{"id":6044,"date":"2023-07-16T01:00:22","date_gmt":"2023-07-16T01:00:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/koriatlaw.com\/?p=6044"},"modified":"2023-07-16T01:00:22","modified_gmt":"2023-07-16T01:00:22","slug":"limitation-period-for-employment-dispute-in-nigeria","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/koriatlaw.com\/2026\/2023\/07\/16\/limitation-period-for-employment-dispute-in-nigeria\/","title":{"rendered":"LIMITATION PERIOD FOR EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE IN NIGERIA<\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. What does Limitation Period Mean?<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    In Nigeria, there are limitation periods for initiating litigation, so it is necessary to understand the limitation period before going to court. A limitation period is the period during which a lawsuit can be brought in court. And when the period specified in any Limitation Law has passed, it means that the lawsuit will no longer be filed because it will become prohibited by law. A limitation law (where applicable) invalidates a person\u2019s right to seek legal redress. If an aggrieved person exhibits tardiness by suing his wrong doer outside the statutorily allowed time-bracket, his suit becomes statute-barred. Thus, an action is statute-barred when no proceedings can be brought to court on the ground that the statutory period laid down by the law has expired by passage of time.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In the case of Mercantile Bank of Nig. Plc. v. FETECO (Nig) Ltd. (1998) 2 NWLR (PT. 540) 143 at 156-157, Tobi JCA<\/em><\/strong> succinctly explained the matter thus: \u201cA Statute of Limitation of action is designed to stop or avoid situations where a plaintiff can commence action any time he feels like doing so, even when human memory would have normally faded and therefore failed. Putting it in another language, by the Statutes of limitation, a plaintiff has not the freedom of the air to sleep or slumber and wake up at his own time to commence an action against a defendant. The different Statutes of Limitation which are essentially founded on the principles of equity and fair play will not avail such a sleeping or slumbering plaintiff. He will be stopped from commencing the action and that is a just and fair situation. A plaintiff who suddenly wakes up from a very deep sleep only to remember that the defendant had wronged him, can, I think, be rightly \u2018greeted\u2019 by the defendant with the appropriate limitation statute, waving same to him as a basis for redress.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    1. Why Limitation Law or Period?<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      The purpose of a limitation law is to ensure that all claims are initiated and prosecuted diligently while the evidence is still available, and the memory of the witness is still fresh, and not to allow a plaintiff the freedom of the air to sleep and wake up at his own time to commence an action against a defendant. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      However, it is doubtful if a claimant who wishes to bring an action for breach of employment contract has to worry about limitations period anymore going by the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in the case of National Revenue Mobilization Allocation & Fiscal Commission & Others (NRMAFC) v. Ajibola Johnson & Others (2019) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1656) 247<\/em><\/strong>, where the apex court made a radical departure from the previous position of law in holding that limitation law no longer applies to contracts of employment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n
      1. How can Limitations Period be Determined?<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

        The limitation period is the creation of law, so the limitation laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Each State\u2019s limitation law stipulates the time frame within which actions can be initiated, sometimes based on the subject matter of a dispute. Thus in INEC v. Ogbadibo Local Government & Ors (2015) LPELR-24839 (SC)<\/em><\/strong>, the Supreme Court spelt out the yardstick for determining whether an action is statute-barred or not thus:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        a.  The date when the cause of action accrued;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        b. The date of commencement of the suit as indicated in the writ of summons;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        c. Period of time prescribed to bring an action to be ascertained from the statute in question<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          \n
        1. What are the various limitation periods for initiating actions?<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

          The Limitation of Actions Act 2004 (as amended)<\/em><\/strong> and the relevant States Limitation Laws of States<\/em><\/strong> prescribe the specific periods within which legal actions are to be commenced or instituted from when the injury or omission, causing the damage or loss, arose or occurred. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

          The following are some of the limitation periods for other contracts and actions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            \n
          • The limitation period for a simple contract is six (6) years. See section 8(1) of the Limitation Law of Lagos State, 2015 <\/em><\/strong>and section 7 Limitation Act, Abuja. <\/em><\/strong>Please note that the court held in Unata v. PTML (2015) 58 NLLR (Pt. 199) 66 NIC, <\/em><\/strong>that employer\/employee relationship is founded on simple contract; (P.90, Paras. A-B).<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • The limitation period for a contract under seal is twelve (12) years. See section 12(1) of the Limitation Law of Lagos State, 2015 <\/em><\/strong>and Section 11, Limitation Act, Abuja;<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Action for negligence must be commenced within three (3) years. See section 8(1) of the Limitation Act<\/em><\/strong>, Abuja<\/em><\/strong> and section 9 of the Limitation Law of Lagos State;<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Action for slander must be commenced within three (3) years. See section 9 of the Limitation Act, Abuja and section 10 of the Limitation Law of Lagos State;<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Action by the State Authority to recover land is twenty (20) years in Lagos and twelve (12) years in Abuja. See section 16 of the Limitation Law of State Lagos<\/em><\/strong> and section 15 of Limitation Act Abuja;<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Twelve (12) years to make any claim arising from a deceased person personal estate;<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Three (3) months for any action against Public Officers. See section 2 Public Officers Protection Act; <\/em><\/strong>and<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Two (2) years to recover any damages from concurrent wrongdoers under any civil enactment.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
              \n
            1. Whether the Supreme Court in NRMAFC\u2019s Case Decided against Limitation of Employment Contract?<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

              The facts of NRMAFC v Johnson<\/em><\/strong> (supra)<\/em><\/strong> are that the Respondents were offered appointment by NRMAFC, a commission of the Federal Government of Nigeria. The Respondents resumed work until they were orally asked to stay away from work based on a May, 1999 be stopped. In view of this development, the NRMAFC withdrew the Respondents\u2019 respective appointments. The Respondents thereafter instituted action at the Federal High Court claiming that they remain employees of NRMAFC and were entitled to their salaries from June 1, 1999.The Federal High Court granted only the second relief and dismissed the rest of the respondents\u2019 claims. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

              The Appellants appealed against the decision, while the respondents cross-appealed. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and allowed the Respondents\u2019 appeal in part. On further appeal to the Supreme Court, one of the issues raised for the determination of the apex court was whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the Appellants were not entitled to the protection afforded by the Public Officers Protection Act (POPA<\/em><\/strong>) in relation to a contract of service. The Supreme Court held thus: \u201cIn this matter, while the appellants maintain that the action is caught by section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, the respondents argue that the Act is inapplicable. There is no doubt, a careful reading of the respondents\u2019 claim will show clearly that it is on contract of service. It is now settled law that <\/em>section 2 of the Public Officers Protection Act<\/em><\/strong> does not apply to cases of contract of service\u2026.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n
              1. Is there a limitation period on pension and gratuity claims?<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

                No. Gratuity is a lump sum benefit provided by an employer as a form of reward to an employee upon retirement, termination, resignation, superannuation or death (as the contract may provide). It is a sum paid for an employee\u2019s meritorious service to an organization. While pension on the other hand, is a stated allowance to a person in consideration of past services or payment made to one retired from service, on account of age, disability or other causes, especially, a regular stipend paid by government or corporate organizations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                The goal of the law of limitation on civil claims is to prevent indolent claimants from sleeping on their rights to institute an action only to wake up from their slumber several years after, when evidence and memories of witnesses have become sketchy. Equity aids the vigilant, not the indolent.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                However, pension and gratuity are immune to limitation law or period. See the case of Ugbeche v NNPC (2016) LPELR-42033 (CA) <\/em><\/strong>and Sections 173 and 201(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria<\/em><\/strong> which are to the effect that no claim for pension and gratuity shall be invalid merely because the claimant failed to present his application within the specified period (If any). The court has held that payment of pension and gratuity is not a bounty to the employee by the employer. It is the right of an employee to claim pension and gratuity. The amount should be disbursed without delay and where payment is delayed, the employer cannot challenge the employee’s claim for payment of pension and gratuity on the ground of limitation period. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  \n
                1. Can salary claims be defeated by any objection founded on a limitation law?<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

                  Salary claims, being employment related disputes, cannot in any way be defeated by any objection founded on a limitation law. In the case of Bature Barau Dutsin\u2013Ma v. Governor of Katsina State & Ors<\/em><\/strong>., the court per Justice Isele<\/em><\/strong> held that \u201cthe case of none payment of outstanding salaries, is one that Public Officers Protection Law would not apply as it is one of continuance of injury or damage.\u201d<\/em> Please note, however, that a claimant may have difficulty in proving an employment benefit claim if relevant evidence has been destroyed or competent witnesses have died or forgotten the facts or become unreachable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                    \n
                  1. What is the Current position of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria on Limitation Period of Employment Contract?<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

                    The National Industrial Court seems to have shown consistency in holding that limitation law no longer applies to contracts of employment following the supreme court\u2019s decision in NRMAFC\u2019s<\/em><\/strong> case. Hon. Justice (Dr.) I. J. Essien, in a Ruling delivered on 10 October 2019 in Lilian Nnenna Akumah v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc (supra)<\/em><\/strong>, just three months after NRMAFC\u2019s <\/em><\/strong>case, that:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                    \u201cWhile I agree with learned counsel that before July 2019 the decisions were unanimous that as regards limitation of action law, where an action is instituted outside the period stipulated for an action to be instituted such action is likely to be dismissed, see the case of <\/em>Ibrahim V. Judicial Service Commission [1998] 14 NWLR (pt. 584) pg.1.<\/em><\/strong>  However the position of the law has since changed after the decision in the case of <\/em>NRMAFC & 2 ORS V. Ajibola Johnson [2019]2 NWLR (pt. 1656) 247 at 270-271<\/em><\/strong> the Supreme Court was emphatic that limitation of action does not apply to contract of service.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                    On a similar note, Honourable Justice Ikechi Gerald Nweneka<\/em><\/strong> in a judgment delivered on 5th March 2020 in Mr. Godson Ikechukwu Nkume vs. First Bank of Nigeria Plc (supra<\/em><\/strong>) followed the same path. Placing reliance on both NRMAFC\u2019s <\/em><\/strong>case and Akumah\u2019s<\/em><\/strong> decisions, his lordship held as follows: \u201cFurthermore, statutes of limitation of actions have been held not to apply to contracts of service. See <\/em>National Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission & Ors. v. Ajibola Johnson & Ors. [supra] at pages 270-271.<\/em><\/strong> This decision was applied by this Court in the case of <\/em>Lilian Nnenna Akumah v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc, Suit no. NICN\/LA\/402\/2018<\/em><\/strong>, which ruling was delivered on 10th October 2019. The objection was based on Section 8[1][a] of the <\/em>Limitation Law of Lagos State<\/em><\/strong>. My learned brother, Justice Essien observed that: The defendant counsel has [sic] tried to argue that the above cited Supreme Court decision does not apply to the present case because it was decided based on the S. 2[a] of <\/em>the Public Officers Protection Act<\/em><\/strong>, while the present case is considered under S. 8(1)(a) of the <\/em>Limitation Law of Lagos State<\/em><\/strong>. That distinction is neither here nor there. Both statutes are statutes of limitation of action. The subject matter of what they deal is contract of employment. Therefore, both statutes stand side by side in so far as it relates to limitation of action in contract of employment. While one is a federal enactment the other is a state law. The decision of the Supreme Court on any of the statute[s] must of necessity guide a court of record in the application of any of those enactment[s] on the subject matter of limitation of action in contract of employment.  I completely agree and hold that claims [a][i], [b], [c] and [d] are not statute barred.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                    Stemming from the above, an employment dispute can be litigated at any time at the National Industrial Court without any fear of objection founded on a limitation law or period. In other words, employment cases cannot be challenged on the ground that they are statute barred. As already noted somewhere above, a claimant may have difficulty in proving an employment benefit claim if relevant evidence has been destroyed or competent witnesses have died or forgotten the facts or become unreachable.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                    In Nigeria, there are limitation periods for initiating litigation, so it is necessary to understand the limitation period before going to court. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4575,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[58,391,383,386,387,392,389,393,394],"class_list":["post-6044","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-publications","tag-court","tag-courtaction","tag-disputeresolution","tag-judiciary","tag-justice","tag-limitationlaw","tag-litigation-2","tag-nic-2","tag-statutebarred"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/koriatlaw.com\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6044","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/koriatlaw.com\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/koriatlaw.com\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/koriatlaw.com\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/koriatlaw.com\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6044"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/koriatlaw.com\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6044\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/koriatlaw.com\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4575"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/koriatlaw.com\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6044"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/koriatlaw.com\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6044"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/koriatlaw.com\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6044"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}