- Akibu V. Oduntan (2000) 7 SC pt II p. 106. - Olutola V. University of Ilorin (2004) 18 NWLR pt 905 p. 416. In the case of Adekoya V. F.H.A (2008) 28 WRN 1, it was held that a cause of action arises the moment a wrong is done to another by the Defendant, and the wrong which is the basis of dispute or complaint, represent a factual situation which entitles the person wronged to seek a remedy in a court of law by way of enforcement. - Zubair V. Kolawole(Supra) at p. 68 lines 30. - Egbe V. Adefarasin (2002) 14 WRN 57. - Oshoboja V. Amuda (1992) 6 NWLR pt 250 p 690. The Supreme Court has severally held that it is apposite to reiterate that the substantive law that is applicable to a cause or matter, is the law in existence at the time the cause of action arose. Statutes are generally construed as operating only in cases or on facts which came into existence after the statues were passed unless a retrospective effect is clearly intended. - Zubair V. Kolawole (Supra) at 76 line 45. - Adah V. NYSC (2004) 34 WRN 1. - Ojokolobo V. Alamu (1987)3 NWLR pt 61 p 377. In a plethora of cases, the Supreme Court has held that it is a fundamental principle of our law that rights and liabilities of parties in both Civil and Criminal cases in every litigation, are decided on the basis of the substantive or organic law in force at the time of the act in question, and this distinguishes them from adjectival or procedural law where the rules governing practice and procedure, is the rule in force at Page 7 of 27