SECTION 12 OF THE NIGERIA NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION ACT – LIMITATION OF SUIT AGAINST THE NIGERIA NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION  

 

Admin2
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 111
11/05/2020 1:38 pm  

"The type of suits covered by the section are spelt out in sub-section (1) of the section, which provides:

 

"(1) Notwithstanding anything in any other enactment,   no   suit   against the Corporation, a member of the Board or any employers of the Corporation for any act done in pursuance or execution of any enactment or law, or of any public duties or authority, or in alleged neglect or default in the execution of such enactment or law, duties or authority, shall lie or be instituted in any court unless it is commenced within twelve months next after the act, neglect or default complained of, or in the case of a continuance of damage or injury, within twelve months next after the ceasing thereof."

Sub-paragraph 2, which follows, then provides that no suit shall be commenced against the Corporation before the expiration of a period of one month after written notice to commence legal action shall have been given by the intending plaintiff".
 
 
 
 
PER K. M. O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. IN WARRI REFINING & PETROCHEMICAL CO LTD VS GECMEP NIGERIA LIMITED  SUIT NO:SC. 769/2017


LEGALPEDIA ELECTRONIC CITATION:
(2020) Legalpedia (SC) 11195
 


 
 
 
 
 

Quote
Admin2
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 111
11/05/2020 1:39 pm  

Summary Of Fact:

By its Writ of Summons and statement of claim, the Respondent as Plaintiff, sought the following reliefs against the Appellant; an order of the Honourable court declaring the Defendants letter rejecting the Heptane Chemical supplied to it by the Plaintiff as null and void and of no effect; the sum of #20, 278, 065. 00 being the debt owed to the Plaintiff by the Defendant for the supply of Heptane Chemicals; 21% interest accruing on the debt from 13th December 2013, when the debt was due for payment to the date of payment of the debt; the sum of 450, 000.00 being special damages arising from transportation and hotel bills expended by the Plaintiffs in nine (9) trips to the Defendants office over the delayed payment; the sum of 50 million as general damages for breach of contract.

The Appellant filed a Statement of Defence and filed a motion seeking an order setting down for hearing the points of law raised in the Statement of Defence.

The parties filed and exchanged written addresses in respect of the points of law, which were accordingly set down for hearing.

The learned trial Judge held that since there is no provision for pre-action notice in the contract between the Plaintiff/Respondent and the Defendant/Applicant, the court will assume jurisdiction over the matter.

The Appellant was dissatisfied with the decision and appealed to the lower court, which appeal was dismissed.

The Appellant is still dissatisfied and has further appealed to this court.

The Respondent raised a preliminary objection to the hearing of the appeal contending that the appeal being interlocutory was filed outside the period prescribed by Section 27(2) of the Supreme Court Act, Cap 515 LFN 2004 and no application for extension of time to seek leave appeal was made, that grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the notice of appeal involve questions of mixed law and fact, for which leave ought to have been sought and obtained and that issues A and C formulated in the Appellants brief are distilled from incompetent grounds and therefore incompetent.

 


ReplyQuote
Share:
Views All Time
Views All Time
278405
Views Today
Views Today
284