceptions of the limitation law. In particular, that POPA does not apply to contracts of employment and that the defendant acted in bad faith, abusing their office. The claimants placed great reliance on <i>John Ovoh v. Nigeria Westminster Dredging and Marine Company Limited</i> Suit No. NIC/9/2002, the ruling of which was delivered on 1st April 2008 and <i>Dr Aina Simeon Abiodun & ors v. The Governing Council, Oyo State College of Education & ors</i> Suit No. NIC/LA/46/2009 delivered on 8th February 2011, cases decided by this Court. Unfortunately, the claimants do not seem to know that this Court has since overruled itself on the stance it took given decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court which applied the limitation laws to employment cases. In <i>Hon. Runyi Kanu (JP) & ors v. The Attorney-General & Commissioner for Justice Cross River State & ors</i></span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT"> [2013] 32 NLLR (Pt. 91) 63 NIC</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">, this Court reviewed/explained the authorities and held as follows:</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">The claimants had further referred this Court to its decisions in <i>John Ovoh v. The Nigerian Westminster Dredging & Marine Company Ltd</i> and <i>Captain Tony Oghide and ors v. Shona Jason Nig. Ltd</i>. While it is true that in these cases this Court had held that the limitation laws do not apply to labour rights issues especially as to the claims for salary and entitlements/benefits, the truth is that this Court had had to change that stance in cases other than those relating to salary and benefits given the weight of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court authorities to the effect that the limitation laws apply to employment cases as of other cases, all of which are binding on this Court. In cases of claims for salary and allowances, the decisions of this Court in <i>John Ovoh v. The Nigerian Westminster Dredging & Marine Company Ltd</i> and <i>Captain Tony Oghide and ors v. Shona Jason Nig. Ltd</i> would appear to be good law if the test on </span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">“</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">continuance of damage or injury” laid down in the recent Supreme Court decision in <i>AG, Rivers State v. AG, Bayelsa State & anor</i></span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: PT"> [2013] 3 NWLR (Pt. 1340) 123 at 144 </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">– 150 is met. In that case, at pages 148 – 149, the Supreme Court held that the case for the deprivation of allocation, which the plaintiff was entitled to every month and same has not ceased, was </span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">“</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">a situation continuance of damage or injury which has not ceased”; and so the defence of the Public Officers Protection Act would not avail the 1st defendant who had raised it. I understand this authority to lay down that where an allocation which comes periodically, say, monthly (like salary and allowances, which also come periodically) is deprived a plaintiff State (like salary and allowances deprived to an employee), then there is continuing damage or injury for which the Public Officers Protection Act or Law will not apply. In this sense, for the ‘continuing injury’ exception to apply, the employee would need to be in employment; for otherwise, the claim that the deprivation continues would not stand. In the instant case, the claimants ceased to be in office in 2010. There is, therefore, no question as to the existence of a deprivation of an entitlement which comes in periodically and has not ceased after 2010. This being the case, the claimant in the instant case cannot claim the benefit of the exception to the Public Officers Protection Law of Cross River State. In any event, the definition of the phrase </span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">“</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">continuance of the injury” by case law authorities to mean continuance of the </span><span lang="DE" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DE">“</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">act which caused the injury” and not the injury itself presupposes that this Court’s stance in cases such as <i>John Ovoh v. The Nigerian Westminster Dredging & Marine Company Ltd</i> and <i>Captain Tony Oghide and ors v. Shona Jason Nig. Ltd</i> must be understood qualifiedly.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">15. In like manner, in the instant case, the claimants are no longer in employment, having ceased to be employees of the defendant on 16th September 2014. There is, therefore, no question as to the existence of a deprivation of an allowance which comes in periodically and has not ceased after 2014. That being the case, the claimants cannot claim the benefit of the exceptions to POPA, not even the “continuance of injury” exception, for the claimants have not shown to this Court as continuing the act which caused their injury. The long and short of it is that the applicability of section 2(a) of POPA to employment contracts is no longer in doubt. In fact, only recently, the Court of Appeal applied it to an employment contract dismissing the case in the process. See <i>Securities and Exchange Commission v. Abilo Uboboso</i> unreported Appeal No. CA/A/388/2013 the judgment of which was delivered on 21st December 2016. And respectively on 16th February 2017 and 1st March 2017, this Court followed <i>Securities and Exchange Commission v. Abilo Uboboso</i> and dismissed the claimants’ cases in <i>Mr O. R. Ejeme & 3 ors v. Standards Organization of Nigeria (SON)</i> unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/655/2015, the ruling of which delivered on 16th February 2017, and <i>Anthony U. Aku v. Ministry of Petroleum Resources & anor</i> unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/293/2016, the ruling of which was delivered on 1st March 2017. I do accordingly see merit in the defendant’s argument as to the applicability of POPA to employment contracts.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">16. On the whole, I find that the instant action is statute-barred and it does not come within any of the exceptions to the limitation law. Where a Court makes a finding that a matter is statute-barred, the proper order to make is one of dismissal. See <i>Nigeria Ports Authority v. Lotus Plastics Ltd</i> [2005] 19 NWLR (Pt. 959) 158. In consequence, this suit is hereby dismissed.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">17. Ruling is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">……………………………………</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>