The National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) has dismissed a preliminary objection filed by the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) in a suit filed against it by a dismissed employee, Margret Ezeagwu.
In a ruling, Justice Nelson Ogbuanya held that the suit was not statute-barred.
He refused to strike it out.
Ezeagwu sought a declaration that her dismissal by NPA without due process was unlawful, null and void and contrary to the Public Service Rules 2008.
She sought a declaration that she was not given an opportunity to defend herself as well as an order immediately re-instating her without any loss of status or entitlement.
But the NPA denied the claims and filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection, dated December 27, 2017, challenging the court’s jurisdiction.
The objection was on the ground that the suit was statute-barred, having been caught by the provisions of Section 2 (a) Public Officers Protection Act (POPA).
NPA argued that the suit was not commenced within the prescribed three months of the cause of action.
Justice Ogbuanya held that there had been a change in the position of the law on the application of POPA in employment contract disputes.
“Is the position earlier taken by the appellate courts still subsisting and remain the legal regime for resolution of this lingering issue posed for determination in this application? To my mind, I will answer no: the trend has changed.
“Informed research reveals that another prevalent precedent has emerged, given the recent position taken by the Supreme Court in the very recent case of N.R.M.A & FC v. Johnson [2019]2NWLR (Pt. 1656) SC247, on this recondite issue.
“There, my lord, Ariwoola JSC, in the lead judgment of the apex court, wittingly included contract of service in the family tree of contracts not affected by the limitation statutes, thereby reversed the age-long dichotomy in operation of limitation statutes between specific contract and contract of service, as maintained by the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal over the years, in many decided cases (I had earlier cited and reviewed).”
Justice Ogbuanya also said he was bound by the “hallowed doctrine of stare decisis and judicial precedent”.
He added: “I can only take a bow and bend to apply the law, as it is now no longer as it was before.
“Consequently, I find and hold that the earlier position taken by the appellate courts no longer represents the current state of the law on the subject, which frees me to discountenance same. I am again bound to follow a new pathway set forth in the new precedent. I so hold.
“Accordingly, in line with the recent Supreme Court decision in the Johnson’s case (supra), and this suit being an employment claim of service contract, in my considered view, the Section 2 (a) of the Public Officer Protection Act (POPA) prescribing three-month time limit to commence suit upon arising of the cause of action, no longer applies to employment claims, as in the instant case. I so hold.
“In the circumstance, this Preliminary Objection by the defendant/applicant fails completely as lacking in merit and being otiose. It is hereby dismissed. I so hold.”
