Court strikes out $250,000 loan recovery suit against Razak Okoya, firm

The High Court of Lagos State, 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, ruling that the action was filed outside the time allowed by law.

Presiding over Suit No: LD/S226GCM/2021, Justice O. Sule-Amzat upheld a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the suit and held that the case was statute-barred under the Limitation Law of Lagos State.

The court consequently ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter and struck out the claims against the defendants.

The objection was brought by the 2nd Defendant/Applicant, who argued that the claimant’s originating processes failed to establish any direct transaction, agreement, communication, or authorisation linking the claimant to the 1st and 2nd defendants.

The applicant maintained that there was no evidence of a contractual relationship between Dajo Oil Nigeria Limited and Chief Razak Akanni Okoya, nor any material connecting the 2nd defendant to the claims before the court.

It was further argued that the claimant could not impose liability on the 2nd defendant for alleged obligations involving the 1st or 3rd defendants, particularly as those entities remained operational and capable of bearing their own liabilities.

The defence also contended that the suit disclosed no reasonable cause of action, challenged the claimant’s locus standi, and described the action as frivolous. A central point of the objection was that the suit was filed long after the cause of action had arisen.

Counsel for the defendants informed the court that the claimant had previously filed a similar suit before the Lagos High Court in Suit No: LD/1361/2007, seeking substantially the same reliefs. That earlier case was struck out on July 15, 2008, by Justice B.A. Oke-Lawal for want of diligent prosecution.

They argued that the present action, filed in 2021, came about 13 years after the earlier suit was dismissed and was therefore barred by the state’s limitation law.

Dajo Oil had claimed that the defendants obtained an advance of $250,000, 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 in dispute is located at Block 96, Lekki Peninsular Scheme I, Eti-Osa Local Government Area of Lagos State.

The claimant also 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, and argued that the deposit of the title document created an equitable mortgage in its favour.

However, in opposing the preliminary objection, the claimant contended that its cause of action had been revived by an alleged acknowledgement of the debt by the 4th defendant.

Justice Sule-Amzat held that the documents relied upon by the claimant did not constitute the unequivocal acknowledgement required by law to revive a statute-barred claim. Rather, the judge found that the statements attributed to the 4th defendant amounted to a denial of liability, not 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 regarded the payment as a voluntary gesture from a lover.

The court held that such statements could not amount to an acknowledgement of a mortgage debt capable of reviving the claimant’s claim.

ALSO READ: Investigate alleged N5.9bn NNPC-to-NNPCL rebranding cost, SERAP tells Tinubu

Justice Sule-Amzat further held that once an action becomes statute-barred, the court is automatically deprived of jurisdiction to hear it. The judge noted that the cause of action arose in 2005, when the defendants allegedly published a notice announcing the loss of the Certificate of Occupancy that the claimant said had been deposited as security for the loan. He stated that the claimant had sufficient opportunity to pursue the matter 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 six-year limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Law has long expired,” the judge held.

The court consequently upheld the preliminary objection and struck out the suit.