Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
June 30, 2020 1:31 pm
"For clarity purposes Section 2(a) of the Public Officers (Protection) Act 2004 provides thus:-
"Where any action, prosecution, or other proceeding is commenced against any person for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of any Act of Law or of any public duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such Act, Law, duty or authority, the following provisions shall have effect- [Order 47 of 1951.]
Limitation of Action: The action, prosecution, or proceeding shall not lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within three months next after the act, neglect or default complained of, or in case of a continuance of damage or injury within three months next after the ceasing thereof: Provided that if the action, prosecution or proceeding be at the instance of any person for cause arising while such person was a convict prisoner, it may be commenced within three months after the discharge of such person from prison."
- PER A. M. BAYERO, J.C.A. IN MODIBBO ADAMA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, YOLA V IJANDIR ISAAC SAMUEL YARAI
suit no: CA/YL/164/2017
Legalpedia Electronic Citation: (2020) Legalpedia (CA) 19218
Topic starter
June 30, 2020 1:32 pm
Summary Of Fact:
By a Writ of Summons, the Plaintiff/Respondent claimed against the Defendant/Appellant in the Federal High Court Gombe, sitting in Yola, a declaration of the Honourable Court that the purported expulsion of the Plaintiff by the Defendant is unlawful, illegal, wrongful and an abuse of the Plaintiff right of fair hearing; a declaration of the Honourable Court that withholding of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Result and non-mobilization of the Plaintiff for the NYSC Programme by the Defendant is unlawful and illegal; an order of the Honourable Court directing the Defendant to forthwith release the Plaintiff’s Statement of Result/Certificate for onward mobilization to NYSC Programme; the sum of Five Million Naira (N5,000,000) only as general damages. Issues were joined. The Respondent testified for himself and tendered several exhibits. The Appellant called one witness who tendered several exhibits as well. The lower Court delivered its Judgment resolving all the issues in favour of the Respondent. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision, the Appellant has filed this appeal contending that the Statute of Limitation Act caught up the Respondent’s suit.
