Patrick Mbonu V. Nigerian Mining Corporation (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NZEAKO, J.C.A.

On the 12th of July, 2001, Okeke, J. sitting at the Federal High Court of Justice, Jos Division, Plateau State, Nigeria delivered in favour of the defendant, the ruling now appealed against by the plaintiff who was dissatisfied with it.

The brief background to this matter is that the plaintiff in an action which he filed on 22/11/99, claimed against the defendant, as shown in paragraph 22 of his statement of claim the following reliefs:

“1. A declaration that the plaintiff’s services with the defendant from 7th October, 1976 to 19th April, 1991 and from 1st August, 1991 to 31st July, 1998 are condonable, continuous and pensionable within the Public Service of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

2. An order directing the defendant to condone the break which occurred in the plaintiff’s service from 19th April, 1991 to 31st July, 1991, as a result of the defendant’s letter of redundancy, which letter the defendant subsequently withdrew.

And to merge plaintiff’s period of casual employment from 15th March, 1976 to his regular appointment from 7th October, 1976.

3. An order directing the defendant to compute and pay the plaintiff’s gratuity and pension accruing to him for services rendered to the defendant from 15th March, 1976 up to and including 31st July, 1998 when the plaintiff voluntarily retired from the defendant’s service, less any previous payments made to him in whatever guise or description.
4. General damages in the sum of N50,000 (fifty thousand Naira only).
5. Cost of this action.”

The defendant filed a statement of defence. Therein in its paragraph 22, it raised an objection – a point of law as to the competence of the action thus: –

“Adverting generally to the claim, the defendant shall at or before the hearing of this suit contend that the cause of action herein having arisen on or about the 20/11/96 and the present suit having not been commenced until the 23/11/99 (a period of about 3 years and 3 days) the entire suit is statute-barred. The defendant shall on this find and rely on the provisions of the Public Officers Protection Act, Cap. 379, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.”

This objection was argued before trial, with leave of the court below. The defendant, relying on the Public Officers Protection Act, Cap. 379 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, contended that the action was statute-barred in that it had not been commenced within three months from the date the cause of action arose. Being 20/11/96. A letter of the defendant of that date had declined the plaintiff’s plea for condonation of the short period of redundancy between April and July, 1991. But in the suit, the appellant was claiming remedies spanning beyond that.

The learned trial Judge heard the submission of learned counsel for the parties and upheld the preliminary objection, holding among other things, that by virtue of the Public Officers Protection Act the action was statute-barred, not having been brought within 3 months after the cause of action arose.

In the course of his ruling, the learned trial Judge also held: –

“It is my view and I so hold that by this letter reproduced above there was a break between the initial employment and the later one therefore the plaintiff cannot be asking for condonation when the nexus between the service periods has been broken by the contents of the letter reproduced above.”

Dissatisfied with all the foregoing, the plaintiff appealed to this court.

There were 4 grounds of appeal. I set them out:

Ground 1: The learned trial court erred in law and thus occasioned a miscarriage of justice when it held thus: