Adamu Abubakar v. Michelin Motor Tyre Services Limited

LIMITATION LAW — Limitation Period — Distinction between actions under Section 14 and Section 18 of Plateau State Limitation Law “Section 14 of the Plateau State Limitation Law (Edict No. 16 of 1988) is not applicable, rather Section 18 (supra) is relevant and applicable… nowhere in the appellant’s pleadings was mortgage or charge even remotely averred to and the facts averred to do not support such an action. The issue in controversy between the parties does not arise from mortgage or charge. The appellant’s pleading reveals that he sued the respondent for refundable deposits and bonuses. This is a clear case of breach of contract. How the appellant got the money to pay for the refundable deposit is a private transaction between the appellant and UBA PLC. The respondent is not a party to that transaction… The appellant’s claim has nothing to do with sums of money secured by a mortgage or charge on property and proceeds of sale of land.” Per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, in Abubakar v. Michelin Motor Services Ltd (2020) NLC-123-141-2014(SC) at pp. 13–14; Paras C–A.

LIMITATION LAW — Limitation Period — Effect of bringing action outside limitation period on jurisdiction of Court “The purport and effect of a statute of limitation, such as the Plateau State Limitation Edict No. 16 of 1988 is that where the statute prescribes a period within which an action should be brought, legal proceedings cannot validly be brought or instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period. An action brought after the prescribed period is said to be statute-barred… the essence of a limitation law is that the legal right to enforce an action is not a right in perpetuity, but a right generally limited by statute. Consequently, where the action is bought outside the prescribed period, the Court is divested of jurisdiction to entertain the matter, as it is no longer a live issue.” Per Kekere-Ekun, JSC, in Abubakar v. Michelin Motor Services Ltd (2020) NLC-123-141-2014(SC) at pp. 18–19; Paras B–D.

LIMITATION LAW — Limitation Period — Limitation period on action founded on contract; calculation of time from accrual of cause of action “The Respondent, refusing to pay the refundable deposit, made its refusal to pay very clear in the letter dated 26th July, 1999. The right to the cause of action… accrued to the Appellant from the said refusal to pay and was duly communicated to the Appellant on 26th July, 1999. The five (5) years period for the purpose of the limitation, calculated from the said 26th July, 1999, ends in July, 2004. The suit commenced in 2007 was clearly statute barred, and right to enforce the cause of action extinguished against the Appellant, as the plaintiff.” Per Eko, JSC, in Abubakar v. Michelin Motor Services Ltd (2020) NLC-123-141-2014(SC) at pp. 21–22; Paras A–B.

LIMITATION LAW — Limitation Period — Limitation period on action founded on contract; effect of bringing an action outside the limitation period “When it is said that an action is statute barred, it simply means that the action/claim is barred from being heard and determined by any Court by a provision of a statute. It is usually as to time. The bar gives a time limit during which certain actions can be brought to Court. Failure to bring the action within the time stipulated by the statute renders the action invalid and the Court without jurisdiction to hear the action/claim… Once an action is found to be caught by the Limitation Law, the hearing of the suit abates. It can never be revived… To find out whether the claimants claim is caught by the Limitation law, first identify the claimants claim, or cause of action and this is done by examining in detail the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim. It would then be easy to find out when the wrong which gave the claimant his cause of action was committed. Compare that date with the date the Writ of Summons was filed. If the Writ of Summons was filed outside the period provided for the claimant’s claim the claim is no longer actionable. It is statute barred. The entire exercise spelt out above can be done without taking evidence.” Per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, in Abubakar v. Michelin Motor Services Ltd (2020) NLC-123-141-2014(SC) at pp. 6–9; Paras A–C.

LIMITATION LAW — Limitation Period — Meaning of cause of action and determination of when it accrues “A cause of action means the factual situation which entitles one person to obtain a remedy from another person in Court. Any act on the part of the defendant which gives the claimant a cause of complaint is a cause of action. Put in another way a cause of action is the fact or combination of fact which give rise to a right to sue and it consists of two elements- (a) the wrongful act of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint, and (b) the consequent damage. So, when facts establishing a civil right or obligation and facts establishing infraction of a trespass on those rights and obligations exist side by side, a cause of action is said to have accrued.” Per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, in Abubakar v. Michelin Motor Services Ltd (2020) NLC-123-141-2014(SC) at pp. 14–15; Paras C–D.

LIMITATION LAW — Limitation Period — When action founded on contract must be brought under Plateau State Limitation Law “In Plateau State an action founded in contract which the appellant’s claim happens to be must be brought within five years from when the appellant had a cause of action… Section 18 of the Plateau State Limitation Law (Edict No. 16 of 1988) states that: ‘No action founded on contract, tort or any other action not specifically provided for in parts (i) and (ii) of this edict shall be brought after the expiration of five years from the date on which the cause of action accrued…’” Per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, in Abubakar v. Michelin Motor Services Ltd (2020) NLC-123-141-2014(SC) at p. 14; Paras A–B.