Continuity of damage and/or injury is an exception to the application of the statute of limitation to a suit

The Appellants, fishermen and women affected by a crude oil spill allegedly caused by the Respondent’s negligence, initially filed for declaratory and injunctive reliefs, along with special and general damages. They claim the spill, originating on June 29, 2014, significantly harmed their economic activities by contaminating their fishing environment. They allege that the Respondent failed to contain the spill, resulting in ongoing pollution that continues to affect their livelihoods.

The Respondent denied responsibility, asserting via a preliminary objection that the suit was statute-barred under Section 16 of Akwa Ibom State’s Limitation Law, as it was not filed within the prescribed five-year period. Additionally, the Respondent argued that the case was filed on behalf of unidentifiable and non-juristic persons, further challenging the case's validity.

The trial Court ruled in favor of the Respondent, finding the suit time-barred and thus outside its jurisdiction, leading to its dismissal. Dissatisfied, the Appellants appealed, seeking to overturn the dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.

The Court of Appeal, in its decision, noted that, according to established legal principles, continuity of damage or injury is an exception to limitation laws, as highlighted in cases such as Nweke v. UNIZIK and Folarin v. Agusto1. The law allows a fresh cause of action to arise each time damage persists. The

_{1 (2023) 11 NWLR (PT. 1896) 559, per OKORO J.S.C. at pages 586-587}

Appellants argued that they had indeed pleaded continuity of damage in their statement of claim. Their writ of summons sought declarations acknowledging ongoing harm from the spill, compensation for damages, and restitution for their fishing equipment and business environment.

The Court of Appeal, upon reviewing the statement of claim and the reliefs sought, found that the Appellants had sufficiently alleged continuity of damage. Additionally, citing A.G. Rivers v. A.G. Federation2, the Court emphasized that limitation statutes do not restrict declaratory reliefs.

Therefore, the Court held in favor of the Appellants, rejecting the trial Court’s ruling and setting it aside. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the Federal High Court in Uyo for a full trial on its merits, to be presided over by a different judge.

_{2 (2022) 15 NWLR (PT. 1852 99 at 116)}