EDET STEPHEN BASSEY V. UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR (2021)

Background

This case revolves around a dispute between the appellant, Edet Stephen Bassey, and the University of Calabar regarding his expulsion from the university’s CES programme in the Department of Political Science. The appellant claimed that the expulsion violated his fundamental right to fair hearing under Nigerian law. He sought various declaratory reliefs through a writ of summons filed at the Federal High Court, including his re-admittance to the university.

Issues

The main issues presented for determination were:

1. Whether the trial judge erred in dismissing the letter dated March 20, 2014, as a "worthless document" that did not alter the content of an earlier letter dated January 13, 2014.
2. Whether the appellant had effectively "slept over" his rights according to Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, 2004, thus rendering his action statute-barred.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal, presided over by Mojeed Adekunle Owoade JCA, dismissed the appeal. It held that:

1. The period of limitation under the Public Officers Protection Act begins to run from the date the cause of action arises, which in this case was February 4, 2014 — the date the appellant was informed of his expulsion.
2. Engagement in negotiations does not suspend or break the limitation period. The court emphasized that statutory time limits cannot be altered by negotiation between the parties.
3. The protections offered under the Public Officers Protection Act serve to shield public officers from undue harassment through stale claims.

Court Findings

The court made several critical findings:

• The appellant was served with a letter of expulsion on February 4, 2014, which established the timeline for filing his claim.
• There was no significant legal impediment preventing the appellant from filing his action within the three-month period stipulated by the Public Officers Protection Act.
• Negotiations between the parties did not inhibit the running of time for the purpose of filing the action.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge correctly identified that the appellant’s action was statute-barred as it was filed well beyond the permissible three-month window. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to bear his own costs.

Significance

This case highlights the importance of adhering to statutory time limits in legal actions against public officers in Nigeria. It reinforces the principle that engaging in negotiations does not pause the clock on limitation periods. This ruling serves as a significant reference point for future cases involving similar legal questions about statutory limitations and the rights of public officers.