J. SUNKANMI DAIRO & ORS V. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH
June 19, 2025MOSES OKHUAROBO V. CHIEF EGHAREVBA AIGBE
June 19, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2002) Legalpedia (SC) 04922
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Mar 8, 2002
Suit Number: SC. 48/1997
CORAM
MICHAEL EKUDAYO OGUNDARE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1. Dr. O.O. SOFOLAHAN (Suing as a parent and the next friend of Olabosipo Sofolahan) 2. MR. SEYI SULE (Suing as a parent and the next friends of Tunde Sule, Tife Sule and Toyosi Sule) APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellants sought to restrain a school as next friend of some pupils from increasing school fees on the grounds that it was a charitable trust which was not being properly managed. ?
HELD
The court held that they lacked locus standi to institute the suit and that it was wrong the way the appellants here were stated in the writ of summons and other processes since they were suing on behalf of infants.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Appellants had the requisite locus standi to institute proceedings against the Respondents?2. Whether the Appellant followed the proper practice and procedure in suing as next friends in the Lagos High Court. 3. Whether the Federal Attorney General is the only person able to properly institute an action as contained in the claims before the Lagos State High Court?4. Whether the Court of appeal, could properly make a determination of the nature of the trust of the 2nd Respondent and the nature of the contract of education on an interlocutory appeal.5. Whether the Court of first instance could properly grant an order for interim injunction during the hearing of motion on notice for interlocutory injunction on the facts before the court ?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
NEXT FRIEND -WHETHER PARTY TO THE SUIT
The law is clear that the next friend in a suit is an officer to the court appointed and allowed to pursue the interests of the minor he represents; he is not regarded as a party to the proceedings- Katsina- Alu J.S.C
LOCUS STAND UNDER S.6(6)(B) OF THE CONSTITUTION
The claim brought by a plaintiff must disclose a cause of action when the issue of his locus standi is sought to be established apart from whether he is the proper person to institute the action. This means section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution does not confer locus standi independently – Katsina- Alu J.S.C
CASES CITED
Rendall v. Blair (1890) 45 Ch. D 139; Strickland v. Weldon (1885) 28 Ch. D. 426Thomas v. Olufosoye (1986) 1 NSCC (Vol. 17) 323 at 331Dyke v. Stephen (1885) 30 Ch. 189;Rhodes v. Swithenbak (1889) 22 Q.B.D. 577Re Hurst Addison v. Topp (No. 2) (1891) 36 Sol. Jo. 41; Murray v. Sitwell (1902) W.N. 119?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The 1979 ConstitutionThe Charitable Trust Act 1853
