.
hbriefs heading animation Search for cases summary on Hbriefs like hbriefs on facebook follow hbriefs on twitter

BOOK: First 2-Years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons - visit website

JUMP TO CONTENT

Rosemary Nkese Nakanda v. Lady Theresa Ekei Nya & Ors (2019) - CA


place advert here


icon CASE SUMMARY OF:

Rosemary Nkese Nakanda v. Lady Theresa Ekei Nya & Ors (2019) - CA

by NSA PaulPipAr
icon TAG(S)


icon PARTIES

APPELLANT
Rosemary Nkese Nakanda

v.

RESPONDENT
Lady Theresa Ekei Nya & Ors
icon CITATION

(2019)LCN/12516(CA)
icon COURT

Court of Appeal
icon LEAD JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY:

Mojeed Adekunle Owoade, J.C.A.
icon APPEARANCES

* FOR THE APPELLANT
- Ekpenyong Ndiyo

* FOR THE RESPONDENT
- Mrs. E. O. Onah
Get that your business, idea, or work available to the public. HCB gets sufficient amount of visits daily. Utilise this golden opportunity to make your product(s) available to the public domain by advertising on this website. If you are interested in advertising on this platform, click "place my advert".

place my advert

place advert here
Go to Crowdfire


icon FACT (as relating to the issues)

The case borders on who is the administratrix to the property at 8 Shanahan Street, Calabar, Calabar South Local Government Area of Cross River State.

The Respondent (as claimant) in the trial court sued for a declaration that the property is part of properties she is to administer, while the Appellant (as defendant) disagreed stating that the property belongs to the both (parties involved in this suit) of them.

The trial judge gave judgement in favour of the Respondent, hence, this further appeal by the Appellant.
icon ISSUE(S)

1. Whether the suit is not statute barred?

2. Whether the judgment is not against the weight of evidence?
icon HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI

[APPEAL: ALLOWED]

1. ISSUE 1 WAS RESOLVED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT BUT AGAINST THE RESPONDENT.

RULING:
i. By the above and the Respondent’s counsel concession that the cause of action in the suit arose in 1987, it is settled that the Respondent’s claimant’s action indeed arose in the year 1987. It is of course not in dispute that the Respondent claimant instituted this action in year 2013, which truly is 26 years after the cause of action arose... The instant suit which was instituted in year 2013 when the cause of action arose in year 1987 is caught by the Limitation Law of Cross River State and the trial Court lacked the necessary vires/jurisdiction to have entertained the suit.

ii. It is trite that where a statute of Limitation as in the instant case prescribes a period within which an action should be brought, legal proceedings cannot be properly or validly instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period. Thus, an action instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period is said to be statute – barred.

Having resolved a threshold issue of jurisdiction in favour of the Appellant, I do not find it any longer necessary to consider any other issue(s) in this appeal. This appeal is meritorious and it is allowed.
icon REFERENCED


icon SOME PROVISION(S)

Section 1 of the Limitation Law of Cross River State 2004 provides as follows: "no action shall be brought by any person to recover any land after the expiration of ten 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".
icon RELEVANT CASE(S)

AJAYI V. MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR OF ONDO STATE [1997] 5 NWLR [Pt. 504] 237 @ 254, that: The issue of whether or not an action has been statute barred is one touching on jurisdiction of Court for once an action has been found to be statute-barred, although a plaintiff may still have his cause of action, that is legal right to prosecute that action has been taken away by statute. In that circumstance, no Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the action.
The member(s) and administrator(s) of HCB put in energy in order to provide the cases summary they do on this online platform. We desist from charging you a fee, and we have decided to keep this online platform free and accessible for as long as we deem fit. However, in order to keep alive the impetus that makes us provide these free services, kindly make a donation, if you can.
Bank: Zenith Bank.
Name: Branham Paul Chima.
Account No.: 2178756839.


icon CASE(S) RELATED


icon NOTABLE DICTA

* PROCEDURAL
Time begins to run for the purposes of the Limitation Law from the date the cause of action accrues. - Owoade, JCA. Nakanda v. Nya (2019)

* SUBSTANTIVE

The end of this brief.


If this brief was aidful to you, LIKE Hbriefs on Facebook and FOLLOW Hbriefs on Twitter to get frequent Legal updates from Hbriefs.
kind_emoji


place advert here




USE THE SEARCH BOX BELOW
If the search box is not available below, it is due to network issues; in that case, reload page or check back again.
The search feature works perfect! Although the search feature might not capture very recent uploaded cases; If you did not get a particular case, we recommend entering the Case Summary categories and use your browser search/find feature, or use the request feature below.


JUMP TO TOP


REQUEST A CASE SUMMARY





ABOUT



TERMS AND CONDITONS



ADVERTISE ON HBRIEFS



FOUNDER




Humongouz Empire
© 2018 - 2021

website developed by hzztudio