"It would be wrong with due respect to concentrate on the claim in respect of injuries to hold that the Public Officer Protection Act protected the Defendants. What about the continuing detention of his vehicle? Would that not be a case of continuing injury? If proved to be unlawful? The law is settled on the meaning of continuing damage or injury.

It is also settled that a case of continuing damage or injury is an exception to the application of Public Officers Protection Law. According to Kekere-Ekun J.S.C. in INEC v. OGBADIBO LOCAL GOVERNEMT & ORS (2015) LPELR-24839(S.C.). "The continuance of the damage or injury constitutes an exception to the general rule. It was held in OBIEFUNA v. OKOYE (1961) ALL NLR 357 at 360 that "continuance of injury or damage means continuance of the legal injury and not merely continuance of the injurious effects of a legal injury" see also OLAOSEBIKAN v. WILLIAMS (1996) 5 NWLR (PT 449) 437 at 456-457".

In IBUEKE & ORS v. NNAMCHI & ORS (2012) 12 NWLR (PT 1314) p. 327; Onnoghen JSC. (as he then was) explained the principle of continuity of trespass this way. "Also settled the principle of continuity of trespass or successive acts of trespass constituting separate and independent actionable wrongs in trespass. It follows that where there is continuity of acts of trespass successive actions can be mentioned by a Plaintiff from time to time in respect of the continuance of trespass - see ADEPOJU v. OKE (1999) 2 NWLR (PT 594) 154 at 169.

It is from a combination of the above principles that emerged the doctrine of continuing trespass giving rise to actions from day to day as long as the wrong lasts. In such a situation/circumstance an action for trespass cannot be defeated by a plea of limitation of time.........." The limitation period under Section 2(a) of the Public Officer Protection Act will not apply in cases of continuing injury or damage. See SULGRAVE HOLDINGS INC. & ORS v. F.G.N.& ORS (2012) 17 NWLR 1329 p. 309.

That is however not to say that the physical injury sustained by the Plaintiff is covered under the principle. The initial cause of the injury was not (from the pleadings) caused by the Defendants. This was in the year 2005. The aggravation of the injury by the detention of the injury (as alleged by the Plaintiff) was done between 25/2/2005 and the early days of the month of March, 2005. The festering of the injury is not the continuance of the legal injury. This action was initiated on 25/6/2008. Years after the sustenance of the injury.

To apply the principle to cover the physical injury suffered by the Plaintiff would take it too far. It is the continuance of the injurious effect of the legal injury. See OLASEBIKAN (supra) and not the legal injury that is relevant in this situation. See OBIEFUNA v. OKOYE (supra). But this is not the end of the matter. I am of the firm view that the learned trial Judge erred to have held that the principle of continuance of injury or continuing trespass did not apply to the Plaintiff case. On the face of the pleadings Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act does not apply to protect the Defendants."

Per AWOTOYE, J.C.A. IN NWAFOR v. NCS & ORS CITATION: (2018) LPELR-45034(CA)