Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
June 5, 2020 10:05 am
"It is important, however, to note that what the statute bars is the action and not the cause of action. This important distinction is not often understood. Whereas the cause of action, as shown above, refers to the facts or combination of facts which the plaintiff must adduce to be entitled to any relief, the action itself is the medium which affords him the opportunity to ventilate his bundle of facts, Patkum Industies Ltd v Niger Shoes Ltd [1988] 5 NWLR (pt. 93) 138. Put differently, a plaintiff's right of action eventuates from the existence of a cause of action, Ikine v Edjerode [2001] 12 KLR (pt 131) 3711, 3724.
In the context of this distinction, what emerges is that whereas the plaintiff's cause of action remains intact, although in a vacuous and bare form, a statute of limitation denudes him (the plaintiff) of his action, that is, his right of enforcement; the right to judicial relief, Egbe v Adefarasin [1987] 1 NWLR (pt 47) 1; Eboigbe v NNPC [1994] NWLR (pt. 347) 549. To be able, therefore, to enjoy the dividends which recourse to the judicial process affords, such a plaintiff must commence his action within the period stipulated by statute. In other words, it is a mandatory requirement, Sidi Alt v Takwa [2004] 1 WRN 180. Thus, legal proceedings cannot be validly instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period, Sanda v Kukawa Local Government [1991] 2 NWLR (pt 174) 374.
Such is the fate of the appellant's action. His action being statute-barred, Aremoll v Adekanye [2004] 42 WRN 1; Ogboru v SPDC Co Nig Ltd' [2005] 26 WRN 128, he cannot now claim any right to judicial relief, Egbe v Adefarasin (supra); Eboigbe v NNPC(supra). -
PER C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C IN ALHAJI ABBA MOHAMMED SANI VS THE PRESIDENT, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION
suit no: SC.68/2010
suit no: SC.68/2010
Legalpedia Electronic Citation: (2019) Legalpedia (SC) 42611
