What the Court Considers in Determining Whether Plaintiff has Locus Standi
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
On Friday, the 8th day of March, 2024
Before Their Lordships
Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju
Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa
Adamu Jauro
Tijjani Abubakar
Emmanuel Akomaye Agim
Justices, Supreme Court
SC. 99/2010
Between
1. H.R.H. SAMUEL OLUKA EJIRE APPELLANTS
(THE REGENT AND CHAIRMAN,
ELEME COUNCIL OF CHIEFS)
2. THE ELEME COUNCIL OF CHIEFS
(OGBO NKPORON, ELEME)
And
CHIEF JOHNSON EMERE NKPORNWI (JP) RESPONDENT
(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Adamu Jauro, JSC)
Facts
The Respondent instituted an action against the Appellants in Suit No. NHC/26/2003 at the High Court of Rivers State, seeking inter alia, a declaration that the Respondent is a fit, proper and qualified person/candidate to contest for the office of the One-eh-Eleme, that is, the King of Eleme Kingdom, under the Eleme native law and custom; a declaration that he has satisfied all the essential traditional prerequisites as required by the Eleme native law and custom, for the selection and election to the throne of the One-eh-Eleme. He also sought a declaration that the procedure being adopted by the Appellants in the selection and installation to the vacant throne of the One-eh-Eleme is highly prejudicial and discriminatory to the Respondent, and an order of injunction restraining the Appellants from scheming the Respondent out of the race as a candidate in selection exercise for the King of Eleme Kingdom.
Due to the installation of the 1st Appellant as the One-eh-Eleme, shortly after the Respondent instituted the suit, the Respondent filed an application seeking a mandatory and restorative order of the court reversing the election of the 1st Appellant pending the determination of the suit. The application was heard and dismissed by the trial court. In its ruling delivered on 18th February, 2004, the trial court held that the Respondent had not fulfilled one of the necessary pre-conditions to contest for the stool of the One-eh-Eleme, since by his own averments in his statement of claim, one of the pre-conditions to contest for the stool is that a contestant must be the Paramount Ruler of one of the ten clans making up the Eleme Kingdom, and the position of the Respondent which would have qualified him for the position of One-eh-Eleme is still under litigation in another suit in suit No. NHC/12/2003 pending before the Nchia Division of the High Court of Rivers State. The trial court also held that the right of the Respondent to assert that he was a qualified candidate to contest for the stool could only arise in the future, if Suit NHC/12/2003 is decided in his favour.
Aggrieved, the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/PH/92/2005. The Appellants on their part filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection before the trial court, challenging the justiciability of the claim against the 2nd Appellant, on the ground that it is not a juristic person. The preliminary objection was upheld by the trial court. The Respondent equally filed an appeal in CA/PH/190/2005, against the ruling upholding the preliminary objection. Both appeals were consolidated, heard together and dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
Meanwhile, in the suit before the trial court, the Appellants filed a motion on notice seeking an order dismissing the suit in its entirety. The application was premised on the grounds that the Respondent lacked locus standi to institute the action, and the reliefs sought in the action were not justiciable. In its ruling on the said application, the trial court upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the suit for lack of locus standi and lack of cause of action. In holding that the Respondent lacked locus standi, the trial court relied largely on its earlier ruling of 18th February, 2004. Dissatisfied, the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the ruling of the trial court and restored Suit No: NHC/26/2003 on the cause list of the trial court. Dissatisfied, the Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue for Determination
After a review of the issues submitted by the parties, the Apex Court formulated a sole issue for determination as follows:
Whether the lower court was right to set aside the ruling of the trial court, wherein it was held that the Respondent lacked locus standi to institute Suit No. NHC/26/2003.
Arguments
Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Court of Appeal had in its earlier decision in Appeal No. CA/PH/190/2005 between the same parties, held that the 2nd Appellant is not a juristic personality capable of suing and being sued, and it ought to have taken judicial notice of the said decision and decline jurisdiction, as a court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a non-juristic person. Counsel cited the case of YOUNG v BRISTOL AEROPLANE CO. LTD (1944) 2 ALL ER 293. He argued further that the 1st Appellant having been sued as the Regent and Chairman of the 2nd Defendant was incapable of being sued in that capacity, thus, occasioning a situation where there was no Defendant against whom the Respondent could maintain the action.
Counsel argued that by the Respondent’s own averments, particularly paragraph 10 of the Statement of Claim, the position of One-eh-Onne which would have entitled him to contest for One-eh-Eleme is subject of litigation in another suit; hence he disclosed no interest in the One-Eh-Eleme title. It was submitted that this amounted to an admission against the interest of the Respondent, and based on the principle of law that courts are bound by the case put forward by parties in their pleadings, the Respondent must be held to the case he put forward in his Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim.
Counsel for the Respondent argued to the contrary, that the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the trial court took extraneous matters into consideration in arriving at the decision that the Respondent lacked locus standi. Counsel submitted that the Court of Appeal rightly held that the trial court ought to have limited itself only to the Statement of Claim, in determining whether the Respondent had the requisite locus standi to institute the action. He submitted that the averment in paragraph 10 of the Statement of Claim, to the effect that there are rival claims to the One-eh-Onne stool, should not be considered in isolation, and a holistic consideration of the averments contained therein would show that the Respondent has locus standi. Counsel finally submitted that the ruling of 18th February, 2004 could not operate as issue estoppel, because the application in respect of which the ruling was delivered was for a mandatory and restorative injunction, not an application in respect of the Respondent’s locus standi.
Court’s Judgement and Rationale
Deciding the sole issue, the Supreme Court held that locus standi is the legal right and capacity of a party to an action to be heard in litigation before a court of law or tribunal, and having the right capacity or locus standi is a condition precedent to the court assuming jurisdiction to determine the case on merit. The Court held that for a Plaintiff to bring an action before a court of law, he must show that he has locus standi by displaying sufficient connection to, and harm, or possibility of harm from the action challenged, and where this is absent, the court would lack jurisdiction for want of locus standi on the part of the Plaintiff, as there would be no dispute for the court to adjudicate over – UWAZURUONYE v GOVERNOR OF IMO STATE & ORS (2012) LPELR — 20604 (SC).
The Apex Court held further that as a general rule, when the issue of locus standi or any other issue bordering on the jurisdiction of court is raised before evidence is led, the only processes to be considered by a court in the determination of whether it has jurisdiction are the originating processes and the reliefs sought therein. Where the action was commenced by a Writ of Summons, the Statement of Claim must determine the locus standi and a cause of action.
Their Lordships noted that the Court of Appeal had held that it was wrong for the learned trial Judge to conclude that the Respondent lacked locus standi to institute the action by referring and relying on its ruling delivered on 18th February, 2004, where the trial court had earlier held that it ought not to grant a restorative injunction in favour of the Respondent, who from his own affidavit evidence, had not fulfilled the necessary pre-qualification requirements of being a candidate for the stool of the Onne-eh-Onne which was still in dispute before the court.
In examining the correctness or otherwise of the finding of the Court of Appeal, the Apex Court held that before arriving at the conclusion that the Respondent had not fulfilled the conditions to contest for the stool in its ruling of 18th February, 2004, the trial court had combed through the averments in the Statement of Claim and duly considered the relevant paragraphs in the Statement of Claim; it was thus, incorrect for the Court of Appeal to state that the trial court did not consider the averments in the Statement of Claim, or that the court considered extraneous materials before ruling that the Respondent lacked locus standi.
The Apex Court held that the Statement of Claim was considered in the ruling delivered on 18th February, 2004, and the same issue which had been determined in the earlier ruling, in essence arose for determination in the later application.
The Supreme Court, relying on its decision in P.D.P v Lawal (2023) 12 NWLR (PT. 1898) 205 AT 245, PARAS E — G, held that courts of law have a duty to be consistent in their findings and decisions, and having already made a determination that the Respondent, at the time of instituting the suit, did not meet the precondition to be able to contest for the position of One-eh-Eleme, the trial court was duty bound to reach the same decision in respect of the application challenging the issue of locus standi.
The Court held further that the only remedy for the Respondent in respect of the finding that he did not meet the pre-conditions to contest for the stool was for him to appeal, and he did so by filing Appeal No. CA/PH/92/2005, but the appeal was dismissed. The appeal having been dismissed, the finding became conclusive and binding between the parties. The Apex Court held that since the Court of Appeal had dismissed the appeal in respect thereof, the trial court was right to rely on its earlier decision, in which it had considered the relevant processes and determined the issue submitted for its determination.
The Apex Court thus, resolved the sole issue in favour of the Appellants. The Court however, found that since the suit had not been heard on the merits at the trial court and since the trial court rightly held that the right of the Respondent could arise in the future if the suit pending before the Nchia Division of the High Court of Rivers State in Suit NHC/12/200 to determine the qualification of the Respondent, is decided in the Respondent’s favour; the trial court ought to have struck out the suit rather than dismiss the same. The Supreme Court thus, substituted the order of dismissal of the suit with an order striking out same.
Appeal Allowed. Judgement of the Court of Appeal set aside and the ruling of the trial court dismissing the suit restored, however, substituted with an order of striking out.
Representation
Akin Adesomoju for the Appellants.
A. Labi-lawal with B. L. Benson for the Respondent.
Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)
