OLATEJU V. COMM., L.&H., KWARA STATE (2024) 17 NWLR (PT. 1968) 473
ON EFFECT WHERE ACTION STATUTE BARRED
Where a statute of limitation prescribes a period within which an action should be commenced, legal proceedings cannot be properly or validly instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period. Therefore, a cause of action is statue barred if legal proceedings cannot be commenced in respect of same because the period laid down by the limitation law had lapsed. An action which is not brought within the prescribed period offends the provisions of the law and does not give rise to a cause of action. [Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1310) 137 referred to.] (P. 528, paras. C-E).
OLATEJU V. COMM., L.&H., KWARA STATE (2024) 17 NWLR (PT. 1968) 473
ON PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER ACTION STATUTE BARRED
When an issue arises as to the cause of action being statue barred, the court is enjoined to first examine the date on the originating process of the action. In determining the yardstick to ascertain whether an action is statue barred the following will be considered:
(a) the date when the cause of action accrued;
(b) the date of the commencement of the suit as indicated in the summons;
(c) the period of time prescribed for initiating the action to be ascertained from the statute in question.
OLATEJU V. COMM., L.&H., KWARA STATE (2024) 17 NWLR (PT. 1968) 473
ON EFFECT WHERE ACTION STATUTE BARRED
A legal action initiated or instituted in a court of law after the expiration of or outside the period of time specifically prescribed and limited by the provisions of a particular relevant law or statute for the commencement of such an action is said to be statute barred and deprives the court of the requisite judicial power and authority, or jurisdiction, to entertain and adjudicate over it, on the merit. Absence of or a fundamental defect in the jurisdiction of a court to adjudicate over an action on any cognizable ground in law renders all proceedings conducted in the action by the affected court null, void and of no legal consequences. [Lakanmi v. Adene (2003) 10 NWLR (Pt. 828) 353; Ekulo Farms v. Union Bank (2006)3 FWLR (Pt. 323) 4295; Gov., Kwara State v. Dada (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1267) 384 referred to.] (P. 522, paras. E-G).
OLATEJU V. COMM., L.&H., KWARA STATE (2024) 17 NWLR (PT. 1968) 473
ON BASIS OF AND RATIONALE FOR LIMITATION STATUTES
There are at least three reasons for the existence of limitation laws with respect to various types of actions in court. The rationale or justification supporting the existence of statutes of limitation includes the following:-
(a) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them;
(b) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to disprove a stale claim; and
(c) that persons with good causes of action should pursue them with reasonable diligence.
[Aremo II v Adekanye (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 891) 572referred to.] (Pp. 506-507, paras. G-B).
OLATEJU V. COMM., L.&H., KWARA STATE (2024) 17 NWLR (PT. 1968) 473
OF CLAIMANT A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO OPERATION OF LIMITATION LAW
While knowledge of the true owner of land of the adverse possession of another is essential to the success of the equitable defences of laches and acquiescence, it is not material under limitation law. Even if a plaintiff has no knowledge of the acquisition because he is not within the place where the trespass or acquisition occurred, that cannot be a valid defence to commencing the action outside the statutory period. In other words, a plaintiff who by reason of his absence from the place where the trespass occurred is unaware of the trespass cannot use such lack of knowledge as a defence to commence an action outside the limitation period. [Ajibona v. Kolawole (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 476) 22; Akibu v. Azeez (2003) 5 NWLR (Pt. 814) 643 applied.] (Pp. 510-511, paras. C-A).
OLATEJU V. COMM., L.&H., KWARA STATE (2024) 17 NWLR (PT. 1968) 473
ON WHEN A STATUTE OF LIMITATION BEGINS TO RUN
A statute of limitation begins to run from the moment the cause of action arose. It is immaterial that a party was absent from the jurisdiction or that there was no court within the jurisdiction to entertain the claim. Also, illiteracy will also not avail the plaintiff because ignorance of the law is not an accepted excuse. [Eboigbe v. N.N.P.C. (1994)5 NWLR (Pt. 347) 649 referred to.] (Pp. 512-513, paras. H-A).