Background
The appellant, Mr. D. I. Aba, served as Chief Postal Controller on Grade Level 14 with Nigeria Postal Service (NIPOST). On 28 May 2001, he was promoted to Assistant Postmaster-General (Operations) on Grade 15, effective 17 May 2001. On 9 December 2002, NIPOST reversed the promotion citing mandatory career termination ceiling at Grade 14 for holders of Higher National Diploma (HND). The appellant’s salary was deducted and later refunded upon his complaint.
After retirement in 2003, he received a gratuity voucher dated 3 September 2004 calculated on Grade 14, and thereafter his monthly pension was also computed at Grade 14. Dissatisfied, he initiated correspondence which the respondents replied to on 24 July 2007, refusing any adjustment. On 18 July 2008, Mr. Aba filed suit No. FHC/MKD/CS/2008 at the Federal High Court, Makurdi, seeking:
- Declarations nullifying the reversion to Grade 14.
- Declaration that he retired on Grade 15 step 9 and entitlement to associated benefits.
- Payment of ₦1,285,067.10 gratuity and pension arrears.
- Continuing payment of monthly pension at Grade 15 step 9.
- Interest on arrears and judgment sums.
- General damages of ₦5,000,000 for victimization and stress.
- Costs assessed at ₦500,000.
The trial judge dismissed the suit as statute-barred but granted relief in the alternative. The Court of Appeal, Makurdi Division, dismissed the appeal on 27 February 2013. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the defence of statute of limitation is a jurisdictional issue that can be raised at any stage, including for the first time on appeal.
- Whether the claim for continuing monthly pension (paragraph 26(d)) is a separate, continuous cause of action not caught by the limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi
- Limitation law as jurisdictional: A claim barred by statute extinguishes the court’s jurisdiction, and the defence may be raised at any time, even on appeal. Section 59(1) of the NIPOST Act provides a 12-month limitation from accrual or cessation of continuous injury.
- Continuous injury doctrine: While each unpaid pension instalment may give rise to a fresh cause of action, such a claim must be clearly pleaded and supported by evidence; it cannot be re-cast at the final address stage without prior leave.
Court Findings
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment delivered by John Inyang Okoro, JSC, held:
- The appellant’s cause of action accrued on 3 September 2004 when his retirement benefits were wrongly computed. Suit was filed on 18 July 2008, almost three years later, exceeding the 12-month limit.
- Negotiations and correspondence do not suspend the running of limitation unless they result in binding settlement or admission of liability.
- The defence of statutory limitation having been pleaded, the trial court properly addressed it at the address stage; the Court of Appeal was correct to affirm the dismissal.
- Paragraph 26(d) claiming continuing pension was not isolated in evidence, and raising it without leave at the appellate stage was impermissible.
- All claims were based on the same underlying wrong, and the entire suit was statute-barred; no cause of action survived separately.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of merit, affirming the decisions below. No order as to costs was made.
Significance
This decision underscores that:
- Limitation statutes remove the court’s jurisdiction once the prescribed period expires.
- Defences of limitation are jurisdictional and may be raised at any stage, including appeal.
- Negotiations do not toll limitation unless they produce a binding settlement.
- Continuous injury claims must be pleaded and evidenced separately; they cannot revive an otherwise time-barred claim.
The ruling warns litigants to act promptly and plead all heads of relief properly to avoid forfeiture by delay.