MAINTAINED AS USED IN SECTION 11 OF BANKS AND OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS DECREE 1991

• Date: 06 February 2019

(1) "Further, statutory provisions should not be given retrospective effect unless where it is clearly stated that they should have that effect. See: Udoh v. Orthopaedic Hospital Management Board, (1993) 7 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 304) 139. The question then is whether it was clear from the provisions of the Decree or the provisions of section 11 that the provisions of section 11 were to have retrospective effect. Those who contended that the provisions of section 11 were retrospective based their contention on the use of the word "maintain" in the section which according to the definition in the Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th edition meant, inter alia, continue, keep in existence or continuance, sustain, keep from collapse, a suit already began. It, however, was also stated in the said Dictionary that to maintain an action or suit might also mean to commence or institute it. Further, in Moon v. Durden, 2 Ex. 22, the majority decisions was that the use of the words: "brought or maintained "was not sufficient to make the Gaming Act, 1845 have a retrospective effect. It could well be that the meaning to be given to the word "maintained" depends on the context in which the word is used in section 11 of the Decree. The foregoing is not all. It was the word "maintained" that was used in section 11 of the Decree. It cannot reasonably be said it meant: "shall be brought" and at the same time also meant "shall be continued" which are distinct and separate expressions. If it is held that the word "maintained" meant "continued" both of which are distinct and separate expressions. If it is held that the word "maintained" meant "continued" then actions commenced before the date of commencement of the Decree (20th June, 1991), will be affected by section 11 of the Decree but those commenced after the date of commencement of the Decree (20th June, 1991) will not be affected. On the other hand, if the word "maintained" meant "shall be brought" then action instituted on or after 20th June, 1991 will be affected by the provisions of section 11 of the Decree but those instituted, like the consolidated suits, before the date of commencement of the Decree will not. The interpretation which may have the effect of making section 11 of the Decree have a retrospective effect will be absurd as it cannot be reasonably inferred that the law makers intended that suits instituted before the commencement of the Decree, should be affected and those instituted after the date of...