Like most human activities, time more often than not is of essence when it comes to exercising ones right of action in law, for where there is a right, there is a remedy and senseless delay may prove fatal to activating such right.
Where a law prescribes a time frame within which an action must be instituted, it cannot be instituted after that period. The onus is therefore on a claimant to be vigilant and always act timeously if he deserves remedy to the infringement of his rights.
This has been adumbrated in a plethora of cases such as PHCN V Alabi (2010) 5NWLR (Pt.1168) page 65 CA at page 83 para H.
The courts have also in other decisions maintained the same position, in Merchantile Bank Nig Ltd v Feteco (Nig) Ltd (1998) 3NWLR (Pt. 540) page 143 at pages 156-157 paras G-B where the immutable Niki Tobi JCA (as he then was) had this to say ‘’ If a claimant sleeps, he cannot suddenly wake up. He is caught up by the statute of limitations’’.
The purpose of Limitation law is therefore to discourage litigations on stale claims, which if allowed may end up not only embarrassing the defendant whose witnesses and other relevant pieces of evidence are no longer available or are destroyed, respectively, but also dissipate the precious time of the court.
Limitation law is very vital in areas of its application and once a matter or action is statute barred, Claimant’s right of action is extinguished. The claimant is divested of the right to legal remedies and enforcement any legal reliefs there from as there is nothing left to build on. See Eboigbe v NNPC (1994) 5NWLR (Pt 347page 649 SC at 659 Para A per Adio JSC.
Limitation of action commences when a cause of action accrues. Indeed, time begins to run on the date the cause of action accrues and this can be gleaned from the originating process, including writ of summons and statement of claim. Lawal v Ejidike (1997)2NWLR (Pt.847) page 319 at page 328 para G. Agi v Eno (2015) 5NWLR pt.1188 page 26 at 641 paras B-C. Mobil producing Nig Unlimited v Uwedimo (2006) BALFWLR pt 313 page 116 CA at pages 133-134.
For the defence of statute of Limitation to ensure to the benefit of the defendant, such defence has to be pleaded as failure to do so amounts to an ambush or springing surprise on the claimant. This will run contrary to the cardinal rule of pleading. See the case of Olagunju v PHCN plc (2011) 10NWLR pt. 1254 pages 113 at 124 paras F-G per Onnoghen JSC.
While it is vital that a defendant pleads the defence of statute of limitation, he may not need to adduce evidence if the pleaded facts from the claimant apparently provide the facts needed to establish that the suit is statute barred. Olagunju v PHCN plc (supra). It is indeed not necessary to plead the law but facts that will assist the courts to holding that the matter is caught up by the limitation law, particularly when prima facie, it could be gleaned from the writ of summons and statements of claim that the action is instituted outside the period prescribed by law.
In land matters, limitation law is a vital source of defence, but unlike equitable defences of laches and acquiescence where knowledge of the real owner of land in possession of another is vital to a successful plea of the defence, such knowledge by the defendant is of no moment in matters that are statute barred. This is the position of the law as clearly stated in Elebanjo v Dawodu (2006) 15NWLR PT. 1001 P76 at 142 paras C-E per Onnoghen JSC.
It is also noteworthy that absence from jurisdiction of trespass and the subsequent lack of knowledge of a trespass can never justify the commencement of an action outside the time clearly set out for the institution of the suit. In the case of Akibu v Aeez, the Supreme Court left no one in doubt that a claimant’s lack of knowledge or absence from the place where a trespass occurred cannot ground a defence to commence action outside the limitation period.
The fact that the claimant is an illiterate is equally immaterial and does not stop the limitation statute or time from running.
While the law of limitation of actions protects a defendant against passing through embarrassing experience of facing stale litigations, it also puts the claimant on his toes to be vigilante and never to sleep on his rights.
Unfortunately, many citizens, either out of ignorance or whatever reasons, go into slumber only to attempt waking up when their matters have been statute barred.
In such situation, it has become too late in the day and certainly right of action and cause of action have become extinguished.
However, not every cause of action is statute barred. One of such cause of action that cannot be caught up by the limitation law is the application for fundamental rights enforcement of citizens guaranteed by Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as ame)
Precisely, Order III Rule 1 of Fundamental Rights (Enforcement produre) Rules 2009 clearly stipulates that “An application for the enforcement of fundamental right shall not be affected by any limitation statute whatsoever”
Criminal cases also generally are not affected by limitation law
It is advisable to always see a lawyer to avoid being caught on the wrong side of the law.
