site logo

U.M.B. LTD V. C.B.N. (2017)

case summary

Court of Appeal (Lagos Division)

Before Their Lordships:

  • U. I. Ndukwe-Anyanwu JCA
  • Yargata Byenchit Nimpar JCA
  • Biobele Abraham Georgewill JCA

Parties:

Appellant:

  • U.M.B. Ltd

Respondent:

  • Central Bank of Nigeria
Suit number: CA/L/906/2015

Background

This case arose from a judicial review application by U.M.B. Ltd against the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) concerning the revocation of its banking license. The decision to revoke was claimed to have been made by the Governor of CBN on 28 November 2013 and communicated to the appellant via a letter dated 14 February 2014. U.M.B. Ltd sought to challenge the revocation, claiming it was unlawful and a breach of fair hearing rights.

Issues

Key issues in this case included:

  1. Whether the suit was statute-barred.
  2. The determination of when the cause of action accrued.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court held that the cause of action accrued on 28 November 2013, the day the revocation took effect. The court emphasized that the date of publication in the official gazette (20 December 2013) did not constitute the operative date of the revocation. Thus, the judicial review application filed by U.M.B. Ltd was statute-barred due to failure to initiate proceedings within the three-month period stipulated under the Public Officers Protection Act, 2004.

Court Findings

The court found that:

  • The appellant's understanding of when the cause of action accrued was flawed if it relied on the communication date instead of the revocation date.
  • Time begins to run from when all material facts are established, allowing the plaintiff to sue.
  • The Public Officers Protection Act affords protection to public officials, provided actions against them are initiated within the specified timeframe.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the appellant had initiated the suit after the expiration of the statutory limitation period. The finding clarified that the protection offered under the Public Officers Protection Act was applicable because the appellant failed to initiate the suit in due time.

Significance

This case reinforces the importance of understanding limitation laws and the critical need for legal entities to act promptly when challenging decisions made by public authorities. The decision serves as a cautionary tale regarding compliance with statutory time limits, especially in administrative law matters.

Counsel:

  • M. Akin-Ajayi - for the Appellant
  • A. M. Omolewu - for the Respondent
Loading recommendations...
Loading sidebar...