Abubakar v. Nasamu (No.1) [2012] 17 NWLR (Pt. 1330) 407 at 459-460, paras. H-A, per Adekeye, JSC:


“Where the limitation of time is imposed in a Constitution, Statute, Decree or Edict unless they make provision for extension of time, the courts cannot extend the time…”

Notes:

Mostly, in civil actions, an aggrieved party does not have the luxury to institute the action whenever (s)he pleases. The underlying rationale is that there must be an end to litigation. For this purpose, we have several limitation law of States prescribing the time within which an action may be commenced in court. This is known as the period of limitation.
Thus, where statute makes provision for the relevant period, it must be complied with. The effect of failure to institute the action within time is that same would be said to be statue-barred, meaning that time has caught up with the suit. The suit or action now stands barred by statute from being entertained in court forever. The court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine a statute-barred action.
Interestingly, once an action is held to be statute-barred, it dies a natural death irrespective of whatever merits the case might have. Again, it does not mean that there is no cause of action. Rather, what it means is that the right to enforce the cause of action has been neutralised time having elapsed. Consequently, a court cannot extend time within which an action may be instituted in the absence of any statutory provision for extension of time. To do otherwise would tantamount to acting outside its jurisdiction as well as usurping the powers of the legislature.
Overtime, the reasons for the strict rule of limitation of action has been upheld. It is a rule founded on public policy, such that in addition to the idea that there must be an end to litigation, a case not filed within time may be prejudicial to the defendant who might have lost the material evidence needed for his proper defence of the suit.
 


Stephen Azubuike
Author: Stephen Azubuike
Stephen is a lawyer with expertise in Commercial Dispute Resolution and Technology Law practice. He is a Partner at Infusion Lawyers. He has successfully argued cases from the High Courts of various jurisdictions to the Appellate Courts on behalf of financial institutions, other corporate bodies and multinationals. He has advised a number of both established and startup tech companies. He tweets @siazubuike.
Send this to a friend