Advertisements

LIMITATION LAW:COMMENCING AN ACTION EVEN IN WRONG COURT FREEZES TIME- SIFAX V. MIGFO(2018)1-2 S.C (Part 1)

law pic

“Prior to the institution of the action leading to this appeal, the respondents timeously commenced action in the Federal High Court in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/664/2006 and obtained judgment in their favour which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal but there was further appeal to this court which allowed the appeal and struck out the suit for lack of jurisdiction. The respondents had to commence a fresh action in the Lagos State High Court which the defendants now appellants objected to on the ground that the action was statute barred but the objection was overruled which led to the appeal to the Court of Appeal and ultimately to this Court.

I agree with my learned brother Augie JSC., that time froze from the time the suit commenced at the trial court up to when it was finally struck out for want of jurisdiction by this Court. See: Alhaji Haruna Kassim v. Herman Ebert (1996) NNLR 75 which endorsed the English decision in Re Clagett’s Estate, Fordham v. Clagett (1882) 2 Ch. D. 637 at 653 where Lord Jessel M.R. stated that:

“A cause is said to be pending in a court of justice when any proceeding can be taken in it”

Per Akaahs, JSC. At page 176

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “LIMITATION LAW:COMMENCING AN ACTION EVEN IN WRONG COURT FREEZES TIME- SIFAX V. MIGFO(2018)1-2 S.C (Part 1)

Add yours

  1. “Time froze from the time a suit comenced”…What a refreshing serve of a legal wine by the temple of Justice.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this:
Skip to toolbar