OBIEFUNA V. OKOYE

• Pages: 52-56

52



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1964] N.S.C.C.

(2)

that the Appraiser shall have his costs here and below, assessed in all at

one hundred and ten guineas;

(3)

that it be declared that every dwelling-house occupied by an employee on

payment of rent in the Railway compounds at Iddo, Apapa, and Ebute Metta,

shall be valued and assessed as a tenement on its own under the Assess-



5

ment Act, cap. 15.

Appeal allowed.

10

OB1EFUNA V. OKOYE

MICHAEL OBIEFUNA



APPELLANT



15

V

ALEXANDER OKOYE



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 131/1962

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.



20

TAYLOR,



J.S.C.

COKER,



AG. J.S.C.

7th March, 1964

Legislation - Public Officers Protection Act, (1958 Laws of the Federation, c.168),



25

s.2 - Supreme Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1945 0.32, R.13 (in 1948 Laws,

Civil Action - Practice and Procedure - Pleadings - Defence of limitation of time

wider the Act.



30

ISSUES:

1.

Should a suit be dismissed on the ground that it was not specifically pleaded.

2.

Whether it is sufficient to plead the facts relied upon to establish the defence

of limitation of time under the Public Officers Protection Act.



35

FACTS:

The plaintiff sued for damages for injuries resulting from an accident caused,

as he alleged, by the defendant's negligent driving of a motor vehicle. The de-

fendant, said the Statement of Claim, was a policeman sued in his personal ca-

pacity. The Defence averred that he was a policeman and that he was driving the



40

vehicle in the course of his duty; and the evidence was that he had been given the

duty of conveying prisoners to court. The Defence did not aver that the action was

brought more than three months after the accident. The trial judge dismissed the

suit on the ground that it was time-barred by s.2 of the Public Officers Protection

Act. On appeal the argument for the plaintiff was (1) that it was wrong to dismiss



45

the suit on a ground not specifically pleaded, and (2) that the negligence (which

the trial judge found proved) was not in respect of any alleged neglect in the ex-

ecution of something envisaged by the Public Officers Protection Act.

HELD:

1. For the purposes of 0.32, R.13, of the Supreme Court (Civil Procedure) Ruler,



50

1945 it is sufficient to plead the facts relied upon to establish the special defence

under s.2 of the Public Officers Protection Act, and these facts were sufficiently

pleaded in the Defence.