Legalpedia Citation: (2025-03) Legalpedia 52324 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden at Lagos

Thu Mar 27, 2025

Suit Number: CA/L/236/2018

CORAM

Mohammed Mustapha-Justice of the Court of Appeal

Paul Ahmed Bassi-Justice of the Court of Appeal

Polycarp Terna Kwahar-Justice of the Court of Appeal

PARTIES

1. ALHAJI BABATUNDE ALESHINLOYE WILLIAMS
2. ALHAJI SUBWEBATU OJO SERKI

APPELLANTS

1. ALHAJI SHAMSIDEEN ABAYOMI LABINJO (Trading under the name and style of Alhaji S.A Labinjo & Sons)
2. MOHAMMED EL-KHALIL & SONS (PROPERTIES) LIMITED
3. CHIEF (MRS.) MARIA ABEGBE ACOSTA 4. DAVID OLUWOLE IDOWU
4. ALHAJI ABDUL- RASHEED SALAUDEEN (SIDICO)
5. ALHAJI HAKEEM APATIRA 7. ALHAJI SHAMSEDEEN AZEEZ

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, LOCUS STANDI, JURISDICTION, CAUSE OF ACTION, ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS, PROPERTY LAW, LANDLORD AND TENANT, TRESPASS, JUDICIAL DISCRETION, COSTS

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court of Lagos delivered on November 30, 2017, in Suit No: LD/4931/2014, which dismissed the Appellants’ preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court and holding that the 1st Respondent (Alhaji Shamsideen Abayomi Labinjo) had locus standi to institute the action.

The underlying dispute concerned properties in Lagos. The Appellants had previously obtained a judgment in Suit No: LD/839/98 against the 2nd Respondent (Mohammed El-Khalil & Sons Properties Limited). When executing that judgment on December 20, 2012, the Appellants allegedly took possession of properties beyond what was specified in the judgment. The 1st Respondent, who claimed to be a lessee of the 2nd Respondent in possession of some of these properties, instituted the action at the trial Court claiming, among other things, declarations of valid lease/tenancy, setting aside the wrongful execution, an order to account for monies collected, and injunctive relief against further trespass.

The Appellants filed a preliminary objection at the trial Court on March 19, 2015, arguing that the 1st Respondent lacked locus standi to institute the action, that the writ disclosed no reasonable cause of action against them, and that the suit constituted an abuse of Court process because the 2nd Respondent had already instituted a similar action against the Appellants in Suit No: LD/1107/14. The trial Court dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the 1st Respondent had disclosed sufficient interest in the suit and had locus standi to institute the action.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

HELD

1.The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

2.The Court of Appeal held that the trial Court was right in dismissing the Appellants’ preliminary objection and finding that the 1st Respondent had locus standi to institute the action.

3.The Court held that the 1st Respondent’s suit did not constitute an abuse of Court process as the claims/reliefs sought in both suits, though similar in nature, were legally different with distinct legal implications.

4.The Court found that the 1st Respondent’s suit disclosed a reasonable cause of action against the Appellants.

5.The Court upheld the award of costs of N20,000.00 against the Appellants, finding that the trial Court had exercised its discretion judicially and judiciously.

6.The ruling of the High Court of Lagos delivered on November 30, 2017, in Suit No: LD/4931/2014 was upheld.

7.No order as to costs was made.

ISSUES

1.Whether from the facts and evidence before the lower Court, the learned trial Judge was right in dismissing the Appellants’ preliminary objection on points of law and holding that the 1st respondent has locus standi to institute and/or maintain this action against the Appellants.?

2.Whether based on the facts and evidence before the lower Court, the learned trial Judge rightly held that the 1st Respondent’s action does not constitute an abuse of judicial process.?

3.Whether from the facts and evidence, this action discloses any reasonable cause of action against the Appellants.?

4.Whether the cost of N20,000.00 (twenty thousand Naira) awarded against the Appellants was proper.?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

MEANING AND DETERMINATION OF LOCUS STANDI – WHAT IS LOCUS STANDI AND WHAT THE COURT CONSIDERS IN DETERMINING LOCUS STANDI:

“Locus standi, though expressed in Latin, simply refers to the legal capacity of a party to institute proceedings in a Court of law. Thus, all that a claimant or counter claimant as the case may be, need to do to establish his locus standi is to succinctly plead in his pleadings the entire or sufficient facts establishing his rights and obligations.” – Per POLYCARP TERNA KWAHAR, J.C.A.

LOCUS STANDI AND JURISDICTION – RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCUS STANDI AND JURISDICTION:

“It is very crucial in the determination of a suit, the effect of which could strip the Court of the right to adjudicate over a matter once it is ascertained that a party lacks the locus standi to institute such an action… the relationship between the issue of locus standi and the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a matter is that of a mother and a growing foetus in its mother’s womb. The jurisdiction of the Court to adjudicate on a matter is dependent on the locus standi of the party that instituted the action.” – Per POLYCARP TERNA KWAHAR, J.C.A.

DETERMINATION OF LOCUS STANDI – CONSIDERATION OF PLEADINGS IN DETERMINING LOCUS STANDI:

“The law is trite that in determining whether a party has the locus standi to institute a suit, what the Court needs to do is to look at the totality of the averments in the claimant’s or counter claimant’s statement of claim as the case may be.” – Per POLYCARP TERNA KWAHAR, J.C.A.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES AT PRELIMINARY STAGE:

“In determining a preliminary application, the Courts are precluded from delving into the substance of the suit while determining a preliminary objection… The trial Court ought to be commended for been fair in interpreting and rightly applying the principle of law by dismissing the Appellants’ application and holding that the 1st Respondent had the locus standi to institute the instant suit.” – Per POLYCARP TERNA KWAHAR, J.C.A.

ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS – ELEMENTS THAT MUST COEXIST TO CONSTITUTE ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS:

“Generally, abuse of Court process denotes a situation where a party has instituted a multiplicity of suits against the same opponent in respect of the same subject matter and on the same issues. This manner of using Court process, which is obviously lacking in bona fide leads to the irritation and annoyance of the other party and thus impeding due administration of justice, To institute an action during the pendency of another suit claiming the same relief is an abuse of Court process. Therefore, to sustain a charge of abuse of Court process, there must coexist inter alia (1) a multiplicity of suits (2) between the same opponents and (3) on the same subject matter; and (4) on the same issues.” – Per POLYCARP TERNA KWAHAR, J.C.A.

SAME SUBJECT MATTER BUT DIFFERENT RIGHTS – WHEN SIMILAR RELIEF DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS:

“Distinctive is the situation where, although the subject matter is the same, different rights and reliefs may give rise to different suits. In such circumstance, no question of multiplicity of action arises.” – Per POLYCARP TERNA KWAHAR, J.C.A.

CONCEPT OF ABUSE OF JUDICIAL PROCESS – IMPROPER USE OF JUDICIAL PROCESS:

“The concept of abuse of judicial process is imprecise. It involves circumstances and situations of infinite variety and condition. one common feature is the improper use of judicial process by a patty in litigation to interfere with the due administration of justice, it is recognized that the abuse of the process may lie in both a proper or improper use of the judicial process in litigation, But the employment of judicial process is only regarded generally as an abuse when a party improperly uses the issue of the judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent, and the efficient and effective administration of justice. This will arise in instituting a multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issues.” – Per POLYCARP TERNA KWAHAR, J.C.A.

MEANING OF CAUSE OF ACTION – DEFINITION AND ELEMENTS:

“The words ’cause of action’ comprise every fact (though not every piece of evidence) which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, to support his right to the judgment of the Court… The phrase comprises every fact which is material to be proved to enable the plaintiff to succeed… the words have been defined as meaning ‘simply a factual situation, the existence of which entails one person to obtain from the Court a remedy against another person’… a cause of action is the question as to the civil rights and obligation of the plaintiff founding the action to be determined by the Court in favour of one patty against the other patty.” – Per POLYCARP TERNA KWAHAR, J.C.A.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CAUSE OF ACTION AND LOCUS STANDI – HOW THEY ARE CONNECTED:

“The concepts of cause of action and locus standi in law are like inseparable conjoined twins, though not entirely one or same cannot be separated from each other… While one of these concepts can exist without the other concept, the other concept cannot exist without the one which is very crucial… A cause of action can exist without the requisite locus standi in the person that approached the Court to seek redress and thus must fail but locus standi cannot exist without a cause of action. In other words, for there to be locus standi there must be a cause of action but reverse is not necessarily so.” – Per POLYCARP TERNA KWAHAR, J.C.A.

AWARD OF COSTS – DISCRETION OF THE COURT:

“It is trite that a Court has an absolute and unfettered discretion to award or refuse costs in any particular case but that discretion must be exercised judicially and judiciously. Cost, follow events and are not awarded as a punitive means neither are they designed or meant to be a bonus to the successful party.” – Per POLYCARP TERNA KWAHAR, J.C.A.

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING COSTS – APPELLATE COURT’S REVIEW OF COSTS AWARD:

“The award of costs by a Court is discretionary and is usually given in favour of the party who succeeds in litigation, as a means of reducing the brunt of prosecuting the case… In fixing the amount of cost the principle to be observed is that the party who is in the right is to be indemnified the expense to which he has been unnecessarily put in the proceedings, as well as compensated for his time and effort in coming to Court. The judge may take into account all the circumstances of the case.” – Per POLYCARP TERNA KWAHAR, J.C.A.

APPELLATE COURT’S INTERFERENCE WITH COSTS AWARD – WHEN APPELLATE COURT CAN INTERFERE:

“The assessment of costs is a matter in the discretion of the Court of trial but the discretion must be exercised judicially and if not so exercised, the Court of Appeal would be entitled to interfere and set aside an unjustifiable award… The trial Judge should therefore show for what items he allowed costs and how much was allowed in respect of each. The Court of Appeal is thereby in a good position to review the costs if they are challenged on appeal. Where a trial Court awards cost that are ex facie excessive but does not state his reason for so doing or gives a wrong reason or one for which no valid reason can be seen, the appellate Court may reduce the costs.” – Per POLYCARP TERNA KWAHAR, J.C.A.

APPELLATE COURT’S APPROACH TO TRIAL COURT’S DISCRETION – RELUCTANCE TO INTERFERE WITH JUDICIAL DISCRETION:

“An appellate Court is always reluctant to interfere with the way a trial Judge exercises his discretion but would be compelled to do so if: a) the discretion was wrongly exercised b) the exercise of discretion was tainted with some illegality or substantial irregularity c) there is miscarriage of justice or d) it is in the interest of justice to interfere.” – Per POLYCARP TERNA KWAHAR, J.C.A.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), Sections 6(6)(d) and 36
• Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009, Order 25 Rule 2 (1) & (2)
• Evidence Act (as amended), Section 311

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT