Court strikes out $250,000 loan suit against Okoya, firm over limitation law
By BASHIR ADEFAKA
The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter and consequently struck out the claims against the 1st and 2nd defendants.
The Lagos State High Court sitting in the Yaba/Surulere Judicial Division has struck out a $250,000 loan recovery suit filed by Dajo Oil Nigeria Limited against businessman, Chief Razak Akanni Okoya, and Rao Investment Property Company Limited after upholding a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the action.
Justice O. Sule-Amzat delivered the ruling in Suit No: LD/S226GCM/2021, holding that the suit, filed in 2021, was statute-barred under the Limitation Law of Lagos State.
The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter and consequently struck out the claims against the 1st and 2nd defendants.
The suit was challenged through a preliminary objection filed by the 2nd Defendant/Applicant, (Chief Razak Akanni Okoya), who urged the court to dismiss the action and grant any further orders it deemed appropriate in the circumstances.
In the objection, the Applicant argued that the originating processes filed by the claimant failed to disclose any interaction whatsoever between the claimant and the 1st and 2nd defendants.
According to the Applicant, there was no agreement, communication, authorization, or transaction executed by the 2nd defendant that could establish any form of relationship between the claimant and the 1st defendant.
The 2nd defendant further contended that the processes before the court did not reveal any link connecting it to the claims brought by the claimant.
It maintained that it could not be held liable for any alleged contractual obligations involving the 1st or 3rd defendants, particularly as both entities remain going concerns and capable of bearing their own liabilities.
The Applicant also submitted that the claimant failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action against the 2nd defendant or the other parties joined in the suit.
In addition, the 2nd defendant argued that the action was statute-barred, having been instituted more than twelve years after the alleged cause of action arose.
The objection also challenged the claimant’s locus standi to institute and prosecute the suit against the 1st and 2nd defendants.
On the basis of these arguments, the Applicant described the suit as frivolous and urged the court to dismiss it with substantial costs.
The defendants further informed the court that the claimant had previously filed a similar action before the Lagos High Court under Suit No: LD/1361/2007, seeking the same reliefs.
That earlier suit, they stated, was struck out on July 15, 2008 by Justice B.A. Oke-Lawal for want of diligent prosecution.
They argued that the present suit, filed in 2021, came about 13 years after the earlier case was struck out and was therefore caught by the limitation law.
Dajo Oil Nigeria Limited had claimed that the defendants obtained an advance of $250,000 from the company, allegedly secured by the deposit of the original Certificate of Occupancy registered as No. 28/28/2005 in the name of Rao Investment Property Company Limited.
The property is located at Block 96, Lekki Peninsular Scheme I, Eti-Osa Local Government Area of Lagos State.
The claimant alleged that the loan transaction was facilitated through the 4th defendant, Ms. Ajoke Memunat Olubando, , whom it described as an agent and nominee of the other defendants.
It maintained that the deposit of the title document created an equitable mortgage in its favour.
In opposing the preliminary objection, the claimant argued that its cause of action had been revived by an alleged acknowledgment of the debt by the 4th defendant.
However, the court rejected the argument.
Justice Sule-Amzat held that the documents relied upon by the claimant did not amount to the clear and unequivocal acknowledgment required by law to revive a statute-barred claim.
The court noted that the statements attributed to the 4th defendant amounted to a denial of liability rather than an admission of debt.
According to the court, the 4th defendant maintained that the money she received was not a loan but a personal gift given to her during a romantic relationship.
She reportedly stated that the funds were provided to assist her in processing a Certificate of Occupancy and that she considered the payment a voluntary gesture from a lover.
The court held that such statements could not constitute an acknowledgment of a mortgage debt capable of reviving the claimant’s cause of action.
Justice Sule-Amzat further held that once an action is statute-barred, the court is automatically divested of jurisdiction to entertain it.
The judge noted that the cause of action in the dispute arose in 2005 when the defendants allegedly published a notice announcing the loss of the Certificate of Occupancy which the claimant claimed had been deposited as security for the loan.
He held that the claimant had ample opportunity to pursue its claim within the statutory period but failed to do so.
“The present action was instituted thirteen years after the fresh right of action accrued upon the striking out of the earlier suit in 2008,” the judge held.
“The six-year limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Law has long expired.”
The court consequently upheld the preliminary objection and struck out the suit.
