LIMITATION LAW — Public Officers Protection Act — Exception to Application — Need for Evidence of Bad Faith or Lack of Legal Justification
Principle Statement
For a public officer to lose the protection of the Public Officers Protection Act on the ground that he acted outside the scope of his authority or without a semblance of legal justification, it is the duty of the plaintiff/appellant to adduce evidence or facts to establish the bad faith, lack of semblance of legal justification etc, etc. The facts to be produced must exist to enable the court find the absence of semblance of legal justification etc, etc otherwise once it is established that the action was instituted outside the statutory period of three months, the action is time barred and the court will have no jurisdiction to entertain same.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per ONNOGHEN, JSC, in Hassan v. Aliyu & Ors (2010) NLC-123-170-2009(SC) at pp. 17-18; Paras E-A.
"For a public officer to lose the protection of the Public Officers Protection Act on the ground that he acted outside the scope of his authority or without a semblance of legal justification, it is the duty of the plaintiff/appellant to adduce evidence or facts to establish the bad faith, lack of semblance of legal justification etc, etc. The facts to be produced must exist to enable the court find the absence of semblance of legal justification etc, etc otherwise once it is established that the action was instituted outside the statutory period of three months, the action is time barred and the court will have no jurisdiction to entertain same."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that to lose the protection of the Public Officers Protection Act, the plaintiff must adduce evidence of bad faith or lack of legal justification. The burden is on the plaintiff to establish the exception. Otherwise, if the action is outside the three-month period, it is time-barred. The principle applies where a plaintiff sues a public officer outside the limitation period. It ensures that the exception is not assumed. The principle reflects that the Act’s protection is the default position. It prevents plaintiffs from avoiding the limitation period without evidence. The court must require proof of the exception. The principle provides guidance on the burden of proof for the exception.
