JUDGMENT OF BENIN J.
The plaintiff on 12 September 1988 sued out a writ of summons against the defendants claiming the following reliefs:
“(1) Declaration that the plaintiff's indefinite suspension from work is wrongful.
(2) Declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to all his arrears of salary and other entitlements.
(3) Declaration that since the defendants have not up to date investigated further against the plaintiff, he is entitled to the yearly and other salary reviews which operated within the corporation from the date of his suspension. to the date of judgment.
(4) An order that the plaintiff be paid all the arrears of his salary and other benefits from the date of suspension to the date of judgment."
A brief summary of the plaintiff's case as contained in his statement of claim is as follows: he was accused by his employers of certain lapses in the performance of his duties and prosecuted at a criminal court for theft. The charge was withdrawn by the entry of a nolle prosequi. Meanwhile whilst the police were still investigating the criminal case against him, his employers wrote suspending him from duty without pay until the case was disposed of. When the nolle prosequi was entered [p.400] signifying that the case was disposed of, the plaintiff wrote to his employers asking for an immediate lifting of the suspension; to which they replied saying that fresh investigations were being conducted into the case and therefore he could not be reinstated at that stage. Thereafter after several inquiries the plaintiff realised that the defendants were conducting no investigations, hence the action. By their defence, the defendants admitted the facts contained in the claim but contended that investigations were still going on.
The matter was set down for trial following summons for directions. The defendants then put in this application to amend their pleadings by adding a plea that the action by the plaintiff is statute-barred. This was opposed by the plaintiff.
At the hearing of the application to amend, the arguments centred on the following main topics: (a) whether an amendment under a limitation statute can be raised or granted at the trial; (b) whether the plaintiff 's cause of action accrued when the nolle prosequi was entered or when he claimed the investigations ended; and (c) whether, if the application can be granted at this stage, and if the cause of action accrued when the nolle prosequi was entered in 1979, this is a fit case where t
