The appellant as plaintiff at the High Court of the defunct Bendel State Abudu Judicial Division instituted an action in a representative capacity for himself and on behalf of six other members of his family against the respondent as defendant. The action was commenced by a Writ of Summons dated 13th June, 1985. The appellant in his statement of claim stated that on or about the 18th of July, 1979, the respondent by its agents or servants in the course of laying pipes destroyed the greater part of his farms which contained many economic trees, cash and food crops. The appellant further stated that of all the person affected by the destruction, only himself and one Sunday Eboigbe are illiterates. He averred that he left home sometime 1979 for Northern Nigeria and returned in July 1983 and that on his return home he learnt form his illiterate relations how the respondent during its operation destroyed greater part of their farms.

On 20th July, 1983, the appellant first wrote a letter to the respondent informing it of the damage done to the family farms. Correspondence were exchanged by both parties until the last letter written by the respondent on 1st February, 1984 informing the appellant that his claim for compensation was not convincing. Consequently the appellant wrote another letter to the respondent to which the respondent replied and regarded the matter as closed. When the appellant wrote another letter the respondent wrote a letter dated 16th April, 1984 and stated therein that the case had been referred to its legal department and that the appellant would be duly informed of any development in due course.

It was when the appellant did not hear from the respondent that he filed this action in June 1984 i.e. 14 months after the respondent had denied liability.

Prior to trial commencing respondents raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the High Court and sought an order dismissing the appellant's action.

It was held that the appellant's termination is caught squarely by Decree No. 17 of 1984 and that, accordingly, he had no jurisdiction to entertain the action. He therefore dismissed the action.

After filing its statement of defence, the respondent filed an application to strike out the action on the ground that the action is statute- barred under section 11(1) and (2) of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Act 1977 and section 4 (1) (a) of the Limitation law of Bendel State 1976. The learned trial Judge in a reserved ruling dismissed the respondents application. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and held that the action of the plaintiff/appellant herein was statute-barred. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the judgment appealed to the Supreme Court.