site logo

ABUBAKAR ABDULRAHMAN V. NNPC (2020)

case summary

Supreme Court of Nigeria

Before Their Lordships:

  • Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta JSC (Presided)
  • Olukayode Ariwoola JSC
  • John Inyang Okoro JSC
  • Amina Adamu Augie JSC
  • Uwani Musa Abba-Aji JSC (Read the Lead Judgment)

Parties:

Appellant:

  • Abubakar Abdulrahman

Respondent:

  • Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation
Suit number: SC.103/2007

Background

This case concerns the entitlements of the appellant, Abubakar Abdulrahman, following the termination of his employment with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). The appellant filed a suit in the Federal High Court seeking payment of his pension and other terminal benefits after his employment was terminated. The NNPC contested the suit on the grounds that it was statute-barred under section 12(1) of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Act, 2004.

Issues

The key legal issues in this case are:

  1. Whether the appellant's terminal benefits are subject to section 12(1) of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Act.
  2. When the cause of action for the claim arose.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the claims for pension and medical benefits constituted continuing injuries, thereby allowing the action despite the elapse of the 12-month limitation period stipulated in section 12(1) of the Act.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that:

  • The statute of limitation only applies to actions, not the cause of action itself.
  • The appellant's terminal benefits, which included pension, had already been earned and must continue to be paid regardless of the termination of employment.
  • The denial of these benefits constituted a continuous injury, allowing the appellant to file his claim beyond the typical limitation period.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the decision of the Court of Appeal and affirming the ruling of the trial court, which recognized the appellant’s right to claim his earned terminal benefits. The respondent was ordered to pay costs totaling N1,000,000 to the appellant.

Significance

This case is significant as it clarifies the interpretation of limitation laws in the context of employment benefits, particularly how they apply to recurring benefits like pensions. The court emphasized that statutory limitation defenses do not apply when injuries continue due to non-compliance with obligations relating to employee benefits.

Counsel:

  • A. A. Manta Esq. - for the Appellant
  • Paul Usoro, SAN (with him, Nnamonso Ekanem, SAN and Ime Edem-Nse) - for the Respondent
Loading recommendations...
Loading sidebar...