LawPavilion Electronic Law ...

same shall have been served upon the
Authority by the intending plaintiff of his
agent... It is clear that Section 26(1) and (2)
of the NICON Act and Section 97(1) and (2) of
the Ports Act are saying more or less the
same thing. The Court of Appeal considered
Section 97 of the Ports Act and decided not to
follow NPA v. Construzioni Generali Supra.
The reasoning is interesting. The Court of
Appeal said: "...The issue in that case was a
matter of contract which was not explicitly
included and necessitating a pre-action notice.
This case is however distinguishable from the
one under consideration which the provision
of Section 26(2) clearly requires that there
must be pre-action notice to the Corporation
in "any suit" giving no single specification or
exception. Thus the remarkable distinguishing
factor from the case under reference and cited
by the appellant's learned counsel. The
reasoning of the Court of Appeal is wrong. The
issue in this case is also a matter of contract,
a contract of employment. How may I ask is
NPA v. Construzioni Generali supra
distinguishable. The Court of Appeal said that
any suit in subsection 2 of Section 26 of the
NICON Act gives no single specification or
exception, but failed to see and also failed to
explain subsection 2 of Section 97 of the Ports
Act which also has in this case "No suit". "No
suit" and "Any suit" in the context used in the
legislation mean the same thing. I fail to this