Kamaludeen Ibrahim Inuwa V. Bayero University Kano & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.

The Appellant, as Plaintiff before the lower Court, sued the Respondents, as Defendants, challenging his unlawful withdrawal from the 1st Respondent’s institution as an undergraduate student. He testified as sole witness in proof of his case, while 3 witnesses testified for the defence. Following conclusion of trial and consideration of written addresses, the trial Judge, Fatun O. Riman J of the Kano State High Court, in his judgment delivered on the 5th December 2014, dismissed the suit on the grounds that the case was statute barred and that the Appellant had failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on him. He also held that the Courts cannot interfere in the function of the University in the award of degrees.

Dissatisfied with this Judgment, the Appellant has appealed by Notice of Appeal dated and filed on the 27th February 2015.

In prosecution of the appeal, the Appellant, through his Counsel, N.L. Garba Esq. of Nureini Jimoh Chambers, filed on 2nd day of June 2015 a Brief of Arguments dated 25th May 2015 but deemed properly filed by leave of

1

the Court on 6th October 2015, raising the following issues for the Courts determination:
1. Whether the principle of statute bar operates against the suit leading to this appeal.
2. Whether the claims of the Appellant could be rightly held as non justifiable.
3. Whether the Appellant successfully proved his case on the balance of probabilities, taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence before the trial Court.

The Respondents, through their counsel, T.E. Mosugu of S.E. Mosugu & Co, filed a joint Brief of Arguments dated 11th November 2015 on 3th November 2015, in which they adopted the issues formulated by the Appellant. The Appellant, in response, filed an Appellant’s Reply Brief dated 9/2/16 on 10/2/16.

The 1st issue for determination raised by the Appellant is the following:
Whether the principle of statute bar operates against the suit leading to this appeal

At the lower Court, the Respondents contended in their pleadings that the action of the Appellant was statute barred. The trial Judge, upholding this objection, held that the period between 19/4/2012. when the cause of action arose and

2

20/12/2012, when the suit was instituted, was beyond the period of three months, contrary to Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act. He disagreed with the Appellant that the injury was a continuous one or came within any of the exceptions allowed by the Act.

Both Counsel, in their Briefs of Argument before this Court, have argued extensively on this issue. While the Appellant contends that there was a continuity of damages and injury and that the Respondents acted without a semblance of legal justification rendering the statute unavailable to them, the Respondents contend the contrary. The question, however, is whether the defence of statute bar is available to the Respondents in this case.

Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act Cap P41 Laws of the Federation 2004 provides as follows:
SECTION 2
Where any action, prosecution, or other proceeding is commenced against any person for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of any Act of Law or of any public duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such Act, Law, duty or authority, the following

3