Navigating the Temporal Bar: An Analysis of Exceptions to Limitation Periods in Nigeria

Contributor: Tobenna Daniel Mogbo

Introduction

Under Nigerian law, limitation statutes operate as procedural bars that prevent a claimant from enforcing a cause of action after the prescribed period has expired. They do not extinguish the cause of action itself but generally bar the judicial remedy available to enforce it.^[1] This principle rests on the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium—“it is in the public interest that litigation must come to an end.”

The Limitation Act, which applies in the Federal Capital Territory, and the Limitation Laws of the various states protect defendants from stale claims that may be difficult to defend because witnesses may no longer be available, memories may have faded, and relevant evidence may have been lost.

However, the strict application of limitation periods may occasion injustice in certain circumstances. Accordingly, legislation and judicial decisions recognise specific exceptions that may postpone the commencement of a limitation period, suspend its operation or cause it to begin afresh. This article examines the principal exceptions to limitation periods under Nigerian law.

Exceptions to the Statute of Limitation in Nigeria

1. Fraud, Concealment or Mistake

Where a defendant commits fraud or deliberately conceals the claimant’s right of action, the limitation period does not begin to run until the claimant discovers the fraud or concealment, or could have discovered it through reasonable diligence.^[2]

In Ugo v Obiekwe, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that fraud vitiates every transaction affected by it. A defendant cannot rely on a limitation statute where their fraudulent conduct prevented the claimant from discovering the facts giving rise to the cause of action. However, the claimant must specifically plead and prove the alleged fraud or concealment.^[3]

The same principle generally applies where the action seeks relief from the consequences of a mistake. In such circumstances, time begins to run when the claimant discovers the mistake or could reasonably have discovered it.

1. Acknowledgement or Part Payment

A cause of action in respect of a debt may be revived where the defendant acknowledges the debt or makes part payment. Such acknowledgement or payment constitutes an admission of liability and restarts the limitation period.^[4]

In MERCANTILE BANK (NIG.) LTD V. FETECO (NIG.) LTD (1998),^[5] the Court held that an effective acknowledgement must contain an express and unconditional promise to pay, together with a clear acknowledgement of the debt. Under the applicable statutory framework, an oral promise will generally not suffice to restart the limitation period.

1. Disability of the Claimant

Where a claimant is under a legal disability when the cause of action accrues, the limitation period is generally suspended until the disability ceases. For this purpose, disability commonly refers to infancy or unsoundness of mind.^[6] This protection ensures that persons who lack the legal capacity to institute proceedings personally do not lose their rights merely because the limitation period expired during the disability. Once the disability ceases, such as when an infant attains the age of majority, the applicable limitation period begins to run.

1. Successive Conversions

In claims involving the conversion of chattels, successive acts of conversion may affect the computation of the limitation period.^[7]

Where a claimant is deprived of property through a series of wrongful acts, the court may consider the date of the most recent conversion in determining when the cause of action accrued. Where the conversion is continuing or repeated, the claim may not necessarily be barred by reference only to the initial act, provided the claimant commences the action within the prescribed period after the final actionable conversion.

1. Breach of Trust

Actions concerning trust property do not generally fall within the ordinary limitation periods, particularly where a trustee has fraudulently converted the trust property for personal use.^[8] In OJEME V. OJEME (2000), the Court of Appeal held that no limitation period applies to an action by a beneficiary seeking to recover trust property that remains in the possession of the trustee.^[9]

1. Actions by the Crown/Government

Although the Public Officers Protection Act imposes a strict three-month limitation period for actions against public officers, the Crown or State may be exempt from general limitation provisions unless a statute expressly provides otherwise.^[10] In modern Nigerian practice, however, the Government is generally subject to applicable Limitation Laws unless the relevant legislation provides an exemption.

Crucial Distinction

Practitioners must distinguish between the Limitation Act or applicable Limitation Law and the Public Officers Protection Act. As held in KASANDUBU V. ULTIMATE PETROLEUM LTD (2008), the Court of Appeal held that the three-month limitation period under the Public Officers Protection Act, as a specific statutory provision, prevails over general limitation provisions.^[11]

The exceptions applicable under general limitation statutes do not automatically apply to the strict three-month period prescribed by the Public Officers Protection Act. Whether an exception applies depends on the wording of the statute and the nature of the cause of action.

Judicial Application and Practice Note

Nigerian courts consistently treat limitation as a threshold issue. In Besong v Ochinke (2023), the Court reaffirmed that where an action is statute-barred, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it.

Practical Considerations for Legal Practitioners:

1. Pleading the Exception: A claimant relying on an exception, such as fraud, must specifically plead the facts supporting it, particularly in response to a preliminary objection based on limitation. Failure to raise and plead the exception at the earliest opportunity may prove fatal to the action.
2. Burden of Proof: Under the Evidence Act 2011, the party asserting that an exception applies, usually the claimant, bears the burden of proving the facts that suspended, postponed or restarted the limitation period.
3. The POPA Trap: Counsel must recognise that many exceptions contained in general Limitation Laws do not necessarily apply to the Public Officers Protection Act. The courts have adopted a strict approach to the Act’s three-month limitation period, making it difficult to rely on fraud, disability or similar grounds to extend time in actions against public officers.

Conclusion

Exceptions to the statute of limitations serve as an important safeguard against injustice in Nigerian jurisprudence. Although statutes of limitation promote finality and protect defendants from stale claims, the recognised exceptions prevent the law from rewarding concealed fraud or permitting the exploitation of persons under a legal disability.

For legal practitioners, successfully overcoming a limitation defence requires a precise understanding of the applicable statutory framework and the careful pleading and proof of the facts supporting the relevant exception. Counsel must also remain mindful of the restrictive approach courts often adopt in actions governed by the Public Officers Protection Act.

Reference:

1. Nnaduaka V. Anunobi (2025) 9 NWLR (PT 1994) 65 AT 110 PARAS A-C. ↑
2. Section 58 – 59 of the Limitation Law (Cap 70, Laws of Lagos State). ↑
3. (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 99) 566. ↑
4. Section 38 of the Limitation Law (Cap 70, Laws of Lagos State) ↑
5. (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt. 540) 143 ↑
6. Sections 35 – 36 of the Limitation Law (Cap 70, Laws of Lagos State) ↑
7. Section 14 of the Limitation Law (Cap 70, Laws of Lagos State) ↑
8. Section 32 of the Limitation Law (Cap 70, Laws of Lagos State) ↑
9. (2000) 13 NWLR (Pt. 685) 606 ↑
10. Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act. ↑
11. (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1086) 274 ↑