CORAM

---

ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI – ADEJUMO    JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

IMPERIAL HOMES MORTGAGE BANK APPELLANTS

---

D – VAR CONSULTING LTD RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant filed an application at the Lagos State High Court against the Respondent wherein he prayed the Honorable Court to strike out in limine the Respondent’s action on the ground that it does not disclose any reasonable cause of action judging from the pleadings of the Respondent. The Respondent in defence argued that he had a reasonable cause of action for breach of contractual agreement. The court after considering the arguments of both parties entered judgment in favour Respondent and consequently dismissed the Appellant’s application and awarded costs in favour of the Respondent. The Appellant dissatisfied with the decision of the court filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal challenging the decision of the court.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

?    Whether the High Court of Lagos State per Taiwo, J. was right in holding that the statement of Claim discloses a reasonable cause of action??    Whether the High Court of Lagos State per Taiwo, J. was right in holding that the Statement of Claim disclosed a binding contract??    Whether in view of the clear provisions of Order 22 Rules 1 and 2 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012, the costs awarded against the Appellant is justifiable at law?

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

CAUSE OF ACTION – DUTY OF THE COURT IN ASSESSING WHETHER OR NOT A PLAINTIFF HAS A REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION

---

“In the case of Chevron (Nig.) Ltd. V L. D. (Nig.) Ltd. (2007) NWLR (Pt. 1059) 168, the court held thus:
“A decision on whether or not a plaintiff has reasonable cause of action can only be made after an examination of the facts pleaded in the statement of claim. It has nothing to do with the nature of the defence which the defendant may have to the plaintiffs claim. The court must therefore confine itself only to the averments in the statement of claim in its assessment of whether or not the plaintiff has a reasonable cause of claims. See Shell B.P. Petroleum Dev. Co. of Nig. Ltd. v. Onasanya (1976) 6 SC89,” PER Y. B. NIMPAR, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

CAUSE OF ACTION- PREREQUISITE FOR COMMENCING AN ACTION IN COURT

---

“It is trite beyond citing legal authorities that before a matter is commenced for determination by the courts, there must be a cause of action cognizable in law, a cause of action being simply a factual situation the existence of which entitles a person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person, see AG Federation V AG Abia State (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt 725) 689. Therefore, facts to be pleaded must be facts which would establish the cause of action before the court. When such facts disclose a cause of complaint and not necessarily a measure of success based only on the averments in the pleading, then it can be said that there is a reasonable cause of action.” PER Y.B. NIMPAR, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

FRONTLOADING- UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE OF FRONTLOADING

---

“The fact that documents were attached to the writ and statement of claim as proof of the averments in the statement of claim is a prerequisite in the frontloading process, the aim being to expedite trial and consequently, achieve a speedy dispensation of justice. However, this does not mean that the documents are to be considered in line with the averments in the statement of claim to determine whether or not a reasonable cause of action had arisen.” PER Y. B. NIMPAR, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

CAUSE OF ACTION – DETERMINATION OF A REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION

---

“In the case of H. S. Engr. Ltd V S.A. Yakubu (Nig.) Ltd (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 416, the Supreme Court while referring to the case of Chief S. A. Dada & 3 Ors. V. Otunba Adeniran Ogunsanya & Anor. (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 212) 754 held inter alia, as follows:
“Determining reasonable cause of action in so doing, it is irrelevant to consider the weakness of the plaintiffs claim. What is important is to examine the averments in the pleadings and see if they disclose some cause of action or raise some questions fit to be decided by a Judge.”
The action must not comprise every piece of evidence which is necessary to be proved.” PER Y. B.NIMPAR, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

CAUSE OF ACTION-DEFINITION OF CAUSE OF ACTION – DUTY OF A COURT IN DETERMINING THE EXISTENCE OF A REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION

---

“In the case of UBN V Umeoduagu (2004) 13 NWLR (PT. 890) 352, the court held as follows:
“Cause of action had been defined by courts to mean a combination of facts and circumstances giving rise to the right to file a claim in court for a remedy. It includes all things which are necessary to give a right of action and every material fact which has to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed.” In determining the existence of a reasonable cause of action, the court is bound to consider only the statement of claim and nothing else.”
In determining the existence of a reasonable cause of action, the court is bound to consider only the statement of claim and nothing else. PER Y. B.NIMPAR, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

High Court of Lagos State Rules

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT