Sunday Etim Umoh v Nigeria Customs Service

• Judge: Hon. Justice O.a Obaseki-osaghae
• Judgment Date: 24 February 2015
• Respondent: Nigeria Customs Service
• Appellant: Sunday Etim Umoh
• Docket Number: NICN/LA/670/2012
• Counsel: Tolu Agbona, for the claimant. L. Halilu (Mrs), for the defendant.
• Court: National Industrial Court (Nigeria)

The claimant filed this complaint against the defendant on the 21st December, 2012 seeking the following reliefs:

1. A declaration that the purported dismissal of the Claimant by the defendant vide its letter dated the 2nd day of December, 2010 is illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever as he was not given fair hearing prior to the purported summary dismissal and victimization of the claimant for his patriotic act.

2. An order reinstating the claimant to his duty post in the defendant’s organization.

3. An order directing the defendant to pay the claimants arrears of salary from November, 2004 till judgment is delivered.

Accompanying the complaint is the statement of facts, statement of witness on oath, verifying affidavit and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial. The defendant entered conditional appearance and filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection along with its statement of defence and other accompanying processes on the 24th October, 2013. The Preliminary Objection is challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear this suit on the ground that the claimant’s action is statute barred by virtue of Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act Cap 379 of 2004.

The Objection is supported by a written address. In opposing the objection, the claimant filed a written address dated 31st January, 2014 and filed on 21st, February, 2014. The defendant filed a reply on points of law dated 4th March, 2014. Both parties adopted their written addresses at the hearing of the Objection.

Learned Counsel to the Defendant raised one issue for determination as follows:

Whether this action of the claimant against the defendant/applicant is statute barred by virtue Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act Cap 379 of 2004

He submitted that this action of the claimant is statute barred by virtue of Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act Cap 379 of 2004. He submitted that the definition of ‘any person’ in the Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act includes artificial persons such as a corporation sole, company, or any body of persons corporate or unincorporated and includes the defendant. He submitted that Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act Cap 379 of 2004 gives full protection to all public officers engaged in the execution of public duties who at all material time acted within the confines of their public duty citing Ibrahim V. J.S.C (1998) 14 (pt. 581) 1.He argued that the Public Officers Protection Act does not prevent or deny a citizen the right to go to court but only restricts the period within which a public officer acting within his official function may be sued for any perceived wrong from the...