CORAM

---

OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE (PJ), JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

1. REV. PHILIP MICAH DOPAH

2. REV. JOHN EZEKIEL LANTOYA

3. MR. VICTOR THOMAS RANJA

4. MR. FIDELIS DANIEL JUNIOR

APPELLANTS 

---

REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF NIGERIA (UMCN)

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

ACTION, CIVIL LAW AND PROCEDURE, JURISDICTION, WORDS AND PHRASES

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent as Plaintiff on 10th January, 2015 instituted this suit by a Writ of Summons against the Appellants as defendants at the trial High Court of Taraba State sitting in Jalingo and claimed declaratory reliefs as follows inter alia:

AN ORDER DECLARING that only the Bishop of the United Methodist Church in Nigeria possesses the power to appoint, transfer or discipline any clerical and administrative staff of the United Methodist Church in Nigeria.

AN ORDER DECLARING that only the Bishop has the powers to fix dates for, and preside over, Annual Conferences of the three conferences of the United Methodist Church in Nigeria.

However, by a motion on notice No: TRSJ/479M/2016, the Appellants/Defendants as Applicants raised preliminary points of law against the competency of the suit of the Respondent/Plaintiff seeking an order of the trial Court striking out the said suit for want of the jurisdiction of the trial Court to adjudicate upon same. In the considered decision of the trial Court delivered on 7th December, 2016, the preliminary objection of the Appellants was dismissed.

Dissatisfied and aggrieved with the decision of the trial Court, the Appellants lodged this appeal against it to this Court vide their Notice of Appeal dated 19th of December, 2016 and filed on 20th of December, 2016.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal dismissed.

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether from the Statement of Claim of the Respondent at the High Court, it has established a Cause of Action and Locus Standi to maintain this action?

Whether the claims of the Respondent is justiciable in law to warrant the High Court to assume jurisdiction over it ?

Whether the action of the Respondent before the Lower Court was not premature?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

JUSTICIABLE INTEREST- MEANING OF A JUSTICIABLE INTEREST

---

“As a brief overview, a justiciable interest simply means a cause of complaint, the civil right or obligation fit for determination by a court of law and a dispute in respect of which a court of law is entitled to invoke its judicial powers to determine under Section 6(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution. Hence, the touchstone of justiciability of a controversy or dispute is injury or threat of injury to a legally protected right. Therefore, a claim against a person against whom no wrongdoing is alleged is merely fanciful and not justiciable in a court of law. For courts exist not for fanciful or merely academic claims but to grant reliefs or remedies to an injured party or a party who is likely to suffer an injury. In deciding whether a claim is justiciable, a court must determine whether the duty asserted can be judicially identified and its breach judicially determined and whether protection for the right asserted can be judicially moulded. See the cases of: (1) Ojukwu v. Ojukwu (2000) 11NWLR (Pt.677) p.65 and (2) Kulak Trades & Industries PLC v. The Tug Boat M/V Japual B & Anor. (2010) LPELR-8630(CA)”. – Per OMOLEYE, J.C.A.

 

---

LOCUS STANDI- MEANING OF LOCUS STANDI

---

“Locus Standi” means the legal capacity or standing of a party to institute an action in a competent court of law or tribunal. Therefore, the challenge of a person’s “locus standi” in a case raises a question of whether the person whose standing is in issue, is the proper person to seek the adjudication of the court or tribunal upon the issues involved in or the subject-matter of the case. “Locus standi” goes to the jurisdiction of the Court to adjudicate on the subject-matter of a suit. Hence, once there is no “locus standi”, the court cannot proceed to adjudicate over the matters in issue in the suit.” – Per OMOLEYE, J.C.A.

 

---

CAUSE OF ACTION- MEANING OF CAUSE OF ACTION

---

“The words “cause of action” simply means the facts or claims which when proved by a plaintiff will entitle him or her to a remedy against a defendant. Therefore, where the plaintiff does not present such set of facts or claims against the defendant, there can be no jurisdiction of the court to make an order in respect of the set of facts or claims….

In elaboration of the preview stated earlier on above in this judgment, “cause of action” has been defined as the facts or combination of facts which give rise to a right to sue.  In the case of: Afolayan v. Ogunrinde (1990)1 NWLR (Pt. 127) p. 369, the Supreme Court per Obaseki, J.S.C., (of blessed memory) held thus:

In its simplest terms, I would say that a cause of action means (1) a cause of complaint; (2) a civil right or obligation fit for determination by a court of law; (3) a dispute in respect of which a court of law is entitled to invoke its judicial powers to determine.  It consists of every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment.

Therefore, a cause of action is the bundle or aggregate of facts which law and equity will recognize as giving the plaintiff a substantive right to make the claim for the relief or remedy being sought.  Thus, the factual situation on which the plaintiff relies to support his claim must be recognized by law and or equity as giving rise to a substantive right capable of enforcement or being claimed against the defendant.  See the cases of: (1) Ogbimi v. Ololo (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 304) p. 128; (2) Bello v. A.-G., of Oyo State (1986) LPELR – 764 and (3) Cookey v. Fombo (2005) 15 NWLR (Pt. 947) p. 182.  Accordingly, for the court to have jurisdiction, the plaintiff must have a cause of action against an identifiable defendant.” – Per OMOLEYE, J.C.A.

 

---

JURISDICTION-FEATURES A PLAINTIFF MUST POSSESS BEFORE JURISDICTION CAN BE DONATED TO THE COURT

---

“Accordingly, a plaintiff must possess both a remediable claim and the legal capacity to institute the claim against an identifiable defendant before jurisdiction can be donated to the court or tribunal to make an appropriate order in respect of the subject-matter of the claim.” – Per OMOLEYE, J.C.A.

 

---

JURISDICTION-MEANING AND FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF JURISDICTION OF COURT

---

“The law is rock solid that the issue of jurisdiction of a court to adjudicate over matters is very pivotal.  The word “jurisdiction” simply means, the authority which a court has to decide matters brought before it or take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision.  In the case of: Egharevba v. Eribo (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1199) p. 411, the Supreme Court succinctly restated again the meaning and fundamental nature of jurisdiction of court in the following words:

Jurisdiction is a term of comprehensive import embracing every kind of judicial action.  It is the power of a court to decide a matter in controversy and presupposes the existence of a duly constituted court, with control over the subject-matter and the parties.  Jurisdiction also defines the power of the court to inquire into facts, apply the law, make decisions and declare judgments.  It is the legal right by which judges exercise their authority.  Jurisdiction is to a court what a door is to a house.  The question of a court’s jurisdiction is called a threshold issue because it is at the threshold of the temple of justice.  Jurisdiction is a radical and fundamental question of competence, for if the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case, the proceedings are and remain a nullity, however well conducted and brilliantly decided they might have been.  A defect in competence is not intrinsic but rather extrinsic to adjudication. Oloba v. Akereja (1988)3 NWLR (Pt.84)508; Oloriode v. Oyebi (1984) 1 SCNLR 390; Ezomo v. Oyakhire (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2) 105; Petrojessica Ent. Ltd. v. Leventis Technical Co. Ltd. (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 244) 675; Barclays Bank v. C.B.N. (1976) 6 SC 175; African Newspapers (Nig.) Ltd. v. F.R.N. (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1006) 608; A.-G., Anambra State V. A.-G., Fed. (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 302) 692; Saleh v. Monguno (2003) 1 NWLR (Pt. 801) 221. (The underlining is supplied by me for emphasis).” – Per OMOLEYE, J.C.A.

 

---

JURISDICTION- SOURCES OF COURT’S JURISDICTION

---

“Under the Nigerian legal system, courts are creations or creatures of statutes or legislations such as the grundnorm itself, that is, the Constitution or Decrees or Acts or Laws or Edicts.  Hence, it is the legislations themselves that cloak the courts with powers or adjudicatory jurisdiction. Therefore, if the Constitution, Decrees, Acts, Laws and Edicts do not grant jurisdiction to a court, the court itself and or parties cannot by agreement endow the court with jurisdiction.  For once there is a defect in the competence of a court to adjudicate upon an action, the proceedings in the action no matter how otherwise so well, properly and brilliantly conducted would amount to a nullity and an exercise in futility.  Therefore, since courts are creatures of statutes, their jurisdiction is confined, limited, restricted and circumscribed by the statutes creating them.  Moreover, a court must study the statute which creates it and must not misconstrue same to exercise jurisdiction not donated to it thereby.  See also the cases of: (1) Ndaeyo v. Ogunnaya (1977) 1 SC p. 11; (2) National Bank of Nigeria v. Shoyoye (1977) 5 SC p. 181 and (3) A.-G., Fed. v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd. (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 618) p. 187.” – Per OMOLEYE, J.C.A.

 

---

JURISDICTION-HOW JURISDICTION OF COURT IS DETERMINED

---

“The law is very well settled that, it is only the claim of the plaintiff that the court must consider in determining whether it has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a matter brought before it.  This is because it is the plaintiff in the bid to have his or her rights determined who invokes the court’s constitutional or statutory power for such determination. Accordingly, the exercise of the judicial powers are vested in the courts by the Constitution and other relevant statutes. To put it in different words, the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the plaintiff’s claim as disclosed in the endorsement on the writ of summons cum statement of claim as in the present case or originating summons cum its supporting affidavit and not the averments contained in the statement of defence or counter affidavit to the originating summons. That is to say, it is the claim of the plaintiff before the court that has to be examined in ascertaining whether or not it falls within the jurisdiction conferred on the court by the Constitution or Statute establishing the court and prescribing its jurisdiction.  See the cases of: (1) Adeyemi v. Opeyori (1976) 6-10 SC p. 31 and (2) A.-G., Fed. v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd. (Supra); (3) Tukur v. Gov. of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) p. 517 and (4) C.B.N. v. SAP (Nig.) Ltd. (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 911) p. 152.” – Per OMOLEYE, J.C.A.

 

---

JURISDICTION- DETERMINANTS OF JURISDICTION OF COURT

---

“As a follow up, it has become trite as this is replete in our law reports and requires no elaboration that, the competence of a court in the exercise of its jurisdiction is conterminously guaranteed if: (a) it is properly constituted with respect to the number and qualification of its membership, (b) the subject-matter of the action is within its jurisdiction, (c) the action is initiated by due process of law and (d) any condition  precedent to the exercise of its jurisdiction has been fulfilled. – See the “locus classicus” case of: Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NRL p. 587.  In the case of: Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1226) p. 172 at pgs. 243 – 244, paras. H-B, the Supreme Court restated  the purport of the above set out determinants of jurisdiction of court and the effect where any one of them is lacking, per Muhammad, JSC, as follows:

In addition, all law courts or tribunals, while exercising their powers must be guided by the general determinants of jurisdiction –

The statute establishing the Courts/Tribunal.

The subject-matter of litigation.

The litigating parties.

The procedure by which the case is initiated.

Proper service of process.

Territory where the cause of action arose or, as the case may be, where the defendant resides.

Composition of the Court/Tribunal.

If any of the above is lacking, then the subject matter, the parties or the composition of the Court/Tribunal is defective which may lead to a nullity. (The underlining is supplied by me for emphasis).” – Per OMOLEYE, J.C.A.

 

---

CAUSE OF ACTION-SIMILARITY BETWEEN CAUSE OF ACTION AND “PRIMA FACIE” CASE

---

“The situation can be likened to the situation in criminal causes, where a “prima facie” case has been made out against a person accused of the commission of crime.  The phrase, “prima facie” means as per evidence available which if on the long run accepted, appears to be sufficient to establish a fact or sustain a judgment, unless rebutted by acceptable evidence to the contrary.  In other words, cause of action is not conclusive.  It is evidence on the first appearance as distinct from proof of same.” – Per OMOLEYE, J.C.A.

 

---

CAUSE OF ACTION-SIMILARITY BETWEEN CAUSE OF ACTION AND MERE PLEADINGS

---

“The situation can also be likened to mere pleadings, where if the plaintiff fails to lead factual evidence or legal grounds to support and establish, are only bare and will crumble and fail. In the instant matter, we are not talking about or concerned with either the strength or weakness of the Respondent’s case against the Appellants. Afterall, it is when a suit is being heard that the judge becomes “dominus litis” and then assumes the duty and responsibility to ensure that the proceedings accord with the justice of the case. The averments in the statement of claim or affidavit in support of the originating summons, as the case may be, do not guaranty the success of an action, they must still be proved by rock-solid, soul-full and hard admissible evidence.  Therefore, it is not the full assurance of the success of an action that is the determinant of a suit disclosing a cause of action.  Afterall, a case must first be heard before the success or failure of it can be determined and proclaimed by the court.

In the case of: Thomas v. Olufosoye (1986) 2. S.C p. 325 at p. 344, the Supreme Court held that:

So long as the statement of claim or the particulars disclose some cause of action or raise some questions fit to be decided by a Judge or jury, the mere fact that the case is weak and not likely to succeed is no ground for striking it out (Moore v. Lawson, 91 T.L.T 418, C.A., Wenlock v. Moloney (1965) 1 WLR 1238; (1965) 2 All E. R. 871 C. A.). Where the statement of claim discloses no cause of action and if the court is satisfied that no amendment, however ingenious, will cure the defect, the statement of claim will be struck out and the claim dismissed. Where no question as to the civil rights and obligations of the plaintiff is raised in the statement of claim for determination, the statement of claim will be struck out and the action dismissed.  (the underlining is supplied by me for emphasis).

See also the case of: Dada v. Ogunsanya (1992) 4 SCNJ p. 162, where the Supreme Court re-affirmed its stand as laid down in the case of: Thomas v. Olufosoye (supra).” – Per OMOLEYE, J.C.A.

 

---

LOCUS STANDI- WHETHER A COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE UPON A MATTER WHERE A PLAINTIFF HAS NO LOCUS STANDI

---

“The Appellants have further contended that the Respondent, not being the Bishop whose orders they have allegedly scoffed, does not have the “locus standi” to institute an action against them. The law is equally very well settled that, “locus standi” is the legal capacity to institute proceedings in court.  Literally, it means, a place of standing or right standing.  It is thus used to denote a right of appearance in a Court of Justice on a given question.  The concept signifies that a court will not provide remedy for a claim in which the plaintiff has a remote, hypothetical or no interest at all.  Hence, where a plaintiff has no “locus” to institute the action, and not minding that the statement of claim or an originating summons discloses a cause of action, the court is precluded from embarking on the adjudication of the action and would lack jurisdiction to make a pronouncement on the merits on the disputed facts.  Accordingly, “locus standi” will only be accorded to a plaintiff who shows that his civil rights and obligations have been or are directly in danger of being violated. In simple words, a plaintiff has “locus standi” in a matter where he has been or will be adversely affected.” – Per OMOLEYE, J.C.A.

 

---

LOCUS STANDI- MODE OF DETERMININGTHE LOCUS STANDI OF A PLAINTIFF

---

The law is also clearly established that, in determining the “locus standi” of a plaintiff, it is the statement of claim solitarily that the court has to peruse.  In the case of: Disu v. Ajilowura (2006) 7 SC (Pt. II) p. 1, the Supreme Court per Tobi, JSC (of blessed memory), restated/reaffirmed its position on how the court determines “locus standi” in the following words:

This court has consistently held that in the determination of “locus standi”, the plaintiff’s statement of claim should be the only process that should receive the attention of the court.  It is the cynosure of the exercise.  I will take only two cases: In Adesokan v. Prince Adegorolu (1977) 3 NWLR (Pt. 493) 261, this Court held that, in order to determine whether a plaintiff has “locus standi” or not, it is a well established principle of law that a defendant who challenges in limine the “locus standi” of the plaintiff is deemed to accept as correct, all the averments contained in the plaintiff’s statement of claim.  In Owodunni v. Registered Trustees of Celestial Church of Christ (2000) 6 S.C. (Pt. II) 60; (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 675) 315, this Court held that the question whether or not a plaintiff has “locus standi” in a suit is determinable from a totality of all the averments in his statement of claim.  Thus, in dealing with the “locus standi” of a plaintiff, it is his statement of claim alone that has to be carefully scrutinized with a view to ascertaining whether or not it has disclosed his interest and how such interest has arisen in the subject-matter of the action. (The underlining is supplied by me for emphasis).” – Per OMOLEYE, J.C.A.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

NONE

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT