That the legal right to approach the court for redress does not exist in perpetuity but is generally tampered by a statute of limitation. See the case of LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT Vs. MARTINS (2015) ALL FWLR (Pt. 794) 27 @ 42 Paragraph E.
Generally where a law provides for the institution of an action in a court of law within a prescribed period in respect of a cause of action accruing to the Claimant, proceedings shall not be brought after the expiration of the period stipulated by law. Such statutes that prescribe and regulate the period for subsistence of causes of action are statutes of limitation and Legal proceedings cannot be properly or validly instituted outside the time frame set by statutes of limitation.
See OBA J. A. AREMO II Vs. ADEKANYE & 2 ORS. (2004) 13 NWLR (PT. 891) 572, IBRAHIM Vs. LAWAL & ORS (2015) LPELR-24736(SC).
However, this provision admits of some exceptions. In ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF RIVERS STATE Vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF BAYELSA STATE (2012) 6-7 MJSC (PT. 111) 149, the Supreme Court stated at pages 181 - 182 that the Public officers (protection) Act has never intended to deprive a party of legal capacity to ventilate his grievance on the face of stark injustice hence, the Act has prescribed two “most important exceptions” namely, that in case of continuance of damage or injury the Act permits action to be brought on the expiration thereof outside three months. And secondly the Act does not cover a situation where the person relying on it acted outside the colour of his office or outside his statutory or constitutional duty. See NWANKWERE Vs. ADEWUMI (1967) NWLR 45 AT 49; ANOZIE V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION (2008) 10 NWLR (PT. 1095) 278 AT 290 - 291".
It is the opinion of this court that the operation of these statutes do not bar claims for work and labour done, considering that the claimant’s claim against the Defendant in this case is for money owed in salaries and benefits accruing to the Claimant during his tenure of work with the Defendant.
