Statutory Time Limits for Construction-Related Claims in Nigeria

Introduction

The Nigerian construction industry, a vital engine of economic growth, is a complex web of contracts, projects, and relationships. From grand infrastructure developments to modest residential builds, every project involves a myriad of stakeholders: clients, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, suppliers, and financial institutions. In this dynamic environment, disputes are an inevitable part of the landscape. What often turns a manageable disagreement into a debilitating legal quagmire, however, is the failure to understand and adhere to the statutory time limits for bringing construction-related claims.

Imagine a scenario: a contractor completes a project, but payments are delayed for years. Or perhaps, a structural defect emerges in a building long after its completion, leading to significant damage. In both cases, the aggrieved party has a legitimate right to seek redress. Yet, if they “sleep on their rights” – to borrow a legal idiom – and fail to initiate legal action within the periods prescribed by law, their claims, no matter how meritorious, can become statute-barred. This means the courts will lose jurisdiction to entertain the matter, effectively extinguishing the right to a remedy.

The consequences of such an oversight are severe: loss of substantial financial claims, inability to recover damages for professional negligence, and the erosion of trust within business relationships. Conversely, a clear understanding of these time limits empowers stakeholders to act diligently, protect their interests, and foster a more predictable and efficient dispute resolution process.

This blog post delves deep into the intricacies of statutory time limits governing construction-related claims in Nigeria. We will explore the primary legal frameworks, dissect the general principles that underpin limitation laws, and then meticulously examine the specific timeframes applicable to various types of construction claims – from breach of contract to professional negligence and claims against public officers. We will also provide practical implications and strategic considerations for both claimants and defendants, highlighting crucial nuances and potential pitfalls within the Nigerian legal landscape. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive guide, leaving no stone unturned in ensuring that all stakeholders are equipped with the knowledge necessary to navigate this critical aspect of construction law in Nigeria.

Understanding the Legal Framework: The Nigerian Limitation Laws

The legal landscape governing limitation periods in Nigeria is primarily a product of both federal and state legislation, reflecting the country’s federal structure. While there isn’t a single, overarching federal statute that comprehensively covers all limitation periods across the board, several key enactments dictate the timeframes within which various civil actions can be brought.

Primary Legislation

• Limitation Act 1966 (Federal) / Limitation Act Cap L42 LFN 2004: This is a foundational piece of legislation in Nigeria concerning limitation of actions. It generally applies across the federation where specific state laws do not provide for a particular cause of action. The Act sets out various limitation periods for different types of claims. For instance, Section 7(1)(a) of the Act specifies that actions founded on simple contracts or quasi-contracts shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. Similarly, actions for the recovery of land are typically barred after twelve years (Section 16).

The Act also addresses the impact of factors like fraud, disability, and acknowledgment of debt on the running of time. It’s crucial to remember that its application is often residuary, meaning it steps in where state laws are silent or do not cover a specific scenario.

• State Limitation Laws: Given Nigeria’s federal system, limitation laws are largely a matter for individual states. This means that while the principles are often similar, the specific wordings, section numbers, and sometimes even the exact timeframes can vary from one state to another. This necessitates a careful examination of the law of the specific state where the cause of action arose or where the property in dispute is located.
  • Lagos State Limitation Law: As a major commercial hub, the Lagos State Limitation Law is particularly significant. It largely mirrors the provisions of the federal Act but with its own specific nuances. For instance, Section 8(1)(a) of the Lagos State Limitation Law also sets a six-year period for actions founded on simple contracts. For land matters, Section 16(2) provides a 12-year limitation period for actions to recover land. However, it’s worth noting that actions by a State authority to recover land in Lagos can have a longer period, often 20 years (Section 68). Section 9 of the Lagos State Limitation Law sets a three-year period for actions for damages for negligence.
  • Ogun State Limitation Law: Similar to Lagos, Ogun State has its own Limitation Law, which generally aligns with the federal and Lagos provisions but should always be consulted for precise details. The general principles of 6 years for simple contracts and 12 years for recovery of land are common.

The critical takeaway here is that legal practitioners and stakeholders in the construction industry must identify and apply the correct state limitation law pertinent to the specific facts of their case. Failure to do so can lead to a miscalculation of time and ultimately, the loss of a claim.

Other Relevant Legislation (Brief Mention)

While the Limitation Acts are primary, other statutes can influence time limits in specific contexts:

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Cap A18 LFN 2004) / Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023: This Act governs arbitration proceedings in Nigeria. While it doesn’t set limitation periods for the underlying disputes themselves (those are still governed by the general limitation laws), it sets very strict time limits for procedural aspects, such as applying to set aside an arbitral award (often 3 months from the date of the award). The new Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 further clarifies aspects of arbitral awards and their enforcement.
• Public Procurement Act 2007: For contracts involving public entities, this Act might introduce specific processes or timeframes for challenging procurement decisions, which could indirectly affect the overall timeline for certain claims.
• Specific Contract-Related Statutes: In rare instances, specific statutes might govern particular types of contracts (e.g., related to sale of goods for material supply), potentially influencing the limitation period for claims arising from them.

General Principles of Limitation Periods

Understanding the fundamental principles that govern limitation periods is paramount, as they dictate how and when time begins to run and the ultimate impact of its expiry.

• Definition: A limitation period is a statutorily prescribed timeframe within which a legal action or claim must be commenced. It’s a procedural bar, not a substantive one, meaning it extinguishes the remedy (the right to sue in court) but generally not the right itself. The claim still exists, but it cannot be legally enforced.
• Purpose: The rationale behind limitation laws is multifaceted:
  • Preventing Stale Claims: To ensure that claims are brought promptly while evidence is still fresh, witnesses’ memories are clear, and documents are readily available. As captured in the maxim “equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights.”
  • Promoting Diligence: To encourage claimants to pursue their rights diligently and without undue delay.
  • Ensuring Certainty and Finality: To provide predictability in legal affairs, allowing potential defendants to move on from potential liabilities after a reasonable period, rather than facing the perpetual threat of litigation.
• Accrual of Cause of Action: When Does Time Start Running?

  This is the most critical and often contentious aspect of limitation law. The general rule is that time begins to run from the date the “cause of action accrued.” A cause of action accrues when all the facts necessary for a plaintiff to prove their case have occurred.

  • Date of Breach (for Contract Claims): In contract, the cause of action generally accrues on the date the breach of contract occurs, regardless of when the damage is discovered. For example, if a contractor fails to complete work by a specified deadline, time starts running from that deadline. If the payment for work done is due on a certain date and not made, time runs from that date of default.
  • Date of Damage (for Tort Claims): In tort, particularly negligence, the cause of action typically accrues when the damage or injury occurs, not necessarily when the negligent act itself happened. This distinction is crucial, especially in construction for latent defects.
  • “Discovery Rule” and Latent Defects: This is a significant “blind spot” for many. While English law has adopted a “discoverability rule” (allowing time to run from when the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the damage for certain tort claims, subject to a long-stop date), Nigerian courts have generally been reluctant to broadly apply the discoverability rule unless explicitly provided for by statute. In the absence of specific statutory provisions, Nigerian courts usually adhere to the principle that time runs from the date the damage occurred, even if it was not immediately discoverable.

This means for a latent defect, if the damage occurred, say, upon completion of a faulty structure, the clock might start ticking then, even if the defect only manifests years later. This is a point that requires careful legal advice and robust arguments in court, as it can significantly impact claims related to long-term structural failures.

• Effect of Expiry: Once the limitation period expires, the claim becomes “statute-barred.” This means the defendant can raise the statute of limitation as a complete defense, and if successfully argued, the court will dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. The court has no discretion to extend time where the action is already statute-barred, except for specific statutory exceptions.
• Exceptions and Extensions (Tolling): The running of a limitation period can be paused or reset under certain circumstances, known as “tolling.”
  • Fraud: If the defendant fraudulently concealed the facts giving rise to the cause of action, the limitation period may not begin to run until the claimant discovers the fraud or could have, with reasonable diligence, discovered it.
  • Acknowledgement of Debt/Part Payment: If a debtor acknowledges a debt or makes a part payment after the cause of action has accrued, the limitation period can be reset from the date of that acknowledgment or payment. This is often a critical point in claims for unpaid sums.
  • Disability: If the claimant is under a legal disability (e.g., a minor or a person of unsound mind) when the cause of action accrues, the limitation period may not begin to run until the disability ceases.
  • Mistake: For claims based on mistake, time may not begin to run until the mistake is discovered or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence.
  • Continuing Damage/Breach: In some cases, particularly in tort or nuisance, if the damage or breach is continuous, a fresh cause of action may arise from time to time as often as the damage is caused. However, it’s vital to distinguish between a continuing cause of action (where the wrongful act is ongoing) and continuing damage from a completed wrongful act. Nigerian courts require the former for time to be reset or extended on this ground.

Specific Construction-Related Claim Types and Their Statutory Time Limits

This section details the most common types of construction claims and their corresponding limitation periods under Nigerian law.

1. Breach of Contract Claims

Contracts form the bedrock of all construction projects. Claims arising from breaches of these contracts are the most common in the industry.

• General Contract Claims:
  • Simple Contracts: For contracts not made under seal (e.g., most construction agreements, service contracts, supply contracts), the limitation period is generally six (6) years from the date the cause of action accrued. This is stipulated in Section 7(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1966 (Federal) and often replicated in state laws like Section 8(1)(a) of the Lagos State Limitation Law.
  • Contracts Under Seal (Deeds): Where a contract is executed as a deed (e.g., some land transfer agreements, mortgages, or very formal construction agreements specifically stated to be deeds), the limitation period is typically longer: twelve (12) years.
• When does time accrue for contract claims?

  Time invariably accrues from the date of the breach. This means:

  • Failure to Pay for Works Done: If an invoice is due on a specific date and remains unpaid, the six-year period begins from that due date.
  • Delay in Completion: If a contractor fails to meet a contractually agreed completion date, the breach occurs on that date, and the clock starts ticking for claims related to liquidated damages or general damages for delay.
  • Defective Workmanship (Patent Defects): If a defect is apparent or discoverable upon completion or during regular inspections (a patent defect), the breach occurs when the defective work is executed or when the project is handed over in a defective state. The six-year period would run from that point.
  • Unauthorised Variations: If a contractor or employer unilaterally varies the contract without due process, the breach occurs when the variation is made or acted upon.
  • Wrongful Termination: If a contract is wrongfully terminated, the cause of action accrues on the date of termination.

2. Tortious Claims (Negligence, Nuisance, Trespass)

While construction is contract-driven, tort claims, particularly negligence, are equally significant, especially when dealing with professional liability or damage to property.

• Negligence (e.g., Professional Negligence of Architects, Engineers, Quantity Surveyors, Project Managers):
  • The general limitation period for actions in tort, including negligence, is six (6) years from the date the cause of action accrued. However, for some state laws, like the Lagos State Limitation Law (Section 9), it is three (3) years for actions for damages for negligence. This highlights the crucial need to consult the specific state law.
  • When does time accrue for negligence claims? This is where the complexity truly lies, especially for latent defects.
    • Traditional View (Damage Occurred): The established principle in Nigerian law is that the cause of action in negligence accrues when the damage occurs, even if the claimant is unaware of it. For instance, if an engineer provides a faulty design in 2015, and a structural crack develops in the building in 2018 as a direct result, the clock for negligence might start in 2018, even if the building owners don’t notice the crack until 2020.
    • The “Discoverability Rule” in Nigeria: Unlike jurisdictions like the UK, where Section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 introduced a specific discoverability rule for latent damage (allowing a three-year period from the date of knowledge, subject to a 15-year long-stop), Nigerian jurisprudence has generally been cautious in adopting a broad “discoverability rule” in the absence of explicit statutory provision.

While courts acknowledge the concept of a “continuing cause of action” where the wrongful act itself is continuous, they are less inclined to extend the limitation period merely because the damage was latent or not immediately discovered after the initial harm. This means for a latent defect that arises from a single, completed negligent act (e.g., a faulty design completed years ago), the limitation period may run from the point the damage physically manifested, regardless of actual knowledge. This is a critical point of divergence and a significant “blind spot” for those not familiar with Nigerian case law. Parties suffering from latent defects must seek legal advice immediately upon discovery.

Examples: Negligent design leading to structural failure, faulty supervision by an architect or engineer, negligent advice provided by a construction consultant.

• Nuisance and Trespass: These torts are also subject to a general limitation period of six (6) years. Time accrues from the date the nuisance or trespass occurs. In cases of continuing nuisance or trespass, a fresh cause of action may arise each day the wrongful act continues.

3. Claims for Recovery of Land

Construction projects often involve land disputes, whether related to initial acquisition, boundary disputes, or structures built on contested territory.

• Private Actions: Actions for the recovery of land or rent (including issues like adverse possession) are generally limited to twelve (12) years from the date the right of action accrued. This is found in Section 16 of the Limitation Act 1966 and similar provisions in state laws (e.g., Section 16(2) of the Lagos State Limitation Law).
• Actions by State Authority: In some states, actions by a state or public authority to recover land may have a longer limitation period, sometimes up to twenty (20) years (e.g., Section 68 of the Lagos State Limitation Law).
• When relevant in construction: These periods are critical in disputes over rightful ownership of a construction site, claims of encroachment by neighbouring properties, or when structures are inadvertently built on land that is later found to belong to another party.

4. Claims for Arrears of Rent/Liquidated Damages

• Claims for arrears of rent or liquidated sums, such as liquidated damages for delay under a construction contract, generally fall under simple contract claims and are subject to a six (6) year limitation period. Time starts running from the date the rent or liquidated sum became due.

5. Claims for Specific Performance/Injunctions

• These are equitable remedies, meaning they are granted at the discretion of the court, unlike claims for damages which are a right if a breach is proven. While not subject to strict statutory limitation periods in the same way as common law claims, they are governed by the equitable doctrine of laches and acquiescence.
• Laches and Acquiescence: This doctrine dictates that undue delay in seeking an equitable remedy, coupled with circumstances that would make it unjust to grant the relief, can defeat the claim. Even if the statutory limitation period for a related damages claim has not expired, a court might refuse specific performance or an injunction if the claimant has “slept on their rights” to the detriment of the defendant. This is a vital consideration in construction, where timely action is often crucial due to the dynamic nature of projects.

6. Arbitration Claims

The presence of an arbitration clause in a construction contract profoundly impacts dispute resolution, but it does not negate the relevance of limitation periods.

• Impact of Arbitration Clauses: While arbitration is an alternative to court litigation, the substantive limitation period for the underlying cause of action (e.g., breach of contract, negligence) still applies. Initiating arbitration proceedings (e.g., serving a notice of arbitration) generally stops the clock for the substantive claim, just as filing a writ of summons in court would. However, if arbitration proceedings are not commenced within the statutory period for the underlying dispute, the claim can become statute-barred and thus unenforceable even in arbitration.
• Enforcement of Arbitral Awards: Once an arbitral award is made, a party may need to apply to court for its recognition and enforcement. The limitation period for enforcing an arbitral award is typically six (6) years from the date the award becomes enforceable (i.e., the date it was made, unless otherwise specified). Nigerian Supreme Court decisions (e.g., in City Engineering Nig. Limited vs. Federal Housing Authority) have clarified that the time for enforcing an award runs from the date of the award, not from the accrual of the original cause of action in the arbitral agreement. This is an important distinction.
• Setting Aside Arbitral Awards: Applications to set aside an arbitral award are subject to very strict and short limitation periods, often three (3) months from the date of receipt of the award by the applicant. This short timeframe is crucial and strictly enforced by the courts to promote the finality of arbitral proceedings.

7. Claims Against Public Authorities/Government Bodies

This is a significant “blind spot” and a common pitfall in Nigerian litigation.

• Public Officers Protection Act: The Public Officers Protection Act (POPA) (and similar state laws) provides special protection to public officers and government entities acting in the execution of public duties. Section 2(a) of the POPA typically imposes a very short limitation period: an action against any person for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of any Act or Law or of any public duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such Act, Law, duty or authority¹, shall not lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within three (3) months next after the act, neglect or default complained of, or in case of a continuance of damage or injury, within three months next after the ceasing thereof.
• Scope and Exceptions: This three-month period is exceptionally short and can be devastating to unsuspecting claimants. Its application is broad, covering actions against government ministries, departments, agencies (MDAs), and public officers in their official capacities, including those involved in public construction projects.
  • Exceptions to POPA: Nigerian courts have carved out significant exceptions to the application of the POPA. The Act generally does not apply to:
    • Actions for breach of contract (it primarily covers actions in tort or for neglect of public duty).
    • Actions for recovery of land.
    • Cases where the public officer or body acts outside their statutory duty or in bad faith.
    • Claims for liquidated sums or debts owed by the government.
  • Despite these exceptions, the POPA remains a powerful defence for public bodies in many construction-related claims, especially those sounding in negligence or wrongful acts in the performance of public functions. Claimants must carefully assess whether the defendant is a “public officer” or “public authority” performing a “public duty” to determine if the POPA applies.

Practical Implications and Strategic Considerations

Navigating the labyrinth of statutory time limits requires proactive strategies for all parties involved in construction.

For Claimants (Aggrieved Parties)

• Early Identification of Claims: Do not delay. As soon as a potential issue arises – be it a payment default, a delay, or a defect – assess whether it gives rise to a claim. Time starts running from the “accrual of cause of action,” not necessarily from when you decide to take legal action.
• Meticulous Documentation: This cannot be overstressed. Maintain comprehensive records of:
  • All contracts, addenda, and variations.
  • Correspondence (emails, letters, meeting minutes) related to performance, issues, and disputes.
  • Payment certificates, invoices, and payment records.
  • Site diaries, progress reports, and photographs.
  • Defect notices, rectification efforts, and expert reports.
  • Records of communication regarding delays, extensions of time, and force majeure events.
  • Strong documentation provides the factual basis for when a cause of action accrued and helps counter “statute-barred” defences.
• Prompt Legal Advice: Seek legal counsel immediately a dispute crystallizes or appears likely. An experienced construction lawyer can:
  • Ascertain the exact nature of the claim (contractual, tortious, etc.).
  • Determine the correct applicable limitation law (federal or state).
  • Pinpoint the precise date the cause of action accrued.
  • Advise on the remaining time within the limitation period.
  • Recommend the appropriate course of action (negotiation, mediation, arbitration, litigation).
• Timely Initiation of Proceedings: Ensure that legal proceedings (filing a writ of summons in court, serving a notice of arbitration) are commenced well within the prescribed time limits. Do not wait until the last minute. Technical issues with filing can lead to delays that push a claim beyond the statutory period.
• Tolling/Standstill Agreements: In certain situations, particularly where parties are actively negotiating a settlement, a “tolling agreement” (also known as a standstill agreement) can be entered into. This is a contractual agreement between the potential claimant and defendant to suspend the running of the limitation period for a specified duration, allowing more time for out-of-court resolution without the pressure of an impending deadline. This must be a mutual, written agreement. While generally recognized, their enforceability ultimately depends on careful drafting and the specific facts.

For Defendants (Parties Facing Claims)

• Due Diligence on Receipt of Claim: Upon receiving any form of claim or demand (formal or informal), immediately ascertain whether the claim, or any part of it, might be statute-barred. This is a primary and powerful defence.
• Raise Statute-Barred Defence Promptly: If a claim appears to be statute-barred, this defence should be raised early in the proceedings (e.g., in the statement of defence or via a preliminary objection). A successful argument on limitation can dispose of the entire case without the need for a full trial on the merits.
• Gather Evidence on Accrual: Be prepared to present evidence that demonstrates when the cause of action accrued, which might be earlier than the claimant asserts. This could include project completion dates, dates of alleged breaches, or dates of initial damage manifestation.
• Assess Impact of Acknowledgement/Part Payment: Be cautious with communications or payments that could inadvertently reset the limitation period, especially if a debt is already nearing or past its limitation date. Any acknowledgment of a debt should be made with legal advice to avoid unintended consequences.

Risk Management for Construction Companies

• Robust Contract Drafting:
  • Ensure all contracts clearly define completion dates, payment milestones, defect liability periods, and dispute resolution mechanisms.
  • While statutory limitation periods cannot be shortened by contract (they can only be extended by specific agreement, like a tolling agreement, or by acknowledging debt), clear contractual terms can help in determining when a cause of action accrues.
  • For public contracts, be acutely aware of the implications of the Public Officers Protection Act and consider how claims might be framed to avoid its strict three-month limit.
• Internal Protocols for Claims Management: Develop and implement internal procedures for:
  • Monitoring contract performance and identifying potential breaches or claims (both those the company might make and those it might face).
  • Promptly investigating incidents, defects, or payment defaults.
  • Notifying relevant internal departments (legal, finance, project management) when a dispute arises.
  • Regularly reviewing the status of potential claims and their respective limitation deadlines.
• Insurance Considerations: Understand how limitation periods interact with various construction insurance policies (e.g., professional indemnity, all-risks insurance). Insurers often have strict notification requirements. Failure to notify an insurer of a potential claim within the policy’s specified timeframe (which may be shorter than statutory limitation periods) can jeopardize coverage.
• Continuous Training: Provide regular training for project managers, contract administrators, legal teams, and senior management on the fundamentals of Nigerian limitation laws and their specific relevance to construction claims. This continuous education helps to foster a proactive and compliant approach to risk.

Challenges and Nuances in Nigerian Law

Despite the clear principles, the application of limitation laws in Nigeria presents several challenges and nuances that require careful consideration.

• Judicial Interpretation of “Accrual”: The precise moment a “cause of action accrues” can be subject to complex judicial interpretation, particularly in sophisticated construction disputes. For instance, in cases of professional negligence involving complex design or engineering defects, determining when the actual damage occurred (as opposed to the negligent act) can be highly debatable and often requires expert evidence. The Nigerian courts’ general reluctance to widely apply the “discoverability rule” for latent defects means claimants must be vigilant and proactive in monitoring their assets for signs of damage.
• Lack of Uniformity Across States: The existence of various state limitation laws, while often similar, can lead to inconsistencies and potential confusion. A claim arising from a project spanning multiple states, or involving parties from different states, may require careful analysis to determine the correct governing limitation law. This lack of complete uniformity places a burden on legal practitioners to be well-versed in the specific laws of the relevant jurisdiction.
• Interaction with Contractual Time Bars: Construction contracts, especially standard forms like FIDIC, often contain their own “time bars” or conditions precedent for making claims (e.g., notice periods for claims for extensions of time or additional payment). It is crucial to distinguish between these contractual time bars and statutory limitation periods. While contractual time bars are generally enforceable and can extinguish a claim if not followed, they do not supersede the statutory limitation period for bringing an action in court or arbitration if the contractual dispute resolution process fails or is ignored.
• A party might have complied with all contractual notice requirements but still be statute-barred if they fail to commence legal proceedings within the statutory period for the underlying cause of action.
• The Public Officers Protection Act (POPA) – A Persistent Hurdle: Despite the exceptions carved out by case law, the POPA’s three-month limitation period remains a significant hurdle for claimants against government entities in construction. Many legitimate claims have been lost due to non-compliance. Litigants must carefully frame their claims and identify the correct parties to avoid falling foul of this stringent provision. The ongoing debate about its anachronistic nature and calls for reform underscore its impact on access to justice.

Case Studies/Hypothetical Scenarios (Illustrative)

To solidify understanding, let’s consider a few hypothetical scenarios based on common construction disputes in Nigeria:

• Scenario 1: Latent Defect in a Building
  • Facts: A commercial building was completed in Lagos in January 2018. The consulting structural engineer negligently approved a faulty foundation design. The building owners took possession. In July 2024, significant structural cracks appeared in the foundation, requiring extensive and costly repairs. The owners discovered the negligence then.
  • Analysis: The claim is one of professional negligence (tort).
    • Under the Lagos State Limitation Law, the period for negligence is 3 years.
    • The traditional view in Nigeria (and generally applied for negligence unless a specific “discoverability” provision exists) is that time accrues when the damage occurs. Here, the damage occurred in July 2024 when the cracks appeared, not necessarily when the faulty design was approved in 2018.
    • Therefore, the 3-year clock would likely run from July 2024. The owners would have until July 2027 to file their suit.
  • Critical Nuance: If the Lagos State Limitation Law did not have a 3-year period and deferred to the general 6-year period from the Federal Act, or if the “damage” was deemed to have occurred earlier (e.g., when the faulty foundation was built, even if not visible), the outcome could change drastically. This highlights the sensitivity around “accrual” for latent defects and the need for immediate legal review.
• Scenario 2: Unpaid Variation Order
  • Facts: A contractor completed a road project for a private client in Ogun State in December 2021. During the project, a variation order was issued for additional work, which the client approved in writing. The payment for this variation was due by March 2022 but has remained unpaid. The contractor is considering legal action now, in June 2025.
  • Analysis: This is a claim for breach of simple contract (failure to pay).
    • Under the Ogun State Limitation Law (likely mirroring the general 6-year period for simple contracts), the limitation period is 6 years.
    • The cause of action accrued in March 2022 when the payment became due and was not made.
    • Therefore, the contractor has until March 2028 to commence legal action. The claim is not statute-barred.
  • Strategic Tip: The contractor should still act promptly. Waiting until 2028 can lead to difficulties in gathering evidence, faded memories of witnesses, and potential solvency issues for the client.
• Scenario 3: Claim Against a Government Agency for Wrongful Termination
  • Facts: A construction company entered into a contract with a State Ministry of Works in Cross River State for a school building project. The Ministry wrongfully terminated the contract in January 2025, alleging poor performance without following contractual procedures. The company wants to sue for wrongful termination and damages.
  • Analysis: This involves a government agency, so the Public Officers Protection Act (POPA) comes into play.
    • The POPA generally imposes a 3-month limitation period.
    • However, the crucial exception to POPA is that it generally does not apply to claims for breach of contract. A wrongful termination of a contract is fundamentally a breach of contract.
    • Therefore, the 3-month limit of POPA would likely not apply. The general 6-year period for simple contracts (from the state’s limitation law) would be relevant, commencing from January 2025.
  • Critical Nuance: If the company had framed its claim as, for example, “negligent exercise of public duty in terminating the contract,” it might inadvertently fall under POPA. The framing of the claim is paramount. Legal advice is critical here to ensure the claim bypasses the stringent POPA limit.

Conclusion

The statutory time limits for construction-related claims in Nigeria are not mere legal technicalities; they are fundamental pillars that uphold the principles of justice, fairness, and certainty in the industry. For every stakeholder – from the multinational construction firm to the individual homeowner – a thorough understanding of these limits is indispensable for effective risk management and successful dispute resolution.

As we have seen, the Nigerian legal framework, while rooted in common law principles, possesses its own unique characteristics, particularly concerning the application of state-specific limitation laws, the nuances of the “accrual of cause of action” for latent defects, and the powerful, yet often misunderstood, Public Officers Protection Act.

Ignoring these timeframes can lead to the irreparable loss of legitimate claims, regardless of their intrinsic merit. Conversely, a proactive approach – involving meticulous record-keeping, timely legal consultation, and strategic initiation of proceedings – can safeguard interests, ensure accountability, and ultimately contribute to a more efficient and trustworthy construction landscape in Nigeria.

In an industry where delays, unforeseen challenges, and disputes are almost inevitable, equipping oneself with robust knowledge of statutory limitation periods is not just good practice; it is an absolute necessity for survival and success. Remember, in law, as in construction, precision and timely action are the cornerstones of building a strong and defensible position. Do not “sleep on your rights” – be vigilant, be informed, and act decisively.