KAYODE BAKARE & ORS V AJOSE – ADEOGUN & ORS

CORAM

JOHN AFOLAB1 FABIYI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MOHAMMED BELLO

MUSA DATIJJO MUHAMMAD, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

1. KAYODE BAKARE

2. SOJI AJAYI -BEMBE

3. KOLA SHADEKO

4. TAJUDEEN ONIKOYI

5. DR. MONSURU BAJULAIYE SHASI

APPELLANTS 

AJOSE – ADEOGUN & ORS

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Due to the similarities and relationship between Appeal No. SC.80/2005 and SC. 125/2006, the two appeals were consolidated. The lst-3rd Respondents as Plaintiffs at the trial Court instituted an action against the Defendants over chieftaincy dispute seeking some reliefs. They also filed two applications – an exparte and a motion on Notice seeking injunctive reliefs. The Appellants herein who were Defendants and the Respondents at the trial and court below respectively filed a summons whereby they sought to set aside the order of interlocutory injunction earlier granted on the grounds of locus standi and non-service of the Originating processes on the Respondents. The Ist-3rd    Respondents thereafter lodged a preliminary objection against the summons of the Defendants. The 6thDefendant now Appellant also filed a preliminary objection challenging the locus standi of the Plaintiffs/Respondents to institute the action and that the action disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The trial court considered all three applications and struck out the Plaintiffs suit on the ground that the Plaintiffs had no locus standi to institute the action. The Plaintiffs/ Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal and set aside the ruling of the trial court. Dissatisfied, the Defendant/Appellant has further appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

Appeal allowed

ISSUES

1. Whether the court below was right in holding that the trial court was wrong in looking at other documents in the consideration of the plaintiffs locus standi to institute their action?

2. Whether the court below was right in holding that the plaintiffs/respondents have the required locus standi as their Statement of Claim stands, to prosecute the action?

3. Whether the non-joinder of Alhaji Kareem Aromire adversely affected the respondents action as to render it incompetent?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

LOCUS STANDI- MEANING OF

“What then is “locus standi?” This is a latin phrase meaning “place of standing”. The right to bring an action or to be heard in a given forum”. PER OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA

LOCUS STANDI- HOW DETERMINED

“It is now trite that in the determination of locus standi the plaintiffs Statement of Claim should be the only process that should be considered or should receive the attention of the court. The court has maintained this stand. In Adesokun Vs. Prince Adegorolu, (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt.179) 261 this court held that in order to determine whether or not a plaintiff has locus standi it is the Statement of Claim that must be considered. Hence, the well established principle of law that a defendant who challenges the locus standi of the plaintiff in limine is deemed to accept as correct all the averments contained in the Statement of Claim”. PER OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA

LOCUS STANDI-WHAT GIVE A PLAINTIFF THE STANDING TO SUE

“The question of what gives a plaintiff the standing to sue for locus standi has been the subject of a number of judicial decisions: See; Momoh Vs. Olotu (1970) 1 All NLR 1171 Senator Adesanya Vs. The President (1981) 2 NCLR 3581 (1981) 5 SC 112; Adefulu Vs. Ovesile (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt.122) 377; Owodunni Vs Registered Trustees of C.C.C.(2000) 10 NWLR (Pt.675) 315. This court has maintained on locus standi that a plaintiff, to enable him invoke the judicial power of the court must show sufficient interest or threat of injury he would suffer which is being sought to be protected”. PER OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA

PROPER PARTIES BEFORE THE COURT- HOW DETERMINED-EFFECT OF NON JOINDER OF THE PROPER PARTIES IN A SUIT

“It is now fairly settled law that it is the cause of action as endorsed on the Writ of Summons that determines the proper parties before the court. See; Okoye Vs NCFC (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt.199) 501; Afolayan Vs. Ogunrinde & Ors (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt.27) 359; (1990) 2 SCNJ 62. And it is trite law that it is only when proper parties are before the court that the court will be competent to adjudicate on the suit, otherwise the court shall be incompetent. In other words, when proper parties are not brought before the court, there is lack of jurisdiction and locus standi as the action is incompetent. PER OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA

CASES CITED

Professor T.M. Yesufu Vs. Governor of Edo State & Ors (2001) LPELR 3526; (2001) 8 SCM 189.Adesokun Vs. Prince Adegorolu, (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt.179) 261Owodunni Vs Registered Trustees of Celestial Church of Christ (2000) 10NWLR (Pt.675) 315,Taofik Disu & 13 Ors Vs. Alhaja Silifat Ajilowura (2006) 12 (Pt.2) SCM 1.Justice F. 0. Ayoola (nee Akanbi) Vs. Alhaji B. A. Baruwa & Ors (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt.628) 595;Okonta Vs Philips (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 320; (2010)LPELR 1373.Momoh Vs. Olotu (1970) 1 All NLR 1171Senator Adesanya Vs. The President (1981) 2 NCLR 3581 (1981) 5 SC 112;Adefulu Vs. Oyesile (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt.122) 377;Owodunni Vs Registered Trustees of C.C.C.(2000) 10 NWLR (Pt.675) 315Okoye Vs NCFC (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt.199) 501; Afolayan Vs. Ogunrinde & Ors (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt.27) 359; (1990) 2 SCNJ 62

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Lagos State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012

Obas & Chiefs of Lagos State Law, Cap.138, Laws of Lagos State 1994

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT