Peter Samuel Udo V. Jackson Devos Ltd (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JA’AFARU MIKA’ILU, (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The appellant’s case is that while in the employment of the Respondent, a limited liability company mainly in the business of manufacturing own carpets he sustained an eye injury which permanently impaired his sight. Employed as a fork lift operator, the appellant in the course of his employment in the company of a Belgian expatriate staff by name Mr. Patrick suffered severe burns in his eye from the dust that flew from a cigarette which Mr. Patrick was smoking. Thereafter the appellant was taken to Mercy Hospital Abak, Akwa Ibom State where he received treatment without recovery. This incidence is said to have occurred in 1986.

Soon after his appointment was terminated without compensation. The appellant consulted lawyers who wrote series of letters to the respondent demanding compensation on appellants’ behalf. Throughout their exchange of correspondence, Respondent did not deny liability. For instance on 7th October, 2004, respondent wrote to the appellant’s lawyer, then requesting for time to sort out appellant’s case. Suddenly the respondent in 2006 (wrongly dated as 2007) wrote to the appellant’s present counsel contesting liability and feigning ignorance and denying knowledge of every thing.

Thus the appellant instituted the suit that resulted in this appeal.

There are four grounds of appeal which read as follows:-

1. The Judgment of the trial Judge is against the weight of evidence

2. The learned trial Judge erred in law when the raised the issue of limitation of time under the limitation law sustained and declared that the action was time barred without giving counsel opportunity to address on the point raised suo motu.

3. The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the cause of action having arisen in 1986, the action which commenced in 2006 was time barred.

It is to be noted ground four in the notice of appeal filed 2nd January, 2008 had been abandoned.

From the above the issues formulated for determination in the appellant’s brief read as follows:-

1. Whether the totality of evidence adduced by the appellant in the lower court did not meet the requisite standard of Proof in civil cases.

2. Whether the learned trial Judge was not wrong in law to have raised the issue of limitation of time under the limitation suo motu and held that the action was time barred, without giving counsel opportunity to address court.

3. Whether suit No HC/223/06 commenced on 14th August, 2006 was time barred in view of respondents letter of 3rd July, 2006 (erroneously dated 3rd July, 2007) exhibit 6.

On the other hand the issues formulated for determination of the appeal in the respondent’s brief of argument read as follows:-