PASTOR EMMANUEL MOBIYINA OSHOFFA & ORS v. SUPERIOR EVANG. SIMEON BAJELA KOSOKO & ORS
(2013)LCN/6527(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 21st day of November, 2013
CA/L/845/08
RATIO
ESSENCE OF A LOCUS STANDI
where there is absence of instrument conferring power on claimants to sue and or be sued, such action is certainly void, there is absence of locus standi, the legal right of a party in litigation to be heard before a court or Tribunal, the term also entails the regal capacity of instituting or commencing an action in court of law or Tribunal without any let, hindrance, obstruction or inhibition from anybody whatsoever. See DR. TOSIN AJAYI v. PRINCE OLAJUMOKE ADEBIYI & 2 ORS: SC.220/2002. Per TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.C.A.
CONSIDERATIONS IN DETERMINING THE LOCUS STANDI OF A PARTY
Also it is trite law that when the locus standi of a party is raised in the consideration whether the party has or lacked the locus standi, the answer is to be found by the Court looking critically at the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim. See OJIMBA VS. OJIMBA (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt.440) 32 at 39; A-G KADUNA STATE VS. HASSAN (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.8) 483; ADEYEMO VS. BEYIOKU (1999) 13 NWLR (Pt.635) 472; LAWAL VS. SAIAMI (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt.752) 687 at 715. Per SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
SIDI DAUDA BAGE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
TIJANI ABUBAKAR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
PASTOR EMMANUEL MOBIYINA OSHOFFA & ORS Appellant(s)
AND
SUPERIOR EVANG. SIMEON BAJELA KOSOKO & ORS Respondent(s)
SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The suit leading to this appeal was filed by the Respondents through a writ of summons dated 31st of October, 2006;Amended statement of claim and other front loaded processes attached thereto. The Amended writ of summons dated 23/11/06, which was filed against the 1st – 13th Defendants (now Appellants) had sought for the following reliefs:
AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. The 1st claimant is the shepherd-in-charge of the Celestial Church of Christ, Oshodi Parish 1, at No. 11, Olatunji Street, Oshodi, Lagos while the other Claimants are members of the Council of Elders charged with sundry duties especially to see to the smooth administration of the said Church and the welfare of its members.
2. The matter relates to the administration of the Celestial Church of Christ, Oshodi Parish 1, Oshodi, Lagos hereinafter referred to as “the Church” under the control of Nigerian Diocese Tejuosho Headquarters, Surulere, Lagos,
3. The 1st Defendant is the Pastor in Charge of the Ketu Headquarters a faction of the Celestial Church of Christ.
4. The 2nd Defendant is a floating and idle Evangelist who had been rejected by all the parishes of the Celestial Church of Christ due to his spiritual and administrative incompetence.
5. The 1st Defendant is now attempting to impose the 2nd Defendant as the Shepherd in Charge of our Church, Oshodi Parish 1, which is under Tejuosho Parish.
6. One Senior Evangelist Michael Elegbede Dosumu, who died on the 25th of November 1988, was the Shepherd in Charge of the Church.
7. The 6th Defendant is the wife and widow of the late Shepherd while the 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th Defendants are children of the said late Shepherd.
8. The 13th Defendant has only three (3) surviving members who are Superior Evangelist Samson Olatunde Banjo, Superior Evangelist Oluremi Olusoga Ogunlesi and Superior Evangelist Josiah Kayode Owodunmi out of the original seven (7) members.
9. The remaining Defendants are members of the Church Parish (that is, Oshodi parish 1).
10. The church is the owner of the piece or parcel of land situate lying and being at No. 11, Olatunji Street, Oshodi on which the church cathedral is built.
11. At the trial of this suit the claimants shall rely on a copy of the perimeter survey plan No.LU/CA/7064B/84 dated the 28th of September 1984 showing the delineation of the said church land and which Survey plan was prepared without any disturbance from any quarters howsoever.
12. During his lifetime the late Shepherd in Charge of the said Parish, senior Evangelist Michael Elegbede Dosumu also acquired a piece or land adjoining the said Church land for himself and in his name.
13. At the trial of this cause the claimants shall found and rely on the Survey plan No.LU/CA/7064A/84 showing the land of the said Senior Evangelist Michael Elegbede Dosumu.
14. The claimants plead that said Michael Elegbede Dosumu developed his personal residence on his own said parcel of land and resided therein with members of his family until his death sometime around the 25th of November 1988.
15. That since the demise of the late Michael Elegbede Dosumu the 1st claimant had been the shepherd in charge of the said parish performing his spiritual and administrative duties creditably and to the satisfaction of everyone.
16. The claimants state that indeed the positive role and evangelism of the 1st claimant had led to the steady increase and growth in the membership of the Parish,
17. The claimants aver that with the death of the Founding Pastor of the Celestial Church of Christ Pastor S. B. J. Oshoffa and the death of his Successor, Pastor Bada, there had been serious crisis in the Church leading to the emergence of five
(5) factions under different pastors namely:
(i) Ketu under Pastor Oshoffa the 1st Defendant
(ii) Tejuosho under Pastor Maforikan
(iii) Ijesha under pastor Owodunni
(iv) Imala under pastor Shonekan
(v) Port Novo under pastor Agbaosi
18. The 1st Defendant is the Pastor in charge of the faction having its headquarters at Ketu, Lagos comprising only a very few parishes.
19. Further to paragraphs 8, 17 and 18 above, the claimants aver that while two (2) of the surviving members of 13th Defendant i.e. Superior Evangelist Olatunde Banjo and Superior Evangelist Olusoga Ogunlesi belong to the Ketu faction headed by the 1st Defendant, the remaining surviving member of the 13th Defendant Evangelist Kayode Owodunni is the head of Ijesha faction of the Celestial Church of Christ.
20. By its meeting herd on the 13th day of October, 2002 the Oshodi Parish 1, Oshodi, Lagos, unanimously resolved and decided to become a parish under the Nigeria Diocese with headquarters at Tejuosho Surulere, Lagos.
21. The claimants say that since the time the said decision was arrived at, the Oshodi Parish 1 had ceased to have any dealing with the Ketu faction while its dealing and activities have continued to be with the Diocese of Nigerian Tejuosho Surulere, Lagos under pastor Maforikan.
22. In furtherance of the facts mentioned in paragraphs 16 to 20 hereof the position of the 1st claimant as the shepherd-in-charge of Oshodi Parish 1 was reconfirmed by a letter of Reconfirmation of Appointment dated the 22nd of October, 2003 duly signed by Rev. Pastor Prophet (Dr.) P. S. Maforikan (J.P) the Pastor and Spiritual Head, Celestial Church of Christ Worldwide, Tejuosho, Surulere Headquarters, Lagos.
23. That during his lifetime the late Shepherd-in-Charge, late Senior Evangelist Michael Elegbede Dosumu, the Church was administered as an entity separate and distinct from his personal estate and he never arrogated to himself the ownership of the Church and its assets.
24. That indeed between the Church premises and the house/residence of the late Michael Elegbede Dosumu there is a wall fence to demarcate the two premises,
25. The Claimants contend that after the death of the said late Shepherd in 1988, the Church had continued to be administered as a Church jointly owned by its teeming members for the perpetuation of the Ministry of Jesus Christ
26. However to the consternation of the peace loving members of the Church and in breach of standard Christian behavior and value the members of the family of late Michael Elegbede Dosumu comprising the 6th – 12th Defendants by themselves and some hardlooking thugs and miscreants broke into and disrupted church services on the 10th of September 2006 claiming that the church is their personal property and attempted to cause mayhem.
27. But for the timely intervention of neighbours and passers-by, the said 6th – 12th, Defendants would have inflicted grievous bodily harms and wounds on members of the church and some visitors to the Church.
28. That similar attempts were made on the 17th and 24th of September 2006.
29. That these people then threatened to attack the Church during thanksgiving service scheduled for the 15th of October, 2006,
30. To avert the threat by the said 6th – 12th Defendants to unleash violence on the church, a petition was written by the church to the Area commander Area ‘F’ Police Command G.R.A. Ikeja for intervention and protection of the lives of members and the properties of the church from wantom destruction.
31. The claimants state that but for the presence of the police on the 15th of October 2006 the Defendants
would have executed their threat which would most probably have led to loss of rives and destruction of Church properties.
32. Following the report to the police, the 6th-12th Defendants apologized to the leadership of the Church promising to put paid to their nefarious activities.
33. The said Defendant have now curiously reneged on their promises and undertaking to be of good behavior by now renewing their threat by mobilizing “area boys” and some hardlooking and armed men who claim to be members of the outlawed Odua Peoples Congress (OPC) to disrupt the activities of the Church from Sunday the 29th of October 2006.
34. That on Sunday 29th Octobeer 2006 the 2nd – 12th Defendants invaded the church premises to disrupt church services and cause mayhem in order to forcibly impose the 2nd and 7th Defendants on the Church but for the timely intervention of some policemen from Area “F” Command, Ikeja,
35. That to achieve their ill-motive, the 6th to 12th Defendant have concluded arrangement whereby the 1st Defendant would effect a purported transfer of the 1st claimant from Oshodi parish 1 to a parish in Jos plateau State while the 2nd and the 7th Defendants would be imposed on the Church as the Shepherd and Deputy Shepherd respectively in charge of the said Church Parish.
36. That the Defendant have now again threatened that they would cause mayhem and a breach of the peace in the premises on Sunday the 5th November, 2006.
37. The 1st Defendant had sent a verbal message to the 1st claimant that the 2nd Defendant should take over from him as the Shepherd in charge of the Parish.
38. The claimants aver that the Oshodi Parish 1, is not under the leadership of the 1st Defendant who is a
mere factional reader of the faction having their headquarters at Ketu, Lagos.
39. Unless restrained by an order of the Honourable Court the Defendants have shown and demonstrated their intention to execute their threat and thereby causing a serious breach of the peace,
40. The claimants state that none of the Defendants has any defence to this suit.
41. The claimants therefore aver that it will be in the interest of justice to enter judgment in their favour
against the Defendants as set out in the writ of Summons and Statement of Claim.
42. WHEREOF the Claimants claim against the Defendants jointly and severally the following, viz:
(i) DECLARATION that the piece or parcel of land upon which the Church Cathedral situate lying and being at No,11 Olatunji Street, Oshodi (known as Oshodi parish 1) was built by and belongs to the Church and the same does not form portion of the estate of the late Senior Evangelist Michael Elegbede Dosumu.
(ii) DECLARATION that the Celestial Church of Christ, Oshodi Parish 1, Oshodi, Lagos, not being a parish under the Ketu Headquarters presided over by the 1st Defendant, the said 1st Defendant has no pastoral or administrative jurisdiction to intermeddle over the authority and running of the affairs of the said Oshodi Parish 7.
(iii) DECLARATION that the 1st Defendant has no pastoral or administrative authority nor Episcopal jurisdiction to remove or transfer the 1st Claimant from the Oshodi Parish 1, Oshodi to any other parish or any other office howsoever nor does the said 1st Defendant have any pastoral or administrative authority or Episcopal jurisdiction to impose or appoint any person or persons as the Shepherd in Charge of the Parish and indeed the said 1st Defendant has no pastoral or administrative authority or Episcopal jurisdiction to appoint or impose the 2nd and 7th Defendants as the Shepherd and Deputy Shepherd respectively on the Oshodi Parish 1, Oshodi, Lagos.
(iv) PERPECTUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 1st Defendant by himself by his agents, servants, privies or by the trustees of the faction of Celestial the Church of Christ, Ketu Headquarters, Lagos to attempt the removal or the transfer of the 1st Claimant as the Shepherd in Charge of the Oshodi parish 1, Oshodi, Lagos.
(v) PERPECTUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 1st Defendant by himself his agents servants privies or by the trustees of the faction of the Celestial Church of Christ Ketu Headquarters presided over by him from imposing the 2nd Defendant or any other person as the Shepherd in Charge of the Oshodi Parish 1, Oshodi, Lagos and from appointing or imposing the 7th Defendant as the Shepherd or Deputy Shepherd of the said parish.
(vi) PERPECTUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants jointly and severally from forcibly taking over the affairs and premises of the Oshodi Parish 1 or appropriating or treating same as part of the estate of the late Senior Evangelist Michael Elegbede Dosumu and restraining the said Defendants jointly and severally from interfering with or obstructing the Claimants in discharge of their duties of running the affairs of the said Oshodi Parish 1, Oshodi, Lagos now under the leadership of Nigerian Diocese Tejuosho Headquarters Lagos presided over by Rev. Pastor Dr. Prophet (Dr.) P. S. Maforikan (J.P.).
The Memorandum of Appearance filed by the Appellants/Defendants lower court is in the dated 7th day of November, 2006. The Memorandum of Appearance is on pages 10 and 11 of the record of appeal.
The Respondents/claimants also filed along with the Amended writ of summons and statement of claim, the list of witness, Written Statements on Oath of the claimants witnesses and the list of document all dated 2nd November, 2006. These are copied on pages 23 to 40 of the Record of Appeal.
The Respondent/claimant’s Reply to statement of Defence and Defence to counter claim is dated and filed on the 5th day of December, 2006. These are copied on pages 41- 44 of the Record of Appeal.
The Appellants/Defendants by their Motion on Notice dated the 13th day of November, 2006, applied to the lower court that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit, an order for striking out the suit for lack of locus standi and an order discharging the interim injunction made in the suit on the 2nd day of November, 2006. These processes are on pages 45 to 121 of the Record of Appeal.
The ruling of the learned trial judge on the Motion on Notice that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit was delivered on the 16th, day of May, 2007. The ruling is copied on pages 205 – 218 of the Record of Appeal.
The Appellants appealed against the decision of the Lower Court by their Notice of Appeal dated 30th day of May, 2007.The Notice of Appeal is copied on pages 219 – 220 of the Record of Appeal. The two grounds of appeal are hereunder reproduced, shun of their particulars inter alia:
(1) The Learned Trial Judge erred in law in holding that the claimants have locus standi to institute the action.
(2) The Learned Trial Judge erred in law in holding that there are different factions within celestial church of Christ with their respective pastors and separate administrative headquarters.
The Appellants in order to prosecute the appeal filed the Appellant’s brief settled by Olusegun Fabunmi Esq., and date 2nd July, 2009, and filed on the same date. Two issues were distilled from the grounds of appeal and formulated for determination in the said brief of argument. They are namely:
(1) Whether the learned trial judge was right in holding that the Respondents/claimants have locus standi to institute this action and that he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the Respondents as constituted.
(2) Whether the learned trial judge was right in holding that there are different factions within Celestial Church of Christ with their respective Pastors and separate administrative headquarters.
The Respondents brief of argument dated 16th February, 2011, and filed on the 17th February, 2011, but deemed properly filed on the 9th of June, 2011, was settled by Bisi Ade – Ademuwagun, Esq., of counsel. In it, a Notice of Preliminary Objection with the grounds upon which it was predicated and argument in support of it are contained. On the application of the learned counsel to the Applicants/Respondents, the said Notice of Preliminary Objection with the grounds upon which it was predicated and arguments in support thereof was struck out by this Court on the 28th of October, 2013. The learned Respondent’s counsel, adopted the two issues for determination formulated by the Appellants in paragraph 2.0 of their Brief as stated hereinunder:
(1) Whether the learned trial judge was right in holding that the Respondents/Claimants have locus standi to institute this action and that he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the Respondents as constituted.
(2) Whether the learned trial judge was right in holding that there are different factions within Celestial Church of Christ with their respective Pastors and separate administrative headquarters.
In arguing issue one (1) learned counsel to the Appellants submitted that as stated in our Affidavit in Support of the Motion on Notice dated the 23rd day of November, 2006 in paragraphs 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12 that the Respondents/Claimants cannot institute this action in the way it is constituted, as Celestial Church of Christ Oshodi Parish 1, Oshodi, Lagos is not a juristic person that can sue and be sued.
Learned counsel submitted further that, the Celestial Church of Christ being a registered organization with constitution, it is only the Registered Board of Trustees that can sue and be sued in Matters relating to the church. The Registered Board of Trustees of the Church was joined as the 13th Defendant at the Lower Court. On the issue of locus standi. See THOMAS & ORS V. OLUFOSOYE (1986) 1 NWLR (PT.18) 669; JOSEPH OKOYE & ANOR V. LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT & ORS. (1990) 3 NWLR (PT.136) 115; OLORIODE V. OYEBI (1994) S.C. 390.
Learned counsel further submitted that the provisions of clause 146 of Exhibit “001”, which was attached to the Affidavit in support of the Motion on Notice at the Lower Court deals with the functions of the 13th Appellant/Defendant in this suit which is to the effect that the board is the custodian of all landed property and buildings of whatever tenure or description of any school, colleges or institution, which is designated as Celestial Church Of Christ and within the Diocese whether movable or immovable. The Board is also charged with the sole authority to represent the church in all matters affecting the Church. The said Exhibit “001” is copied on pages 50 – 116 of the record of appeal. From the provisions of the clause above, the Respondents in this suit have no locus standi to institute this action.
Learned counsel therefore urge this Court to resolve the issue No. 1 in favour of the Appellants and to set aside the ruling of the learned trial judge and to strike out the suit.
In reply to the submissions above, learned counsel to the Respondents submitted that, a claimants locus standi is one of the factors to be considered in determining the jurisdiction of a court to entertain a suit. See MADUKOLU v. NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; A.P.C. LTD V. NDIC (2006) 15 NWLR (PT.1002) 404 AT 410 r 1. The Lower court had jurisdiction to entertain this suit in view of the reliefs sought which border on dispute and rancor between/among persons within a religious organization in Nigeria over the Control and Management of a parish of the Church.
Learned counsel further submitted that the reliefs sought by the Respondent (claimant) and those sought by the Appellants (Defendants) in their counter-claim have- laid perfect foundation court below to determine the parties respective rights and obligations and the judicial resolution of disputes between them. See: section 6 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. See also DANIYAN v. IYAGIN (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt.766) 375.
Learned counsel further submitted that applying the ratio in DANIYAN vs. IYAGIN (supra) it is obvious from the amended statement of claim dated 21st day of November, 2006 the Respondent as claimant in the suit at the court below have connection’ association or interaction with the subject matter of this suit, that is the Celestial Church Of Christ Oshodi Parish 1, which they claim is under Tejuosho Headquarters but which the Appellants especially the 1st and 13th are making attempts to forcefully drag to the Ketu Headquarters. The paragraphs of the statement of claim, the statement of Defence and counter claim all show that the Respondent have locus standi the suit at the Lower court.
Learned counsel further submitted that the Respondent/claimant did not institute the suit at the court below in the name of a non juristic person that is “Celestial Church Of Christ, Oshodi, Parish 1, Oshodi, Lagos” Rather it is clearly stated on the Amended Writ of Summons dated 23rd November, 2006 (and even the Original Writ of Summons) the 1st – 15th Respondents who are proper human beings and juristic persons had filed the suit in a representative capacity which is allowed in law for themselves and on behalf of Celestial Church of Christ, Oshodi Parish 1, Oshodi, Lagos, which is a recognized Parish of the Celestial Church of Christ.
Learned counsel further submitted that, the Registered Trustees of an organization is said to be the only one that can sue or be sued in relation to the matters of the organization. However this has to do with the interest of the organization as against another organization or another individual entirely. The power of the Registered Trustees to either sue or be sued is exercised in the alternative i.e. separately and not simultaneously as a person or body cannot be both the claimant and the Defendant at the same time in a suit.
The submission of counsel above is carefully examined. Issue No. 1 deals with the relationship between locus standi and jurisdiction. What then is the meaning of Locus Standi? The Supreme Court in the case of INAKOJU VS. ADELEYE (2007) 1 SC (Pt.1) 1 established the meaning of locus standi as follows:
“Locus Standi” –
Meaning of or Standing is the legal right of a person to an Action to be heard in litigation before a Court of Law or Tribunal, The term entails 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,”
On the meaning of locus standi again the Supreme Court in the care of OWODUNNI VS. REG. TRUSTEES OF C.C.C. (2000) 6 SC (Pt.111) 60 stated as follows:
“Locus standi” denotes the Legal capacity to institute proceedings in a Court of Law where a Plaintiff lacks locus standi his case must be struck out as being incompetent”
On the relationship between locus standi and jurisdiction, it is sufficient to say that question of Locus Standi is one that questions a Plaintiffs right to initiate an action and therefore brings to the fore the competence of the Court to adjudicate on the matters before it. Jurisdictional question is a fundamental issue and by its very nature can be raised at the trial or raised even for the first time on appeal. See ADEFULU ORS. VS. OYESILE & ORS. (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt.122) 377 at 407 at 410 where a jurisdictional issue is raised ordinarily, the Court is obliged to determine or dispose of it first before going into the merit of the case. See OLOBA VS. AKEREJU (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt.84) 508 at 511; AJAYI VS. ADEBIYI (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt.1310) 137 at 181 & 202; GOLD MARK VS. IBAFON (2012) 3 SCNJ (Pt.11) 565 at 597; UTIH & ORS. VS. ONOYIVWE & ORS. (1991) 1 SCNJ 25 at 49; FED. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF NIG. LTD VS. SYLVESTER NWOYE (2012) 16 WRN 154 at 184; ADEYEMI VS. OPEYORI (1976) 9 – 10 SC 31 or (1976) 1 NWLR 149.
The main contention of the Appellants as Defendants at the Lower Court, which is the same argument brought before this court, is, the absence of locus standi on the part of the Respondents, to institute or initiate this action in the first place’ As the Defendants at the Lower court, the Appellants contended that the Celestial Church Christ being a registered organization with constitution, it is only the Registered Board of Trustees that can sue and be sued in matters relating to the church. The Registered Board of Trustees of the Church joined was as the 13th Defendants at the Lower court. The Lower court overruled the Appellants. The Lower court accepted the position of the Respondents/plaintiffs. The court’s view was that the reliefs sought by the Respondents/plaintiffs which border on dispute and rancor between/among persons within a religious organization in Nigeria over the control and Management of a parish of the church. The Lower court also found that, the reliefs sought by the Respondent/claimant, and those sought by the Appellants/Defendants in their counter-claim have laid perfect foundation for it to determine the parties respective rights and obligations and the judicial resolution of the disputes between them. The position of the Appellants is that the Celestial Church Of Christ being a registered organization with constitution, it is only the Registered Board of Trustees that can sue and be sued in matters relating to the Church.
The Respondents on the other side maintained that the Registered Trustees of an organization is said to be the only one that can sue or be sued in relation to the matters of the organization, but this has to do with the interest of the organization as against another organization or another individual entirely for instance’ if there is a dispute between the Celestial Church Of Christ and a Bank CAC, State Government or an individual who is not a member of the Church. It is the Registered Trustees that can sue or be sued in respect of the subject matter of the dispute.
In determining the Civil Rights and obligation of the individual, Section 6 (1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 provides:
The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section shall extend to all matters between persons or between government or authority and to any person in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto for the determination of any questions as to the civil Rights and obligations of that person,
From Section 6 (1) (b) of the Constitution stated above the determination of Civil Right and Obligation is a Constitutional responsibility vested unto the Courts. This is without any dispute. An individual, or a person, can therefore seek to determine his Civil Right and Obligation before any Court, uninhibited or unperturbed. This is different, however from a group action or an action brought in a representative capacity. In the latter case, the locus standi of the individual or person as Plaintiff to sue in a group action or in a representative capacity comes into force.
In the case of DANIYAN vs. IYAGIN (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt.766) 375 paras. F – G this Court stated as follows:
whenever a court is called upon to determine whether a Plaintiff has lacus standi or not the court is bound to confine itself to the writ of summons and the statement of Claim before it and no more, as the issue of locus standi is a matter of law. Even if the Statement of Defence has been filed at the time objection was made, the Court is still bound to confine itself to the Statement of Claim to decide whether the Plaintiff has locus standi.
The Amended Statement of Claim dated the 23/11/06 was filed by the 15 Respondents (Claimants in the Lower Court) for themselves and on behalf of Celestial Church of Christ, Oshodi Parish 1, Oshodi, Lagos. The argument of the 1st – 15th Respondents are proper human beings and juristic persons who had filed the suit in a representative capacity for themselves and on behalf of Celestial Church of Christ, Oshodi Parish 1, Oshodi, Lagos, which is a recognized Parish of the Celestial Church of Christ. Here, there are two segments to this aspect of the suit:
(1) The 1st – 15th Respondents instituted the suit for themselves.
(2) They also instituted the suit on behalf of Celestial Church of Christ, Oshodi Parish 1, Oshodi, Lagos.
In respect of the first segment suing for themselves, there are ingredients of locus standi which they must satisfy to succeed in their action.
The Supreme Court in Re Ijelu & Ors. Vs. L.S.D.P.C. (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt.266) 414 on ingredients of locus standi stated as follows:
“In addition, a Plaintiff or litigant who says he has locus standi must show that such special interest he lays claim to has been adversely affected by the act or omission, which he seeks to challenge.”
Also this Court per TOBI JCA, (as he then was) in KLINE INC. VS. K. R. INT. (NIG.) LTD. (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt.292) 159 at 176 described special or sufficient interest in the following terms:
“One test of sufficient interest in a matter is whether the Plaintiff who instituted the action could have been joined as a party to the suit, if some other party commenced the action.”
Again this Court laid another test for the ingredients of locus standi per ADEREMI JCA (as he then was) in ILORI VS. BENSON (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt.673) 570 at 578 in the following terms:
“Whether the Plaintiff seeking the redress or remedy will suffer some injury or hardship arising from the litigation if some other person instituted it”
Also it is trite law that when the locus standi of a party is raised in the consideration whether the party has or lacked the locus standi, the answer is to be found by the Court looking critically at the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim. See OJIMBA VS. OJIMBA (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt.440) 32 at 39; A-G KADUNA STATE VS. HASSAN (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.8) 483; ADEYEMO VS. BEYIOKU (1999) 13 NWLR (Pt.635) 472; LAWAL VS. SAIAMI (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt.752) 687 at 715.
I have carefully perused and considered the entire Amended Statement of claim issued by the Respondent in the lower court. Throughout the length and breadth of it, one fact very central to action of the 15 Respondents /Claimants, is that, it is not an individual interest which warranted the action, but rather an interest which they share with other members of the society and more specifically, the members of Celestial Church of Christ, Oshodi, parish 1. There is a long line of authorities on the subject of locus standi or standing and the general principle is that for a person to have locus standi either to institute an
action or to prosecute an appeal, he has to show that he has special interest, that the interest is not vague or intangible, supposed or speculative or that it is not an interest which he shares with other members of society. He also has to show that such interest has been adversely affected by the act or omission which he seeks to challenge. See L.S.D.P.C vs. DAKOUR (1992) 23 N.S.C.C. (Pt.111) 488 at 495.
In the circumstance of the present appeal, it is not enough for the Respondents as Claimants in the lower Court, to show by their claim, their dissatisfaction or discontent with the general administrative actions of the Appellants/Defendants and more particularly, the 13th Defendant/Appellant on the branch of the Celestial Church of Christ, Oshodi, Parish 1, to entitle them to have locus standi to sue in the action. The law requires them, which is mandatory to show how such actions of the Appellants have affected their rights and obligations peculiar or personal to them. They must show their private rights have been infringed or injured or that there is a threat to such infringement or injury. This position was firmly established by the Supreme Court in the case of ADESANYA vs. PRESIDENT OF NIGERLA & ANOR. (1981) 12 N.S.C.C 146 at 178. The Supreme Court stated as follows:
Section 6(6) (b) to my mind encompasses full extent of the judicial powers vested in the courts by the constitution. Under it, the courts have power to adjudicate on a justiciable issue touching on the rights and obligations of the person who brings the compliant to court. The litigant must show that the act of which he complains affects rights and obligations peculiar or personal to him. He must show that his private right have been infringed or injured or that there is a threat to such infringement or injury. It seems to me that the courts must operate within the perimeter of the judicial power vested in them by section 6 (6) (b) of the constitution and that they can only take cognizance of justiciable actions properly brought before them in which there is dispute, controversy and above all in which parties have sufficient interest. The courts cannot widen the extent of this power which has been so expressly defined by the Constitution. Per NNAMANI J.S.C. (as he then was),
From the above therefore, locus standi will only be accorded to a plaintiff who shows that his Civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being violated or adversely affected by the act complained of as against a group or a collective interest as was the case of the Respondents/Claimants at the Lower Court.
It was therefore a serious error on the part of the Lower Court to proceed and invoke its jurisdiction on an action based on collective or group interest as this appeal, as against the peculiar or private interest as envisaged by Section 6 (6)(b) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.
The second leg of Issue No.1 is the fact that the Respondents/Claimants had also sued in the lower court on behalf of the Celestial Church Of Christ, Oshodi Parish 1. The Appellant had argued and still argue before this court that the Respondents/claimants have no locus standi to institute this action and that the lower court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as constituted. The position of the Appellants/Defendants as stated in their affidavit in support of their Motion on Notice dated the 23rd day of November 2006 in paragraphs 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12 is that the Respondents/claimants cannot Institute this action in the way it is constituted as Celestial Church Of Christ, Oshodi Parish 1, Oshodi, Lagos is not a juristic person that can sue and be sued. The Celestial Church of Christ being a registered organization with constitution, it is only the Registered Board of Trustees that can sue and be sued in matters relating to the church. The Registered Board of Trustees of the church was joined as the L3rh Defendant at the lower Court.
The Respondents had countered this argument that as clearly stated in the Amended writ of summons dated 23rd November 2006, the 1st-15th Respondents, who are proper human beings and juristic persons had filed the suit in a representative capacity which is allowed in law for themselves and on behalf of Celestial Church of Christ, Oshodi, Parish 1, Oshodi, Lagos which is a recognized Parish of the Celestial Church Of Christ. The wordings “for themselves and on behalf of Celestial Church Of Christ, Oshodi, Parish 1, Oshodi, Lagos “as can be seen on the writ is bracketed and placed below, thus distinguishing it from the names of the 15 Respondents, the claimants at the Lower Court.
Earlier own in this judgment, this Court had found that the Respondents who had filed the suit in a representative capacity at the Lower Court had lacked the locus standi to so do within the meaning of the provision of Section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal of Nigeria 1999. The only aspect to be determined is the status of the Celestial Church of Christ, Oshodi Parish 1, Oshodi, Lagos. The Respondents had never minced their words, “The Celestial Church of Christ, Oshodi is a Parish, Infact, Parish 1 of the main body of the Celestial Church.” This is a fact admitted and requires no further proof. The Parish although recognized from their argument, can it be said in law to be a juristic person to sue and be sued in its own name as distinct from the main parent body of the Celestial Church of Christ, and which by the Constitution of the parent body, its only the Board of Trustees the 13th Appellant that can sue and be sued on behalf of the Church. The Appellants have mentioned the Constitution of the Celestial Church of Christ which gives the power/vires to the 13th Appellant only to sued and be used on its behalf. The Respondents did not challenge the existence of the Constitution and the powers said to have been given to the 13th Respondent by it. The Respondents have not stated any existing instrument which had conferred on the Oshodi Parish 1, to sue to be sued in its own name. The presumption here is that such instrument does not exist with relation to the Parish 1 of the Church. Again, although the Constitution of the parent Church interpretation, since its existence, and the powers claimed which resile only on the 13th Appellant have neither been denied or challenged, it is presumed that the such power is only exclusive to it and those not specifically mentioned are therefore excluded. The Supreme Court in the case of the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BENDEL & 2 ORS V. AIDEYAN (1989) 9 SC 127 stated as follows:
“It is now firmly established that in the Construction of a statutory provision where a statute mentions specifics things or persons, the intention is that those not mentioned are not intended to be included.”
On the same point also see EHUWA V. ONDO STATE (2006) 11 – 12 S.C. 102.
No doubt therefore, in the absence of any instrument conferring such powers on the Oshodi Parish 1, of Celestial Church, to sue and be sued for, it does not attain the status of juristic person. Since Oshodi Parish 1 is found not to be a juristic person the action filed on its behalf by the 1st to 15th Respondents amounts only to putting something on nothing. No doubt it will not stay, it will collapse. See the famous dictum of Lord Denning MR (of blessed memory) in the case of U.A.C. V. MCFOY (1961) 3 ALL ER 169 at 172 wherein he stated:
If an act is void, then, it is in law, a nullity. It is not only bad but incurably bad… And every proceeding which is founded on it, is also bad and incurably bad. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse.
The action of the Respondents/Claimants at the Lower Court was abinito void and in law a nullity. Having reached this conclusion by this Court, the 2nd issue in both briefs of argument, becomes mere academic exercise and a waste of the precious time of the Court.
On the whole therefore, this appeal is meritorious and it is hereby allowed.
The ruling of Hon. Justice L.G.A. Marsh of the Ikeja High court of Lagos state, Judicial Division in suit No:ID/1268/2006 delivered on the 16th day of May, 2007, is hereby set aside by this Court.
Parties to bear their costs.
SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A.: I was opportune to read in draft, the lead judgment of my learned brother Sidi Dauda Bage, J.C.A. just delivered. The reasoning and conclusion reached therein is justified and I cannot but agree with it to the effect that this appeal has merit I too allow the appeal and also abide by the consequential orders made in the lead judgment including that of costs.
TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.C.A.: My lord and learned brother BAGE, JCA ably dealt with the central issue in this appear, where there is absence of instrument conferring power on claimants to sue and or be sued, such action is certainly void, there is absence of locus standi, the legal right of a party in litigation to be heard before a court or Tribunal, the term also entails the regal capacity of instituting or commencing an action in court of law or Tribunal without any let, hindrance, obstruction or inhibition from anybody whatsoever. See DR. TOSIN AJAYI v. PRINCE OLAJUMOKE ADEBIYI & 2 ORS: SC.220/2002.
I agree that the action at the lower court is a nullity; I allow the appeal having found same to be meritorious, and in consequence set aside the ruling delivered on 16th May 2007 in suit No.ID/1268/2006.
Parties shall bear their respective costs.
Appearances
O. Fabunmi, with Gideon Igwebuike and O. OnamadeFor Appellant
AND
Respondent counsel not representedFor Respondent
