Sani V. President, Frn & Anor (2020)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C.

At the Federal High Court, Kano Judicial Division, the appellant, (Claimant, as he then was), commenced action, by Originating Summons, against the respondents herein. What prompted this suit was the action of the respondents which authorised the Swiss Authorities to freeze all the bank accounts held in that jurisdiction by late General Sani Abacha, his children, his servants and agents or any other third party who participated in the misappropriation of public funds.

Upon hearing the argument in the originating summons, the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims. The appeal to the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division, having been dismissed, the plaintiff appealed to this Court. He entreated the Court to determine two issues couched thus:

  1. Whether the appellant’s action is caught by the Public Officer Protection Act having regard to the decision of the Court in Ibrahim v Judicial Service Commission, Kaduna State (1998) 14 NWLR (pt 584) 32 and Nwankwere v Adewumi (1966) All NLR 119?
  2. Whether having regard to the parties, the subject matter and reliefs sought in Sulgrave Holdings INC and Ors v F.G.N and Ors. (FHC/ABJ/CS/34/7/2001) the suit which gave rise to the instant appeal is caught by estoppel per res Judicata (sic)?

The Respondent, on the other hand, formulated the following issues, asking the Court to answer these precise questions:

  1. Whether the appellant’s case in its entirety is not caught by Public Officers’ Protection Act. Cap 379, Laws of Federation of Nigeria?
  2. Whether the appellant’s case is not caught up by the principle of estoppel per res Judicata (sic) by reason of the judgment in suit no. FHC/ABJ/CS/347/2003 or suit no CA/A/221/2003 Sulgrave Holdings INC and Ors v F.G.N and Ors (FHC/ABJ/CS/34/7/2001 as well as Suit no. FHC/KD/CS/281/2003 AIi Abacha v AG Federation?
See also  Ben. O. Oluwole V. Lagos State Development & Property Corporation (1983) LLJR-SC

My Lords, the respondents’ issues are more precise and more articulate apropos the complaints in the Notice and Grounds of Appeal. I therefore adopt them as the issues for the determination of this appeal.

Argument of Counsel

Issue one

  1. Whether the appellant’s case in its entirety is not caught by Public Officers’ Protection Act, Cap 379, Laws of Federation of Nigeria?

Appellant’s Submission

At the hearing of this appeal on November 12, 2019, learned counsel for the appellant, on the first issue, submitted that the Public Officers’ Protection Act requires that all suits against public officers must be filed within three months from the date of accrual of the cause of action otherwise the action would be statue – barred.

He explained that the statute of limitation removes the right of action. He pointed out that the respondent, requesting the freezing of the appellants’ accounts, relied on the Banks (Freezing of Accounts) Act of 31st December, an enactment that no longer existed,Ibrahim v Judicial Service Commission Kaduna State (1998) 14 NWLR (pt. 584) 32.

He contended that the respondent acted outside the colour of his office without a semblance of legal justification. He noted that the provision of Section 2 (2) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act operates subject to certain exceptions, qualifications or limitations imbedded therein. Thus, this section protects a public officer in respect of any action, prosecution or proceedings. Thus, according to him, makes them enjoy the full protection under Section 2 (2) of the Act.

He prayed Nwankwere v Adewumi (1966) All NLR 119 in aid of his submission that the respondent did not act in good faith or within the colour of his office when he relied upon a non- existing law. In his view, the lower Court misapplied the decisions in Obiefuna v Okoye (1961) 1 SCNLR (pt.549) (sic) and Egbe v Adefarasin and Anor (1985) LPELR- 1031 (SC).

See also  Mtn Nigeria Communication Limited V. Corporate Communication Investment Limited (2019) LLJR-SC

He also submitted that the lower Court did not give credence to the decision inlbrahim v Judicial Service Commission, Kaduna State (1998) 14 NWLR (pt 584) 32. He urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the appellant.

Respondents’ Contention

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *