L. A. Udeogaranya & Anor. V. Alhaji Buari Adeyi (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court of Justice Oyo State holden at Ibadan in suit No.1/958, refusing to uphold the preliminary objection of the appellants of time bar under the public officers (Protection) Act or Law against the suit of the respondent.

The notice of appeal contains five grounds of appeal. On 11.10.06, the appellants were granted leave of the court for the appeal to be heard on their brief of argument.

Shortly stated, the respondent sued the appellants for libel in the court below. The writ of summons was issued on 20.10.90. A statement of claim dated 15.10.90, followed it. The appellants filed a joint statement of defence dated 7.1.91, on 29.10.91, where they raised the plea of time bar in paragraph 43 thereof in these words:

“WHEREOF the Defendants state that the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs claimed and should be dismissed with substantial cost to the Defendants.

SPECIAL DEFENCE

The action is statute barred by virtue of the provisions of public officers protection Act Cap. 168, Laws of the federation, 1958 and in the alternative the Public Officers Protection Law Cap. 106 Laws Oyo State, 1978.”

A Motion on Notice with an Affidavit was moved by the Appellants in the court below in which they canvassed for the dismissal of the suit based on the special plea in paragraph 43 of the statement of defence (supra). The respondent resisted the preliminary objection on points of law. He conceded that the 1st appellant as the employee of the 2nd appellant was a public officer. As for the 2nd appellant, the respondent argued that she was not a public officer. The court below agreed with him and dismissed the Motion with costs.

Three issues were extracted from the five grounds of Appeal for determination on the Appeal. They are framed thus:

“3.01 Whether the second Appellant in this matter (i.e. Central Bank of Nigeria falls within persons covered by Section 2 (a) of Public Officers Protection Law Cap.106, Laws of Oyo State, 1978 or Cap.379, Laws of the Federation 1990.

3.02 Whether the Trial Judge was right in holding ‘that evidence must be concluded in determining the issue of the action being statute barred and to do substantial justice when issues were not joined as to when the cause of action arose and the action filed.

3.03 What is the proper order to be made on an action that is found to be statute barred?”

The first issue (supra) is tied to ground (i) of the Notice of Appeal; the second issue (supra) is derived from grounds (iii) and (iv) of the Notice of Appeal; while the third issue (supra) is related to ground (v) of the Notice of Appeal.

The grounds of Appeal without their particulars read: