LawPavilion Electronic Law ...

"...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 case
can be distinguishable from NPA v. Construzioni
Generali Supra.
In the Construzioni case, the appellants, a
statutory corporation engaged the 1st respondent,
building contractors to construct what used to be
known as the second Apapa Wharf Extension. The
appellant sued for £163,124 while the respondent
counterclaim. It was held inter alia by this court:
"That Section 97 of the Ports Act and similar
enactments are not intended by the legislature to
apply to specific contracts. Also when goods have