limitation law as it applies to land

Where a statute provides for the institution of an action within a prescribed period, the action shall not be brought after the time prescribed by such statute. Any action that is instituted after the period stipulated by the statute is totally barred. The right of the Plaintiff or the injured person to commence the action would have been extinguished by such law and courts get robbed of jurisdiction to entertain any claims so statute barred. Attorney General of Rivers State V. Attorney General Bayelsa State & Anor. (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 699) 1087 SC p.1102, paras. B-D; Ibrahim V. Judicial Service Commission (1998) 14 NWLR (Pt. 584); Nakanda V. EkeiNya (2019) HELAR ratio 1; Ikpuri V. PDP (2019) HELAR ratio 4; Topway Ventures Ltd V. Hon. MIN. FCTA (2019) HELAR ratio 1

Limitation laws are required to be pleaded by the defence in some jurisdiction of the country as per the High Court Civil Procedure Rules in order not to take the opposite side by surprise, although it may also arise from the facts as pleaded without specifically alleging the relevant limitation law. In that case, pleadings have to be filed and exchanged by the parties before an objection to the action being stale and statute-barred can properly be taken. This invariably is the case where demurrer has been abolished. The Defendant is required to set the point in limine. Such proceedings are contemplated where the objection is capable of terminating the matters finally. The objection has to be taken soonest; it becomes clear that the action is stale and statute-barred as no matter how well a matter is conducted and determined, all the efforts put in it comes to naught where the cause of action is stale and statute-barred as the court would have no jurisdiction to deal with it. Sulgrave Holdings Inc. & Ors. V. Federal Government of Nigeria & Ors. (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 659) 1050 SC at 1068, paras. D-H.

A statute of limitation is a law that bars claims after a specified period. It is a statute which establishes a time limit for suing in a civil case based on the date the claim accrued. The purpose of such a statute is to require diligent prosecution of known claims thereby providing finality and predictability in legal affairs. It is also termed non-claim statute. The purpose of limitation, like the equitable doctrine of laches, in their conclusive effects are designed to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber allowing issues to become blurred and records difficult to retrieve. Such claims lose any utility value to the plaintiff; their worth fades into oblivion. See Sulgrave Holdings Inc. & Ors. V. Federal Government of Nigeria & Ors. (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 659) 1050 SC at 1071-1072, paras. F-A; Egbe V. Adefarasin (No.1)(1985) 1 NWLR (Pt.3) 549; Elabanjo v. Dawodu (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 328) 604. Nakanda V. EkeiNya (2019) HELAR ratio 1; Ikpuri V. PDP (2019) HELAR ratio 4; Topway Ventures Ltd V. Hon. MIN. FCTA (2019) HELAR ratio 2

The period of limitation in any limitation statute is determined by looking at the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim alleging when the wrong was committed which gave rise to cause of action and by comparing that with the date on which the Writ of Summon was filed. This can be done without taking oral evidence. If the time on the Writ of Summons is beyond the period allowed by the limitation law, the action is statute-barred. See Ayonronmi V. NNPC (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 704) 189 CA; Aremo II V. Adekanye (2000) 2 NWLR (Pt. 644) 257; Eleme V. NEPA (2000) 2 NWLR (Pt. 440) 337; Nicon Insurance Corporation V. Olowofo YEKU (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt. 973) 244 Tanko V. Kusherki (2019) HELAR ratio 2

The legal effect is that the matter would be dismissed, the cause of action having become stale, dead and inoperative. That is why it is required that where the issue of limitation is raised in defence of an action, it is only proper that the issue should be addressed first as it makes no sense to decide the merit of a matter that is statute-barred. In the event of a successful plea of limitation law against a plaintiff’s right of action, the action becomes extinguished and unmaintainable at law. The court will dismiss the suit. Ajayi V. Adebiyi & ors. (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1310) 137; Muemue V. Gaji (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt. 697) p.289; Egbe V. Adefarasin (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 3) p.549; Sosan V. Ademuyiwa (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 27) p.241. Nakanda V. EkeiNya (2019) HELAR ratio 1; Ikpuri V. PDP (2019) HELAR ratio 4

No action shall be brought by any person to recover any land after the expiration of ten (10) years from the date on which the right of action accrued to him or, if it first accrued to some person through whom he claims, to that person. See Section 1 of the Limitation Law (Rivers State Edict No.7) 1988.

Any claim for the recovery of land in Lagos State shall not be brought after the expiration of Twelve (12) years from the date which the right of action accrued to the person bringing it or if it accrued to some person through whom he claims to that person. An action which is not brought within the prescribed period of twelve years offends the Provisions of Section 16(2) of the Lagos State Limitation Law 1994; Ajayi V. Adebiyi & Ors. (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1310) 137. Different states have their Limitation Laws with their own number of years, but is generally between 10 – 12 years.

Yes. The defence of a matter being statute-barred was dumped on the court in its naked form without any particulars only for the evidence at the trial court to show as undisputed some level of negotiation that had gone on before collapsing and so I see no reason not to go along with learned counsel for the respondent and as earlier accepted by the Court of Appeal that the approaches for settlement by the Appellants created a continuing trespass and thereby removed the operation of the statute of limitation as the limitation runs, ceases, is revived anew from inception of the trespass to the various times of negotiation at which times the time ceases only to be revived once a breakdown of discussion takes place. This situation makes calculation of the period at which it can be said the trespass had taken place and time elapsed since what is on display is an on-going infraction without a time bar. The conclusion that has been thrown up is that the plea of laches and acquiescence or a statute of limitation are defences not available in the instant case to the appellants on the factors that should exist for the formation or operation of those defences do not exist in the case at hand. Per Mary Ukaego Peter-Odili, JSC, in Obueke & Ors. V. Nnamchi & Ors. (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1314) 327; Adepoju V. Oke (1999) 2 NWLR (Pt. 594) 154 at 169; Taiwo V. Taiwo 3 FSC 80 at 82; Ibenwolu V. Lawal (1971) 1 All NLR 23; Moss V. Kenrow (Nig) Ltd. (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 207 at 224.