"We have always stated that it is highly immoral and offensive for a party to enjoy the benefits of a contract, and when called upon to pay for it, pleads statute of limitation, to escape responsibility, while still enjoying the proceeds of the contract. See First Bank Plc Vs Standard Polyplastic Industries Ltd (2018) LPELR - 44081 CA, where it was held. "Appellant in my view, cannot raise any issue of statute of limitation against the liability and claims of the Respondent, even if the doctrine of statute of limitation could be invoked, to stop recovery of debt accruing in a Contractual transaction as in this case. See A.G. Adamawa State Vs A.G. Federation (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1428) 515 at 566, where the Supreme Court held: "As clearly shown, in the statement of claim of the Plaintiff, their cause of action arose at the acceptance and acknowledgment of indebtedness by the defendant in July 1983, and time therefore began to run effectively from then. "It should be appreciated that, in law relating to statute of limitation, time cannot run out in a situation of a continuous act of damage or injury. It should also be added that it would be immoral and legally offensive, in my opinion, for a party to seek to invoke the rule of statute bar, just to defeat a legitimate claim for refund of money, and escape responsibility, after taking advantage of a contract and benefit from the transaction for which he is called upon to account."

Per MBABA, J.C.A. IN COMMISSIONER FOR FINANCE, IMO STATE & ORS v. KOJO MOTORS LTD CITATION: (2018) LPELR-45075(CA)