Umahi–Tracy Dispute Exposes Six-Year Contract Limit Flaw

Public debates over the dispute between Tracy Ohiri and Minister David Umahi have reignited focus on a key but often misunderstood principle of Nigerian law the doctrine of limitation of actions, also known as statute barred claims.

While opinions have been sharply divided, the legal position remains clear,once a contractual claim becomes statute barred, it can no longer be enforced in court.

Under Nigerian law, actions founded on simple contracts must generally be instituted within six years from the date the cause of action arose. Contracts under seal, however, have a limitation period of twelve years.

This distinction is critical, as many people mistakenly assume that all contracts share the same limitation period.

In the case of Tracy Ohiri and Minister Umahi, the alleged contractual arrangement was clearly a simple contract.

Consequently, the limitation period for bringing an action had already elapsed, as established in U.B.A. Ltd. v. Michael O AbimboluCo. (1995) 9 NWLR (Pt. 419) 371, Court of Appeal, which held that “an action founded on a simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued”.

The law also emphasizes the importance of evidence. Even if a claim is brought within time, the claimant must prove the existence of the contract, its terms, and any alleged breach.

“Sentiment, public opinion, or moral considerations cannot substitute for credible evidence. “

Additionally, civil disputes like this should be resolved through the courts, not law enforcement agencies.

Speaking to THE WHISTLER, a lawyer based in Lagos, Slyvester Innocent, elaborated further on these issues. He explained that breach of contract matters are “two-fold,” involving simple contracts and contracts under seal.

Simple contracts, he stated, are straightforward agreements between parties and are not under seal. For these, actions for breach must generally be brought within six years from the date the breach occurred or was discovered.

This principle, he stated is supported by Lawal v. Ejidike, which clarified that “the period of limitation for any claim begins to run when the cause of action arises” Contracts under seal, however, carry a limitation period of twelve years.

Innocent emphasized that many people generalize the limitation period, mistakenly applying it to all contracts, when the periods differ depending on the type of contract.

He added that “determining whether a contract is simple or under seal is critical when considering breach claims.”

In the Tracy and Umahi case, he said, it was clearly a simple contract, as the parties had not formalized it as a deed.

He also noted that it is important to consider when the breach was discovered and what actions were taken, as these factors determine when the cause of action actually arose.

On exceptions to the limitation period, Innocent highlighted that “fraud is one factor that can extend the time for bringing an action. Another key factor is acknowledgment of debt, which effectively renews the cause of action. For example, if a debtor owes a sum for six years but in the seventh year sends a letter acknowledging the debt and promising repayment, the cause of action is revived from the date of acknowledgment. This creates a continuing cause of action, restarting the six year limitation period from that date.”

He emphasized that evidence of acknowledgment such as correspondence or written statements of indebtedness is critical. Such acknowledgment can override the apparent expiration of the limitation period, allowing a claimant to pursue legal action even after the original period has lapsed.

Innocent concluded that the law remains firm, rights must be enforced promptly, but acknowledgment or fraud can revive claims.

In a Facebook post, a Legal Practitioner, Inibehe Effiong said that no amount of public sympathy on the Umahi and Tracy case can override the law.

He stated that a contract allegedly performed over ten years ago cannot be resurrected in 2026 without any form of acknowledgment from the debtor, stressing that such a claim is “clearly statute barred” and legally dead.

Effiong further argued that beyond limitation, the apparent failure to present credible evidence makes the claim even more untenable, warning that “sentiments cannot supplant elementary legal principles.”

He faulted the use of law enforcement in a civil matter, and maintained that the alleged debt, assuming it ever existed, is no longer recoverable in law.