PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT — Limitation of actions — Recurring injury — Monthly pension shortfall as continuing injury
Ratio Decidendi
Per Onnoghen, JSC, in CNB v. Amao & Ors (2010) NLC-123-168-2007(SC) at p. 13; Paras C–D:
"This clearly demonstrates the fact that the cause of action in the circumstance arises every month when appellant pays less pension to the respondents than their full harmonized pensions, which appellant had agreed to pay. It is therefore very clear that there is continuance of injury the cessation of which cannot be determined as long as the respondents live and are paid their monthly pensions other than as harmonized."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that a monthly pension shortfall constitutes a continuing injury, giving rise to a fresh cause of action each month. The limitation period runs from each payment, not from the initial decision. The principle applies where pension payments are in issue. It ensures that pensioners can challenge ongoing shortfalls. The principle reflects that continuing injuries are treated differently. It prevents the limitation period from barring claims where the injury continues. The court must determine if the injury is continuing. The principle provides guidance on limitation in pension cases.