Whether
an action is statute barred is one of the preliminary considerations or factors
that a party/counsel must consider before commencing an action. Thus, where a
statute of limitation prescribed a period within which an action should be
brought, legal proceedings cannot be properly or validly instituted after the
expiration of the prescribed period. Thus, an action instituted after the
expiration of the prescribed period is said to be statute barred: Ogunko v. Shelle (2004) 6 NWLR (Pt. 868)
page 17, and Osun State Government v. Dalami Nig. Ltd. (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 365)
page 438.
Indeed,
the law is elementary, that when an action is statute barred, the plaintiff or claimant
loses the right to enforce the cause of action by judicial process because the
period of limitation had lapsed. In other words, when a statute of limitation
prescribes a period within which an action must be initiated, legal proceedings
cannot be properly and validly instituted after the expiration of the
prescribed period.
The
law recognizes that although a cause of action may last for eternity in a
party, but in its wisdom, the limitation law restricts the right of a party to
enforce such a right of action through judicial processes. For a party
therefore to employ the judicial processes of a court of law to enforce his
right of action against another, he needs to act diligently and timeously, by
initiating or commencing the process of enforcing the right of action within
the limit of the time prescribed in the relevant limitation law. Otherwise, the
right to undertake the action, and not the right of the action, would be lost
permanently or forever. It is either a party acts within the time prescribed by
the limitation law or holds his peace forever. This is also where the
principles of equity comes in by which it is said to aid the vigilant and not
the indolent.
The
purpose of limitations, or statute-bars like equitable doctrine of laches, in
their conclusive effects, are designed to promote justice by preventing
surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber: Sulgrave Holdings Inc v. Federal Government of Nigeria (2012) 17 NWLR 4 (Pt .1329) 309 @ 343.
Thus,
once a court has determined that an action was filed outside or after the
expiration of the time limited by the relevant statute or law save for
recognized exceptions, such as the existence
of fraud, that would be the end
of the case. In such a situation, the only legally viable option opened to the
court and indeed power, is to strike out the action for being barred by
statute. Unless the law or statute makes provisions for extension of time or
exceptions, the court has no competence or power and cannot extend the time or
look for excuses to avoid the application of the limitation of time prescribed:
Akinmouye v. Military Administrator,
Ondo State (1997) 1 NWLR (483) 564 at 566 - 7; and Abubakar v. Nasamu (2012) 2-
3 MJSC 1 at 55.
Consequently,
‘statute-bar’ is not an absolute bar to institution of proceedings. For example,
there are exceptions to the three months limitation period for commencement of
action against public officers. These exceptions are for instance, where a public officer fails to act in good
faith, or acts in abuse of office, or maliciously, or with no semblance of
legal jurisdiction: Lagos City
Council v. Ogunbiyi (1969) 1 All NLR 279; CBN v. Okojie (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt. 882)
488; and Offoboche v. Ogoja LGA (2001) 16 NWLR (Pt. 739) 458.
In
conclusion therefore, the exceptions to a situation when an action is statute barred
are:
- 1. Fraud
- 2. Where the statute of limitation also prescribes an exception
- 3. Where there is lack of good faith
- 4. Where there is abuse of office
- 5. Where the action was ultra vires or without jurisdiction.
© Onyekachi Duru Esq and www.legalemperors.com,
2016 (All Rights Reserved). Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this
material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or
owner is strictly prohibited. Excepts and links may be used, provided that full
and clear credit is given to Onyekachi
Duru Esq and www.legalemperors.com with
appropriate and specific directions to the original content.