"The issue of jurisdiction being fundamental cannot be treated lightly when raised in a case. See NURTW & ANOR. VS. RTEAN & ORS. (2012) LPELR-7840 SC. The issue of jurisdiction raised in the instant case is that of statute of limitation under Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Law of Akwa Ibom State. The lntendment of this law is to bar any claim that was not filed within three months of the cause of action. It is very worrisome that the lower Court held that the law which is the Public Officers Protection Law was not mandatory but directory and that the appellants having filed a statement of defence, the Appellant was deemed to have waived their right to complain.
This definitety with due respect, is a misconception of the law. The statute of limitation in issue is a law of the House of Assembly of the State. The law requires that where an action, prosecution or other proceedings is commenced against any person for any act done in pursuance or intended execution of any act or law or of any public duty or authority or in respect of any alleged neglect or assault in the execution of any such act or law, duty or authority, the action, prosecution or proceedings shall not lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within three months next after the actions, neglect or default complained of or in case continuance of damage or injury within three months next ceasing thereof. In the case of ASABORO & ANOR. VS. PAN OCEAN OIL CORP. NIG. LTD. & ANOR. (2017) LPELR-41558(SC), Nweze, JSC held:
"...... all Limitation Statutes owe their evolution to considerations founded on public policy. First, there is the ancient principle which is now famous for its ubiquity. It is expressed in Latin: interest rel publicae Ut sit finis litiurn - it is in the public interest that there should be an end to litigation. In addition to this requirement of public policy, the law has also taken the view that a stale claim may not only be unfair to a defendant;, it may wreak cruelty on him. The reason is simple: with the vagaries of events; the concatenation of avoidable and unavoidable circumstances and the sheer passage of time, such a defendant stands the chance of losing material pieces of evidence which, hitherto, formed part of the formidable arsenal In his defence. Limitation statues thus evolved to vouchsafe to such a defendant a statutory defence to such a stale action. That Is why such an action is said to be statute barred. This formulation has an illustrious judicial ancestry, AREMO II VS. ADEKANYE (2004) 42 WRN 1; OGBORU VS. SPDC CO. NIG. LTD. (2005) 26 WRN 128.
It is however, Important 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 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, PATKUN INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. NIGER SHOES LTD. (1988) 5 NWLR (PT. 93) 138. Put differently, a Plaintiffs right of action eventuates from the existence of a cause of action, IKINE VS. EDJERODE 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 VS. ADEFARASIN (1987) 1 NWLR (PT. 47) 1; EBOIGBE VS. 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 ALI VS. TAKWA (2004) WRN 180. Thus, legal proceedings cannot be validly instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period, SANDA VS. KUKAWA LOCAL GOVERNMENT (1991) 2 NWLR (PT. 174) 374. References had been made to Sections 4(1) and 6(2) of the above Limitation Law (applicable In Delta State at the material time). The clear effect of both sections is that, since the Appellants in this appeal (as plaintiffs) failed to invoke their right of action in time, they ran the risk of the extinction of such a right of enforcement; of entitlement to a Judicial relief A. C. B. PLC VS. N.T.S. (NIG.) LTD. (2007) 1 NWLR (PT. 1016) 596, 637); IBRAHIM VS. JSC KADUNA (1998) 12 KLR (PT. 73)2489."
Limitation laws such as the one in the instant case are statutory and must be carried out by all in the society. Statutes of limitation cannot be waived. It is a fortiori a cardinal principle of our laws that parties cannot by themselves confer jurisdiction upon the Court. The filing of a statement of defence is very well in line with the rule that rebuffs any demurrer. By Order 22 Rules 1 and 2 of the High Court of Akwa Ibom State, (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009: 'no demurrer shall be allowed. Any party may by his pleading raise any point of law and the judge may dispose of the point so raised before or at trial'. This, the Respondent clearly did in the instant case. I hold therefore that the Respondent did what was required of him. It is clearly settled that the cause of action in the light of this has expired.
"Per ADAH, J.C.A. IN ONNA TRADITIONAL RULERS COUNCIL & ORS v. UMOREN & ORS CITATION: (2018) LPELR-44301(CA)
