Cross River University Of Technology (Crutech) V. Mr. Lawrence O. Obeten (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an interlocutory appeal against the ruling of P. M. Ekpe, J. of the High court, cross River state of Nigeria, sitting at Calabar, delivered on 24th July, 2009 and in which the said court struck out the preliminary objection raised by the appellant herein, on the basis that it was misconceived. Parties were then ordered to file their respective depositions within 14 days and the matter was subsequently adjourned to 23rd October, 2009 for hearing.

The gravamen of the preliminary objection raised by the appellant/defendant before the trial court was that the suit instituted by the respondent herein as the plaintiff was statute barred. The facts of the case as garnered from the statement of claim contained in the record of appeal include the following. The respondent was employed by the appellant. The respondent’s initial letter of appointment was dated 19th, June, 1997. The respondent’s appointment, which was later confirmed, was terminated vide appellant’s letter dated 2nd August, 2006. Thereafter, the respondent received another letter from the appellant dated 17th January, 2007, wherein the respondent was informed that records kept by the appellant, showed that the respondent was yet to adhere to the directive to obtain a certificate of medical fitness from the Medical Centre. The respondent who considered this development as indicative of his having been recalled or reinstated, promptly complied therewith and submitted the said certificate of medical fitness to the appellant as contained in the said letter dated 17th January, 2007. When the respondent’s hope of being reinstated became unrealized, he then filed Suit No. HC/135/2007 against the appellant. The respondent claimed the following reliefs:

(19) WHEREOF the Plaintiff claims against the Defendant as follows: –

(a) A declaration that the termination of the Plaintiffs appointment is wrong, illegal, void, unconstitutional and is of no effect.

(b) The continue refusal of the Defendant to take back the Plaintiff and pay him his accumulated salaries despite the medical test he did and submitted the report accordingly on the directive of the Defendant is wrong, illegal and a breach of Plaintiff’s fundamental right and the condition of service/ Cross River State Public Service Rules, 2004 binding them.

(c) An order reinstating the Plaintiff in the employment of the Defendant.

(d) An order directing the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff his arrears of salary of N14,647 a month from the month of October, 2006 to when he will be reinstated and thereafter.

(e) General damages of N2m” (sic)

On 7th May, 2007, the appellant as defendant filed a notice of preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain and determine the suit as constituted, on the following two grounds:

“1. That this honourable court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit in so far as the same is Statute Barred and cannot be sustained having regards to section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Law of Cross River 2004 as amended by section 1 of Public Officers protection (Amendment) Law 2007.

2. That this suit constituCLETUS NNAJI & ORS. v. OGUZIE ONUOHAtes an abuse of court processes.”

Upon the adoption of written addresses previously filed and exchanged by the learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid ruling of the learned trial judge was delivered. In the said ruling, the learned trial judge, observed, reasoned and held:

“Section 1 (a) of the public Officers, Protection Law as amended stipulates that an action can only be brought against a Public Officer or authority within 6 months next after the act or default complained of.

The question before this court is: When did time begin to run for the claimant/Respondent. His appointment was terminated and a letter issued to him in August 2006. Sometimes in January 2007 another letter was again written to the claimant requesting for a medical report which he produced even though he was never re – instated. The claimant then finally instituted this suit in April, 2007.