MR. Sunday Abiodun & Ors V. MR. Jimoh Tijani & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

NONYEREM OKORONKWO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

By a ruling of 29/7/2009 in a Preliminary Objection on grounds of limitation of action, the High Court of Ogun State per A. Rotimi Balogun Judge dismissed the appellants suit No. AB/86/2006 on the grounds that it was statute-barred in that the cause of action arose sometimes in 1992 when the claimants (herein appellants) became aware of the acquisition and this action was filed in 2006… and is outside the period of 12 years prescribed by Section 6(2) of the Limitation Laws of Ogun State 2006.

Against this ruling and the decision rendered therein, the appellant by a Notice of Appeal filed August 11, 2009 brought this appeal against the decision. The Notice of Appeal which was later amended raised the following 2 grounds of appeal which are herein set out without their particulars.

GROUND ONE

The learned trial judge erred in law when she held thus:

On the facts available to this Court from the statement of claim, another document of the Claimants/Respondents, the cause of action arose sometimes in 1992 when the Claimants became

1

aware of the acquisition and this action was filed in 2006. Guided by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Egbe vs. Adefarasin (supra) cited by the Respondents, a period of 14 years has lapsed. This without any doubt is outside the period of 12 years prescribed by Section 6(2) of the Limitation Laws of Ogun State, 2006. In view of the foregoing, the Claimants/Respondents claim is caught by the provisions of Ogun State Limitation Law. Accordingly, the preliminary objection of the 11th Defendants/Applicants is upheld and consequently, this action is dismissed..

GROUNDS TWO

The learned trial judge erred in law when she held thus:

The Claimants stated that the first time they knew about the acquisition of the land in dispute was when the 5th and 6th Defendants raised the issue in their statement of defence and this was what prompted the joinder of the 11th defendant. This also can not be the true position as paragraph 9 of the 2nd further amended statement of claim stated that there was a purported acquisition of the land by the State Government.

The background of the appeal, in my view arose from the Writ of

2

Summons by which the appellants before the lower Court as claimants claimed thus: