ADETOUN OLUKOYA V. ISAMOTU A. ASHIRU
June 6, 2025BASSEY AKPAN ARCHIBONG V. THE STATE
June 6, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2006) Legalpedia (SC) 10411
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri May 12, 2006
Suit Number: SC. 208/2000
CORAM
BELGORE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT DEVCON DEY. CONSULTANTS LTD RESPONDENT
PARTIES
1. CHIEF UGBOR OFIA2. CHIEF OJI UGBOAJA 3. ONU IKWOR4. CHIMA OBASI (for themselves and on behalf of the people of Etiti Edda and Oso Edda Communities of Afikpo L.G.A.) APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellants laid claim to title over land. They were granted leave to sue in a representative capacity.
HELD
The court held that from the evidence led by the appellants each community had a separate interest in portions of the land in dispute thus the action could not be brought in a representative capacity.
ISSUES
NONE
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS TO INSTITUTE AN ACTION IN A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY
The essential requirements for people who desire to sue in a representative capacity to include the following:
(i) There must be numerous persons interested in the case or the side to be represented;
(ii) All those interested must have the same interest in the suit i.e. their interest must be joint and several.
(iii) All of them must have the same grievance.
(iv) The proposed representative must be one of them and
(v) The relief sought must be in its nature beneficial to all the persons being represented. Per W. S. N. ONNOGHEN, JSC
COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION- EFFECT OF AN ACTION NOT COMPETENTLY OR PROPERLY CONSTITUTED
It is settled law that where an action is not competent or properly constituted, it robs the court of the jurisdiction to entertain same. In other words, such a complaint raises the issue of jurisdiction of the trial court and ought to be dealt with first and foremost since a judgment delivered in action outside the jurisdiction of the court amounts in law to a nullity irrespective of how well the proceeding was conducted by the trial judge. Jurisdiction therefore is said to be a peripheral issue in any adjudication where it is raised.Per W. S. N. ONNOGHEN, JSC
CASES CITED
1. Bulai & Ors V. Omoyajowo (1968) 1 All NLR 72;2. Dokubo & Ors V. Bob-Manual & Ors (1967) 1 All NLR 113;3. Jack V. Whyte (2001) 6 NWLR (pt. 709) 266, (2001) 4 SCM 354. Mba Nta & Ors V. Anigbo & ors (1972) 5 SC. 156 5. Mogaji V. Odofin (1978) 4 S.C.91,
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NONE
