CASE TITLE: UBN v. EZIKPE & ANOR (2026) LPELR-83353 (SC)
JUDGMENT DATE: 6TH MARCH, 2026
PRACTICE AREA: LIMITATION LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Statute Barred Action.
FACTS:
The 1st and 2nd Respondents, by a Writ of Summons at the High Court of Lagos State (trial Court), sought several reliefs against the Appellant.
The facts of the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ actions are that between May 1982 and January 1983, the Appellant, acting on the instruction of the Respondents, deducted the naira equivalent of a cumulative sum of $217,381.05 (Two Hundred and Eighty-one US Dollars and Five Cents) from the 2nd Respondent’s account, for remittance to the Respondents’ overseas business partners, being payment for goods supplied to the Respondents. The Respondent’s instruction was in tandem with the extant foreign exchange regulations, which required that all payments in foreign exchange be made by the Central Bank of Nigeria upon an application made by a domestic bank after such bank has debited the relevant sum from its customer’s account. Despite the Appellant’s deduction from the 2nd Respondent’s account for remittance to the Respondent’s business partners, the Respondents continued to receive demands from their overseas partners for payment of goods exported to them. This made the Respondents to commence enquiries about the non-remittance of their funds to their business partners, thus necessitating letters and visits to the Appellant’s offices in Lagos and Aba, the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Ministry of Finance.
The Appellant in its amended statement of Defence pleaded the defence of limitation, contending that the Respondents’ claim was statute-barred as at 20th August 2008, when the writ of summons commencing the action was issued. The summary of the Appellant’s defence is that the Central Bank of Nigeria failed to provide the foreign exchange applied for in respect of the deductions made from the Respondents’ account and the monies were eventually returned to the Appellant.
At the conclusion of trial, the trial Court entered judgment in favour of the Respondents and granted their reliefs. The Appellant, dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court appealed to the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division. The Court of Appeal in its judgment delivered on 15th February, 2017, affirmed the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
Further aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The issues considered were:
1. Whether the Respondents’ suit which gave rise to the instant appeal is statute-barred.
2. Whether Exhibits D3 and D5 amount to documentary hearsay and whether a person other than the maker of Exhibit D3 and D5 can tender them.
DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the appeal was allowed.
RATIOS:
- ACTION- STATUTE BARRED ACTION: What the Court considers in determining an objection that a suit is statute barred after evidence has been led
- ACTION- STATUTE BARRED ACTION: Proper order to make when an action is statute barred
- LIMITATION LAW- LIMITATION PERIOD: Limitation period for bringing an action based on simple contract
- LIMITATION LAW- LIMITATION LAW: Nature, purport/essence of Limitation Law
- LIMITATION LAW- LIMITATION PERIOD: Whether negotiation by parties can stop time from running
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
