CORAM

---

OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL

MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

1. MR. TAJUDEEN FADU

2. MR. TAOFEEQ LAWAL (Substituted By Order Of Court Dated 23rd Day Of September, 2016)

3. MR. NURENI ABUDU

4. MR. OLAYIWOLA TAIWO (For Themselves And On Behalf Of The Ibari Family)

 

APPELLANTS 

---

1. RASAKI TOKOSI

2. TAOFEEQ TOKOSI

3. AIRAT TOKOSI (For Themselves As Administrators And Administratrix Of The Estate Of The Late Liasu Rufai Tokosi)

 

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EVIDENCE, JUDGMENT, LAND LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Claimants/Respondents are the Administrators/Administratrix of the estate of their late father, Liasu Rufai Tokosi, who bought the land in dispute at Illo, Old Agbado Railway Station now known as Alagbado at Ojokoro in the Ikeja District of Lagos State from one Mr D.A. Akintonde in 1952. The Claimants/Respondents contended that the vendor executed a Deed of Conveyance in favour of their late father in 1968. Subsequently, the Respondents partitioned and apportioned the land to the beneficiaries. They further contended that the Appellants/Defendants have disturbed the beneficiaries from their right of ownership and possession of the land and have sold part of the land in dispute which they claimed belonged to them.

The Appellants on their own part stated that the land in dispute is situate in Agbado Aiyewadun, off Moshalasi Bus Stop, Old Ota Road in the Alimosho Local Government Area of Lagos State, and that it was never owned by Mr. D. A Akintonde nor was the late father of the Respondents ever put in possession by anybody. The Appellants claimed that the land belongs to the Ibari Family of Ota as same was founded by their forefathers . That the land was never at any point partitioned nor was it fenced by the Respondents, rather they noticed that sometimes in 1993 unknown persons encroached on the land leading to their institution of an action at the High Court of Lagos State which they later withdrew against some of the Respondents who were sued as Defendants therein. The Appellants have however in this present action counterclaimed for title to the said land in dispute, which they claimed, belonged to them, together with damages for trespass and perpetual injunction.

The lower Court entered judgment for the Respondents and dismissed the Appellants’ counterclaim. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed the instant appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal allowed

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the respondents have locus standi to institute this action in the lower count having discharged their duty/office as administrators and administratrix of the estate of the late Liasu Rufai Tokosi thereby, divesting the lower Court of the jurisdiction to entertain this suit?

Whether there is need in law for the appellants to lead evidence to prove a point of law that the respondents are not beneficiaries to the estate to late Liasu Tokosi and thereby lacks the necessary locus stand to institute this action at the lower Court?

Whether the title documents relied upon by the respondents relate to the exact location and description of the land in dispute?

Whether the judgment of the lower Court delivered in favour of the respondents can still stand when exhibit “p3”- (the CTC of the respondents' deed of conveyance) is expunged for inadmissibility for failure to comply with the legal requirement of certification by the evidence Act?

Whether the letters of administration granted the respondents appointing them as administrators/administratrix of the estate of the late Liasu Tokosi has any nexus or relates and covers the land in dispute?

Whether the learned trial Judge was right in law having regard to the evidence before him to have dismissed the appellants counterclaim on the ground that the appellants have not shown a better title?

Whether the learned trial Judge was right in law to have awarded the sum of N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) as cost in favour of the respondents when what the respondents asked for was N10,000.00 (Ten Thousand Naira)?

Whether the trial Judge was right in law to have awarded the sum of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) as general damages in favour of the respondents having regard to the circumstance of this matter?

Whether the judgment is not totally against the weight of evidence?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

LOCUS STANDI – MEANING OF LOCUS STANDI – WHEN A PERSON LACKS LOCUS STANDI TO INSTITUTE AN ACTION

---

The term locus standi has been described as the legal capacity to institute legal proceedings before a Court. It is the standing to sue or the competence of a party to sue. See Taiwo vs. Adegboro (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1159) 562. The term was also defined by Kekere-Ekun, JSC, in B.B. Apugo & Sons Ltd vs. OHMB (2016) LPELR-40598 (SC), as follows: “Locus standi is the legal right of a party to an action to be heard in litigation before a Court or Tribunal. The term connotes the legal capacity of instituting or commencing an action in a competent Court of law or Tribunal without any inhibition, obstruction or hindrance from any person or body whatsoever.”

Thus, for a person to approach a Court, he must be able to show that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being violated or infringed upon. Locus standi is a condition precedent for proper initiation of any judicial proceeding and therefore goes to the competence or jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the action. Therefore, where a claimant  has no locus standi, his action will be incompetent and the Court will have no jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate on the action. See Pam vs. Mohammed (2008) LPELR-2895 (SC); Opobiyi & Anor vs. Muniru (2011) LPELR-8232 (SC); Bakare & Ors vs. Ajose-Adeogun & Ors (2014) LPELR- 22013; Daniel vs. INEC (2015) LPELR-24566 (SC). Similarly, where a person has no locus standi to institute an action, he will equally not have a cause of action to ventilate in Court. I need to also stress that an objection to the locus standi of a claimant in an action is automatically an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court before which the action is pending. As an unquestionable threshold issue which goes to the capacity of a party to institute legal proceedings and, a fortiori, the jurisdiction of the Court, the challenge to a party’s locus standi can be taken at any time during the proceedings or even for the first time on appeal to this Court, without leave. – Per M. I. Sirajo, JCA

 

---

LOCUS STANDI – HOW LOCUS STANDI IS DETERMINED

---

Just like cause of action, locus standi is determined from the statement of claim. It is the averments in the statement of claim that the Court will critically examine to determine whether a claimant has disclosed sufficient legal interest in the subject matter of the action. See Disu vs. Ajilowura (2006) LPELR-955 (SC); Bakare & Ors vs. Ajose-Adeogun & Ors (2014) LPELR-25024 (SC); Eze vs. PDP & Ors (2018) LPELR-44907 (SC); Ayorinde vs. Kuforiji (2022) LPELR-56600 (SC); Ibeh vs. Udensi & Ors (2023) LPELR-60347 (SC). – Per M. I. Sirajo, JCA

 

---

LOCUS STANDI – THE LOCUS STANDI OF ADMINISTRATORS/ADMINISTRATRIX WHO HAVE PERFORMED THEIR DUTIES

---

The partitioned land has become the property of the beneficiaries to whom portions were allotted, and it is only the beneficiaries that will maintain an action in Court to protect their respective individual portions or shares, in the event of encroachment. Having performed their duties as Administrators/Administratrix of the Estate, the Respondents lacked the locus standi to sue in respect of the entire apportioned land in that capacity, notwithstanding that they are also beneficiaries of the Estate. They can only sue in respect of their respective portions only, or in a representative capacity for themselves and on behalf of the other beneficiaries, not as Administrators and Administratrix. – Per M. I. Sirajo, JCA

 

---

ADMISSION – WHEN AN ISSUE/SUBJECT IS EXPRESSLY ADMITTED

---

​The law is settled that what is expressly admitted need no further proof. Admission dispenses with the necessity of proof. See Akaninwo & Ors vs. Nsirim & Ors (2008) LPELR-321 (SC); Alahassan & Anor vs. Ishaku & Ors (2016) LPELR-40083 (SC); Jegede & Anor vs. INEC & Ors ​(2021) LPELR-55481; Bronwen Energy Trading Ltd vs. OAN Overseas Agency Nig Ltd & Ors (2022) LPELR-57306 (SC). – Per M. I. Sirajo, JCA

 

---

LOCUS STANDI – WHERE A CLAIMANT HAS NO LOCUS STANDI

---

The law is settled that where a claimant has no locus standi, his action will be incompetent and the Court will have no jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate on the action. This is so because the locus standi of a claimant is a condition precedent to the activation of the jurisdiction of the Court. See Waziri vs. PDP (2022) LPELR-59174 (SC); Daniel vs INEC (2015) LPELR-24566 (SC); Pam vs. Mohammed (Supra); Opobiyi & Anor vs. Muniru (supra). – Per M. I. Sirajo, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

NIL

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Evidence Act, 2011

2. Survey Registration Law of Lagos State

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT