The Federal High Court sitting at Port Harcourt, has dismissed a suit filed against a Port Harcourt based company, Dandico Woodman Nigeria Limited (DDNL) for want of jurisdiction.
This contained in a ruling dated 3rd November, 2020 delivered by Honourable Justice J. K. Omotosho
The Claimant, Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria had in the suit numbered FHC/PH/MISC/40/2017, claimed against Dandico Woodman Nigeria Limited and its director and prime promoter, Chief Daniel Orji, the sum of N102, 154, 979.76 being the current outstanding exposure of the loan granted to Dandico Woodman Limited as at January 2018 and guaranteed by Chief Daniel Orji. AMCON also claimed interest of 21% from January 30th, 2018 till judgment is delivered and 10% thereafter on judgment sum until final liquidation and N5 million as general damages for breach of contract.
However, in response, the counsel to the Director of DDNL, Ugonna Elenwoke filed a Motion seeking dismissal of the suit on the basis that it was filed six years after the cause of action arose and therefore statute barred.
Elenwoke Esq argued that by the combined provisions of Sections 35(5) of the Asset Management Corporation (Amendment) Act 2015 and Section 16 of the Limitation Law of Rivers State, 1999, no action for recovery of debt shall be brought after the expiration of five years from the date of the acquisition of the eligible bank asset which is when the cause of action is deemed in law to arise.
Mr. Elenwoke further argued that since AMCON by its pleadings averred that it acquired the non performing loan in the suit as an Eligible Bank Asset from Union Bank of Nigeria in April 2011 and the suit was instituted in 2017 being a period of six years, same was statute barred and thus urged the court to dismiss the suit.
AMCON did not file any process in response to the Motion
In his ruling on the 3rd day of November 2020, Justice Omotosho agreed with Elenwoke that by the provisions of Sections 35(5) of the Asset Management Corporation (Amendment) Act 2015 and Section 16 of the Limitation Law of Rivers State, 1999, action for recovery of debt shall be brought within five years from the date of the acquisition of the eligible bank asset, not after.
Relying on the case of Ebonyi State University & Anor v. Ifeanyi & Anor (2016) LPELR-41051(CA), the court held thus:
“…What then is statute bar and of what effect is it? It simply means a suit barred by provisions of a statute. It is usually circumscribed with regard to time, that is, the bar gives a time limit during which certain actions or steps should be taken, and thereafter the party concerned is barred from taking action after the period specified in the statute. Any action taken after or outside the specified limit or period is of no avail and has no valid or utility effect. The bar can be lifted or the limit extended only if the statute allows it to be done. Where there is no such extension, the action if carried out would be invalid.”
The court thereafter found as a fact that the action of AMCON which ought to have been commenced on or before the 6th day of April 2016 was commenced on the 15th June 2017 and the action was clearly outside the prescribed 5 years for actions based on contract.
The learned judge held that the suit was thus statute barred and proceeded to dismiss the suit.
“in final analysis, the statute of limitation removes the right of action and leaves a Plaintiff with a bare and empty cause of action which he cannot enforce. Consequently, I therefore hold that this action is statute-barred in view of section 16 of the Limitation Law of Rivers State. This suit is hereby dismissed.” Justice Omotosho held
