CHIDI B. NWORIKA VS MRS. ANN ONONEZE-MADU & ORS (2019)

CHIDI B. NWORIKA VS MRS. ANN ONONEZE-MADU & ORS

(2019) LCN/4638(SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Thursday, January 24, 2019


Case Number: SC.307/2008

 

JUSTICES:

SIDI DAUDA BAGE

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN

KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS

JOHN INYANG OKORO

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE

 

APPELLANTS

CHIDI B. NWORIKA

 

RESPONDENTS

1. MRS. ANN ONONEZE-MADU2. THE GOVERNOR OF IMO STATE3. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF IMO STATE

 

MEANING OF “CAUSE OF ACTION”

“A cause of action is defined in Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary as the entire set of circumstances giving rise to an unforceable claim. In determining the cause of action or right to sue, the court will rely on the Statement of claim filed by the Claimants to determine their standing. See Sokoto Native Authority (1968) l ALL NLR 377 where the definition in Read Vs Brown (1888) 22 QBD. 128 (C. A.). The court must therefore confine itself only to the averments in the statement of claim in the assessment of whether or not the plaintiff has a locus to sue. See Shell B. P. Petroleum Development Co., Of Nigeria Ltd. & Anors. Vs Onasanya (176) 6 S. C. 89, at 94.

JURISDICTION OF COURT

“The settled position of law is that for the court to be competent to exercise jurisdiction over a matter, it is a necessary condition that the proper parties be identified. See Ehindimhen Vs Musa (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt.669) 540 at 569. In determining whether or not a court has jurisdiction, without delving into the merit or otherwise of the case, all that the court needs do is to look at the Writ of Summons and statement of Claim of the Claimant to establish the basis of the suit on which the Court may anchor its jurisdiction. See Adeyemi Vs Opeyori (1960) 9-20 SC 31.

 

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF JURISDICTION

“Furthermore, this suit lacks all essential ingredients for the purpose of conferring jurisdictional competence in the court to hear and determine the suit as laid down in Madukolu Vs Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCLR, 341. This position of the law has long been settled in this case as to the principles which must be satisfied before the court can competently entertain a suit: “

a. The court is properly constituted as regards members and qualification of the members of the bench, such that no member is disqualified for one reason or the other;

b. The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising jurisdiction; and

c. The case comes before the court by due process of law and upon fulfilment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. ”

EFFECT OF THE LACK OF LOCUS STANDI ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

“As afore stated, locus standi of a plaintiff to institute an action is a condition precedent to the Court’s jurisdiction. It is inextricably linked to the exercise of jurisdiction by a Court. In other words, where the party initiating an action lacks locus standi, the Court is robbed of jurisdiction to hear that matter”.

THE EFFECT OF LOCUS STANDI

“However, beyond analogical inferences or conjectures, the issue of locus standi is the actual legal capacity of instituting or commencing an action in a competent Court of law without inhibition, obstruction or hindrance from any person or body whatsoever, See Inakoju Vs Adeleke (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt.353) 1 at 96; Thomas Vs Olufosoye (1986) 2 SC 325, Momoh Vs Jimo Olotu (1979) ALL NLR 117, at 123, A.G. Anambra Vs Eboh (supra)”.

(DELIVERED BY SIDI DAUDA BAGE, JSC)
This is an appeal against the majority decision of the Court of Appeal sitting in Port-Harcourt delivered on 16th January, 2008 wherein the lower Court dismissed the Appellant’s appeal. The Appellant and another had sued in the High Court of Imo State to attack the intended appointment of the 1st Respondent as a Judge of the High Court of Imo State. The High Court struck-out the suit holding that appellant had no locus standi to bring the action and that there was no cause of action. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, Appellant filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal in Port-Harcourt which appeal was dismissed on 16th January, 2008. Still dissatisfied with the decision of the lower Court, Appellant explored right of final appeal to this Court by filing a Notice of Appeal dated 10th July 2008.
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
The Appellant and another Legal Practitioner, Ndionyemma Nwankwo Esq. based in Owerri, Imo State on 23rd January, 2004 took out a Writ of Summons against the 1st Respondent (who was then a serving Magistrate in Imo State Judiciary) and two others claiming four (4) reliefs. On 27th January 2004, the Appellant as Plaintiff, without filing his Statement of Claim filed a Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st Respondent from presenting herself for appointment or from being sworn-in as a Judge.

The 1st Respondent filed a Counter-Affidavit to the Motion on 19/2/2004 while the 2nd and 3rd Respondents filed theirs on 12/2/2004. The Appellant and his Co-Plaintiff filed their Statement of Claim on 7/2/2004. The 1st Respondent did not file any Statement of Defence while the 2nd and 3rd Respondents filed their Statement of Defence on 2/3/2004 and raised a Preliminary Objection to the hearing of the suit on the ground, inter alia, that the Plaintiffs lacked the necessary locus standi to institute the action.
Arguments were taken on the Preliminary Objection and the trial Judge delivered his ruling upholding the objection and struck-out the suit. Being dissatisfied with the said ruling, Appellant appealed against the ruling vide his Notice of Appeal of three (3) grounds filed on 23/3/2004. The co-Appellant backed out. The appeal at the lower Court was heard on 17/4/2008 and Ruling was delivered on the 16/6/2008 by which the lower Court, by a majority decision (2-1), dismissed the appeal and upheld the ruling of the trial Court. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment, the Appellant filed further appeal to this Court vide a Notice of Appeal of four (4) grounds dated 17/7/2008.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Appellant formulated two (2) issues for determination at pages 4 of the Appellant Brief of Argument, thus:
“(1) Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that Appellant had no locus standi to institute this action (derived from Grounds 1 & 3 of the Grounds of Appeal).
(2) Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the action disclosed no cause of action (Derived from Grounds 2 & 3 of the Grounds of Appeal).”
On their part, the 1st Respondent as well as the 2nd and 3rd Respondents adopted the Appellant’s issues for determination at pages 5 and 3 of their respective Briefs.

CONSIDERATION OF ARGUMENTS AND RESOLUTION OF ISSUES:
ISSUE ONE
“Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that Appellant had no locus standi to institute this action (derived from Grounds 1 & 3 of the Grounds of Appeal).”
The main contention of the Appellant on issue 1 is that by virtue of paragraphs 3-15 of the Statement of Claim, facts of the fraud perpetrated by the 1st Respondent to obtain by false pretence a promotion to the position of Chief Magistrate in Imo State and paragraph 16 wherein the fact of open threat of 1st Respondent to deal “ruthlessly” with the Appellant once appointed were pleaded. To draw home his contention on when a person is said to have an interest in a thing, Appellant relied on the case of A.G. ANAMBRA STATE VS EBOH (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt.218) 491 at 505; OWODUNNI VS REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF C.C.C. (2006) 6 SCNJ 399 at 439.

The Appellant also relied on the provisions of Article 13(2) & (3) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Cap A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004); Sections 13 and 17(2)(a) and (c) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria and contend that he has a legal right in the subject matter of the suit to stop the 1st Respondent from being appointed Judge of the High Court of Imo State.
The Appellant submitted further that the act complained of affected his civil right and/or obligations, and that the court ought not to deny the exercise of judicial power to a person who seeks it merely because his claim may be wanting in merit, and placed reliance on the case of ALSTHOM VS SARAKI (2000) 4 SCNJ 249, at Page 256; ELUFIOYE VS HALILU (1993) 7 SCNJ, Pt.2, 347 at 367, rule 21 of the Rules of Professional Conduct in the Legal Profession, 1967 as amended in 1979, FAWEHINMI VS AKILU (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt.67) 797 at 855; BELLO VS FAYOSE (1999) 7 SCNJ 286 at 295. Relying on the above and other authorities and arguments made in respect of issue 1, the Appellant concluded that the lower Court was wrong in the majority decision to hold that the Appellant had no locus standi to institute the action and urge this Court to resolve issue one in favour of the Appellant.
On her part, the 1st Respondent posited that the Court has, in several landmark decisions, considered the issue of locus standi to entail the legal capacity of instituting or commencing an action in a competent court of law without inhibition, obstruction or hindrance from any person or body whatsoever, see INAKOJU VS ADELEKE (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt.353) 1 at 96; THOMAS VS OLUFOSOYE (1986) 2 SC 325, MOMOH VS JIMO OLOTU (1979) ALL NLR 117, at 123, A.G. ANAMBRA VS EBOH (Supra).
The 1st Respondent contended that Section 17 of the Constitution is not justiciable and the Appellant has not shown how his right under Section 36(1), 38, and 42 of the Constitution have been or will be impacted negatively if the 1st Respondent is appointed a Judge of the High Court of Imo State. The 1st Respondent relied on the case of ABRAHAM ADESANYA VS THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (1985) 5 SC, 112. The 1st Respondent also distinguished the case of FAWHINMI VS AKILU (supra) cited by the Appellant. In the final analysis, the 1st Respondent urged this Court to resolve issue 1 against the Appellant.
The 2nd and 3rd Respondents’ submissions on issue 1 are essentially the same as those of the 1st Respondent. While making their submissions on the same issue, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents relied on the following additional authorities; A.G FEDERATION VS ABUBAKAR (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1041) 1 at 75; ADEWUNMI VS OGEBELLE (1983) 4 WCLR (Vol.4) 662 at 677 to the effect that a general interest common to all members of the public is not a litigable interest to allow standing and that a citizen, without more, has no right. Like the 1st Respondent, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents also distinguished the case of FAWHINMI VS AKILU (supra) cited by the Appellant and urged this Court to resolve issue 1 against the Appellant.
I have carefully considered the submission of parties on issue one. The main contention of the Appellant on issue 1 is that he had sufficiently established locus standi by virtue of facts pleaded in paragraphs 3-15 of the Statement of Claim, relating to fraud perpetrated by the 1st Respondent to obtain by false pretence a promotion to the position of Chief Magistrate in Imo State and paragraph 16 wherein the fact of open threat of 1st Respondent to deal “ruthlessly” with the Appellant once appointed was pleaded.
However, beyond analogical inferences or conjectures, the issue of locus standi is the actual legal capacity of instituting or commencing an action in a competent Court of law without inhibition, obstruction or hindrance from any person or body whatsoever, See INAKOJU VS ADELEKE (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt.353) 1 at 96; THOMAS VS OLUFOSOYE (1986) 2 SC 325, MOMOH VS JIMO OLOTU (1979) ALL NLR 117, at 123, A.G. ANAMBRA VS EBOH (supra).
Locus Standi is a condition precedent to instituting an action before a Court of law. It is a legal voice with which the Plaintiff amplifies his legal rights over and above those of ordinary men. The issue of locus standi constitutes a condition precedent to the institution of any action before a court of Law. For an action to be maintainable, the person instituting it must have legal capacity, otherwise the court is robbed of necessary jurisdiction to entertain it. Whenever the issue of locus standi is raised, the Court before whom the action is pending is under a duty to determine it first before going into the merit of the action itself. SEE ALSO THE CASE OF A.G FEDERATION VS ABUBAKAR (2007) 10 NWLR (PU041) 1 at 75; ADEWUNMI VS OGEBELLE (1983) 4 WCLR (Vol.4) 662 at 677 where the Court further extended the frontiers of locus standi to the effect that a general interest common to all members of the public is not a litigable interest to allow standing and that a citizen, without more, has no locus.
Judicial parameters of locus standi had been set in the case of ABACHA & ANOR VS AG FEDERATION & ORS. (2013) LPELR-21479 where the Court pronounced on the Nature of locus standi citing the case of NYAME VS FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2010) 42 NSCQR 54 and held that:
“The term locus standi entails the legal capacity of instituting, initiating or Commencement of an action in a competent Court of Law or tribunal without any inhibition, obstruction or hindrance from anybody or person Whatsoever including the provision of any existing law.
The fundamental aspect of locus standi is that it focuses on the party seeking to get its complaint heard before the Court.
It is settled law that the Plaintiff will have locus standi in a matter only if he has a special right or alternatively if he can show that he has sufficient or special interest in the performance of the duty sought to be enforced or where the interest is adversely affected……”
The Appellant had relied on the provisions of Article 13(2) & (3) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples7 Rights (Cap A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004); Sections 13 and 17(2)(a) and (c) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria and contended that he has a legal right in the subject matter of the suit to stop the 1st Respondent from being appointed Judge of the High Court of Imo State.
The above is at best an imagination and certainly cannot be the position of the law in a democratic setting or any society that desires to advance and entrench the rule of law and civilised norms. The issue here is not that corrupt, fraudulent and ignoble elements should be allowed to sneak into the judiciary. Definitely the response is a capital No. The circumstances of this suit call for circumspections to avoid unwittingly encouraging a very dangerous trend. It is not the intention of the law of locus standi to allow every citizen rise up in protest against the proposed appointment or elevation of judicial officers for no justifiable reasons. Perhaps, all persons convicted or aggrieved parties whose cases have been thrown-out would be “cloth with garments of locus standi” to challenge persons who had previously acted over their matters in judicial capacities from advancing to the next levels. Perhaps, prosecution Counsel in the Ministries of Justice across the country may have “lorry loads” protests and petitions to stop their appointment to the bench beyond subsequent promotion to higher cadres over previous criminal convictions they had secured for the State.
The law and principle of locus standi is intended to provide effective sieves or filters against such absurdities. This is a situation in which the act complained of has not in any way or manner affected civil right and/or obligations of the Appellant over and above that of ordinary Nigerians or Imo citizens or other legal practitioners in Owerri, Orlu and other judicial divisions in Imo State. Thus, the Court ought to, and had justifiably denied the exercise of judicial power to a person who seeks it merely for unmeritorious or less than decent or honourable purposes.
The Appellant has not shown, to an acceptable level of minimal satisfaction, that Section 17 of the Constitution which is ordinarily not justiciable should be made justiciable in his own case. He has also not shown how his right under section 36(1), 38, and 42 of the Constitution have been or will be impacted negatively if the 1st Respondent is appointed a Judge of the High Court of Imo State. In view of the foregoing, I resolve issue one against the Appellant.
ISSUE TWO:
“Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the action disclosed no cause of action (Derived from Grounds 2 & 3 of the Grounds of Appeal).”
The Appellant’s contention on issue two is that his suit is “preventive in nature”. He contended that all facts necessary to found a cause of action had occurred such as her corrupt tendencies, her being proposed for appointment as a judge, her vow to use or apply that office to the detriment of Appellant, and her being recommended by the NJ.C which is the final hurdle that left no one in doubt that her appointment was imminent.
On the above premise, the Appellant urged this Court to resolve issue two in his favour and allow this appeal, set aside the majority decision of the Court of Appeal, and remit the case to the High Court of Imo State for determination on the merits.
By way of postscript, the Appellant complained about what he captioned, “Appointment Pendent Lite”, to the extent that the appointment of the 1st Respondent was eventually made while the appeal was pending for which the Appellant further expressed his misgivings.
On her part, the 1st Respondent submitted, in respect of issue two, that a cause of action arises only from circumstances containing different facts that gave rise to a claim. Citing the case of SAVAGE VS UWECHE (1972) 3 SC 214, at 221 Per Fatayi Williams JSC, (as he then was) the 1st Respondent submits that as legally and judicially defined, a cause of action is the “entire set of circumstances giving rise to an enforceable claim”, see also ABUBAKAR VS BEBEJI OIL AND ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD. (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt.362) 1855 at 1887; ONOCHIE VS ODOGWU (2006) ALL FWLR (PL317) 544 at 579.
The 1st Respondent submitted further that by the authority of OKAFOR VS A.G ANAMBRA STATE (1992) NWLR (Pt.224) 395, the exercise of statutory function such as the appointment of a 3udge, action will not lie unless and until the person entitled to exercise such function has done so. The 1st Respondent further contended that the present suit brought before the 2nd Respondent had exercised his statutory function of appointing 1st Respondent a Judge is in violation of law and therefore highly speculative. The 1st Respondent therefore submitted that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain same.
The 1st Respondent contended further that there is an academic opinion that public policy demands that once a duty is imposed on a person or body by statute or as in this case by the Constitution, public policy demands that the duty cannot be shifted from the shoulders of that person or body into another person’s or bodies otherwise the authority of parliament or Constitution will be undermined, see R.M. DIAS, “VOLUNTAS LEGIS” (1966) CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL, 75.
In her final conclusion, the 1st Respondent urged this Court to dismiss this appeal and to hold that the Appellant has no locus standi to institute the action and that there is no cause of action disclosed by the suit.
Similar to the position on issue one, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents made similar submissions on issue two as the 1st Respondent which is adopted and incorporated. In addition, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents relied on the decision in ADEPOLU VS AFONJA (1994) 8 NWLR, (Pt.363) 437 at 453-454; A.G. FEDERATION VS A.G. ABIA & ORS (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.725) 689 and B.P. VS ONAISANYA (1976) 65 S.C. 89, on the meaning of cause of action. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents contended that the suit of the Appellant is speculative to the extent that it is only when the statutory powers had been exercised that a cause of action may be said to have arisen, see MERCHANT BANK LIMITED VS FEDERAL MINISTRY OF FINANCE (1961) 1 ALL NLR 5 and 8; EGBOSON VS JOSEPH IKECHUKWU (1977) 6 SC 7 at 34, AJAKAIYE VS IDEHAI (1994) 6-8 NWLR (Pt.364) 504, SENATOR ADESANYA VS PRESIDENT (Supra).
In their final submissions, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents urged this Court to dismiss this appeal and hold that Appellant lacked locus standi to institute the action and that the suit is speculative and discloses no cause of action.
In considering and deciding party’s submission on issue two, I wish to state the law that cause of action is the factual basis or scenario that formed the basis of invoking the jurisdiction of court in a suit. A cause of action is defined in Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary as the entire set of circumstances giving rise to an enforceable claim. In determining the cause of action or right to sue, the court will rely on the Statement of claim filed by the Claimants to determine their standing. See SOKOTO NATIVE AUTHORITY (1968) l ALL NLR 377 where the definition in READ VS BROWN (1888) 22 QBD. 128 (C. A.). The court must therefore confine itself only to the averments in the statement of claim in the assessment of whether or not the plaintiff has a locus to sue. See SHELL B. P. PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT CO., OF NIGERIA LTD. & ANORS. VS ONASANYA (176) 6 S. C. 89, at 94.
Cause of action necessarily touches on issue of jurisdiction. It is therefore fundamental to adjudicatory competence for a Court to first examine the basis of dispute, that is what led to instituting the
suit, which is otherwise called “Cause of Action”. Any defect in the competence of a court to entertain a matter is fatal, for the proceedings are a nullity, however well conducted. Consequently, a determination by any court or tribunal without jurisdiction confers no right or obligation. See NWOSU VS I.S.E.S.A (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt.135) 688.
The settled position of law is that for the court to be competent to exercise jurisdiction over a matter, it is a necessary condition that the proper parties be identified. See EHINDIMHEN VS MUSA (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt.669) 540 at 569. In determining whether or not a court has jurisdiction, without delving into the merit or otherwise of the case, all that the court needs do is to look at the Writ of Summons and statement of Claim of the Claimant to establish the basis of the suit on which the Court may anchor its jurisdiction. See ADEYEMI VS OPEYORI (1960) 9-20 SC 31.
A careful look at the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed by the Appellant in this suit reveals no discernible cause of action. The Appellant’s contention that his suit is “preventive in nature” (argued at page 16 of the Appellant’s Brief) shows the suit is self-serving, vindictive and unreasonable. The Appellant has found cause of action on speculative inferences such as her (alleged 1st Respondent’s) corrupt tendencies, her being proposed for appointment as a judge, her vow to use or apply that office to the detriment of Appellant, and her being recommended by the N.J.C. which is the final hurdle that left no one in doubt that her appointment was imminent. This is potentially risk for the administration of justice system in the country, and should not be encouraged.
Borrowing from the wisdom of the lower Court in its ruling of 2nd November, 2004 in respect of this appeal, per Monica Bolna’an Dongna-Mensem JCA, at page 132/273 of the Supplementary Record of Appeal:
“The judiciary must insulate and protect itself and the society from the impatience of litigants who seek judicial orders at all cost The rule of law must be upheld at all times and only when proper procedures are observed and upheld can the rule of law subsist.”
I find it relatively easier to resolve this issue against the Appellant on his admission of filing this suit speculatively, as contained at page 16 the Appellant Brief of Argument. What more do I say than to further amplify the ‘decent burial’ the lower Court had given the speculative misadventure of the Appellant. For emphasis, I see no cause of action in the Appellant’s suit beyond a seemingly desperate attempt to stall or out-rightly stop the appointment of the 1st Respondent as a Judge of Imo State High Court. The wrongful act of the Defendant (the 1st Respondent) and consequential damage or harm suffered by him (the Appellant), remain lacking and ‘invincible’. To the extent that the Appellant’s cause of action at the time of filing the suit was anticipatory or speculative, no court of law would countenance the suit. Furthermore, this suit lacks all essential ingredients for the purpose of conferring jurisdictional competence in the court to hear and determine the suit as laid down in MADUKOLU VS NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SCLR, 341. This position of the law has long been settled in this case as to the principles which must be satisfied before the court can competently entertain a suit:
“a. The court is properly constituted as regards members and qualification of the members of the bench, such that no member is disqualified for one reason or the other;
b. The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case, which prevents the court from exercising jurisdiction; and
c. The case comes before the court by due process of law and upon fulfilment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.”
The above elements are lacking in this suit. This is apparent from my evaluation of facts and arguments of parties above. What more could one possibly add, nothing. In view of the foregoing, I also resolve issue two against the Appellant. In the final analysis, I hold that this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed for reasons as contained in the above analyses. I affirm the judgment of the lower Court.
I award cost of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) in favour of the 1st Respondent. I award no costs to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents because they have suffered no personal financial loses beyond sustaining and pursuing this appeal to its logical conclusion using tax payer’s money or public funds. The resolve to pursue this appeal to its logical end is commendable on the part of the parties, particularly the 2nd and 3rd Respondents.
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, CJN: I have had the benefit of reading in draft the lead judgment my learned brother, BAGE, JSC just delivered and I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that the appeal lacks merit and should be dismissed.
The facts of the case have been stated in detail in the lead judgment making it unnecessary for me to repeat them herein except as may be needed for the point being made or under consideration.

I will therefore proceed to make my points on the issues raised for consideration.
ISSUE NO 1 is:
“Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that Appellant had no locus standi to institute this action (Grounds 1 & 3)”
Learned appellant counsel – Chidi B. Nwoka Esq, in person, submitted that the Court of Appeal was wrong in holding that appellant has no locus standi to institute this action and further contended that: –
i.he is a legal practitioner
ii.he is a member of the Nigerian Bar Association
iii.he is a member of lawyers’ Forum
iv.the 1st respondent openly declare her intentions to deal “ruthlessly” with him once she was appointed a Judge, which appointment is a forgone conclusion.
v.the appellant suit is a pre-emptive one,
vi.the appointment of 1st respondent as a Judge who openly declared to the hearing of others that she will use that position to deal ruthlessly with the appellant who is a legal practitioner of the private bar and in private practice, who has a right to practice his chosen profession.
vii.the Civil right of the appellant was under threat of violation or infringement by the appointment of 1st respondent as Judge.
viii.The Constitution of N.J.C includes NBA in the process of appointment of Judges which appellant is a member.

He further submitted that the above facts, as stated, confers locus standi on appellant to sue to prevent 1st respondent being appointed a Judge of the High Court of Imo State.
Appellant, in an effort to drive home his points cited the provisions of Article 13 (2) & (3) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Cap. A.9 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004); Section 17 (2) (a) & (e) of the 1999 Constitution and a number of decided authorities which includes the case of Adesanya Vs President 1981 12 N.S. C.C. 146; Owodunni Vs Registered Trustees of the C. C. C. 2000 6 S.C. N. J. 399 at page 439 where his Lordship Hon. Justice Katsina-Alu JSC, as he then was, stated as follows:-
“Locus Standi is unquestionably a threshold issue and it has been held in a number of cases that it is dependent, not on the merits of a plaintiff’s case, but on the showing of the plaintiff’s case in his Statement of Claim once the averments disclose the rights and obligations or interest of the plaintiff which has been violated or threatened with violation on infringement then the plaintiff-clearly has the locus to institute the suit”
Learned counsel finally urged the Court to resolve the issue in favour of appellant.
Learned counsel for 1st respondent, on his part, submitted that a careful consideration of the averments in the statement of claim would reveal that the interest which appellant seeks to protect is too remote; that appellant has not shown what special interest he has in the appointment of 1st respondent as a Judge which said special interest will cloth him with the right to institute the present action. Learned counsel referred this court to the case of IRENE THOMAS V. MOST REV. OLUFOSOYE (1986) 2 SC 325 at 330 where this Hon. Court held that:
“It is also the law as laid down……… that to enable a person to invoke Judicial power, he must show that either his personal interest will immediately be or has been adversely affected by its action or that he has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury to himself, and which interest is over and above that of the general public”
Learned counsel further submitted that appellant basing his locus standi on the speculation or assumption that he may appear before the 1st respondent is merely hypothetical, speculative and too remote.
On the allegation that 1st respondent will deal with, .him ruthlessly if appointed a Judge, learned counsel referred this Court to the decision in A.G. Anambra State V. Eboh (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 218) 491 at 505: Counsel further submitted that there is nothing in Rule 21 of the Rules of Professional Conduct in the Legal Profession 1979 which clothes appellant with special standing to take out the present suit rather the said Rule enjoins appellant and every other Legal Practitioner in Nigeria to expose corruption or dishonest conduct which appellant and his colleagues did when they wrote several petitions to various agencies and bodies against the 1st respondent which came to nought.
It is submitted that haven written the said petitions, it is the duty of the said agencies to take up the matter and not for appellant to usurp same purportedly acting as a “CRUSADER” as doing so brings him within the confines of the persons described as “BUSY BODIES” or MEDDLESOME INTERLOPERS” by the Supreme Court in the case of IRENE THOMAS V. OLUFOSOYE (1986) 2 SC 325, 330.
On the role of the NBA making an input in the appointment of a Judge. Learned Counsel submitted that, that role is specifically that of N.B.A. as a body and not to any individual member of the association like the appellant; that where the N.B.A. has made such input, it has exercised its constitutional mandate and cannot turn round to sue to enforce the acceptance or otherwise of the input otherwise it would tantamount to constituting itself as the appointing authority.
In MOMOH V. JIMO OLOTU (1970), All NLR 117 at 123 ADEMOLA C.J.N stated “We are of the view that it is not enough for the plaintiff to state that he is a member of the family, he has to state further that he has an interest in the chieftaincy title and furthermore state in his statement of claim how his interest in the chieftaincy title arose”
Counsel finally urged the Court to resolve the issue against appellant. In response, learned counsel to 2nd and 3rd respondents submitted that appellant’s averment in his Statement of Claim does not qualify to give him standing or locus standi to bring this action.
Learned counsel M. C. Uwasomba Esq. refers this Court to the case of A.G. Federation Vs Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (Part 1041) 1 at page 75 per Akintan, JSC as follows:
“It follows that to entitle a person to invoke Judicial power he must show that either his personal interest will immediately be affected by the action or that he had sustained injury to himself and which interest is over and above the interest of the general public”
Learned counsel submitted that appellant in this case has not shown how his personal interest in the appointment of the 1st respondent as a High Court Judge of Imo State is over and above the interest of the other citizens of Imo State.
Moreover, the claims of appellant concerns Public Rights and duties of all citizens of the State. It is a well-known principle of law that for enforcement of a public right, a private litigant has no locus standi unless he established a special interest over and above that of any other member of the public. Counsel referred this court to the case of ADEWUNNI VS. OGEBELLE (1983) 4 WCLR (Vol. 4) 662 at 667; that appellant in paragraphs 3-11 of his Statement of Claim alleged or listed some fraudulent activities against the 1st respondent and also relied on the case of Fawehinimi Vs Akilu (1987) 4 NWLR (part 6, 7) 797 to support his contention on locus standi. Learned Counsel submitted that appellant misunderstood the facts and principles in the said Akilu case; that Akilu case would have been relevant for the appellant if he went to court to prosecute the 1st respondent on the allelged fraud or crime.
He finally urged the court to hold that appellant has no Locus Standi to Institute the action.
ISSUE NO. 2
Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that this action disclosed no cause of action.
It is the contention of appellant’s counsel that the trial Judge misunderstood the case of appellant as pleaded in the Statement of Claim in support of the prayers sought which facts were totally ignored. The Suit, learned counsel further submitted, did not challenge the exercise by the Governor of his statutory power to appoint Judges, but simply prayed the trial court to declare that based on the facts pleaded, 1 respondent’s moral conduct and threat against appellant is such that she is not fit and proper to be appointed a Judge of the High Court of Imo State; that sequel to that is the prayer to restrain the Governor from exercising his power to appoint such an unfit person, which the court can grant or refuse at the end of the day.
Counsel further argued that the reliefs sought are in the main a declaration of right, a declaration of a State of affairs and then the consequential injunctive reliefs. Finally, learned counsel urged the court to hold that the learned trial Judge and the majority decision of the court below were in grave error to have held that there was no cause of action and that the suit was speculative and frivolous and that the issue be resolved in his favour.
On this issue, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that, the suit of the appellant, rather than being preventive as claimed, is highly speculative of the probable appointment of the 1st respondent as a Judge. He referred the court to the case of Onochie Vs Odogwu (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 317) 544 at 579 – that courts, are restrained from entertaining speculative actions.
He submitted further that the appointment of the 1st respondent by the 2nd respondent as a Judge by the 2nd respondent is a statutory function. He further referred the court to the case of Okafor V A.G. Anambra State (1992) NWLR (Pt 224) 395 – where this court held that-
“In exercise of Statutory function such as the appointment of a Judge, action will not lie, unless and until the person entitled to exercise such function has done so in violation of the enabling law.”
Learned counsel submitted that 2nd respondent was yet to exercise his statutory function of appointing a person a Judge of the Imo State Judiciary when appellants initiated the suit and this makes the suit frivolous, vexatious., speculative and robs the lower court and the court below of the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. See AKILU V. FAWEHINMI (No. 2) (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 102) 122 at 135 paragraph B.
Learned counsel for the 2nd to 3rd respondents submitted that appellant anchored his relief purely on speculation which cannot avail him with a cause of action, which court should refrain from entertaining. He referred this court to the case of ONOCHIE V. ODOGWU (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 317) 544 FWLR (pt..’ 323) 1747 at 1773; that where, as in this case, there is no cause of action disclosed, it goes to challenge both the locus standi of the plaintiff as well as the competence or jurisdiction of the court to try the action because where there is no cause of action the court will decline its jurisdiction in the matter. He finally urged this court to resolve this issue in favour of the 2nd & 3rd respondents.

It is now settled law that a cause of action is entire factual situation, the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from court, a remedy against another person. See the case of A.G. Kwara State V. Olawole (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 272) 645 at 663.
Again, in the case of Renco Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Veepee Industries Ltd. (2005) Al I FWLR (Pt. 264) 816 at 822 this court held thus:
“Cause of action is the entire set of circumstances giving rise to an enforceable claim, it effects the factor combination of facts which give rise to a right to sue and it consist of two elements:
(a)The wrongful act of the Defendant which gives the plaintiff cause of complaint, and
(b)The consequent damage”
The question to be asked is, what was the wrongful act of the respondents and the consequent damage to appellant?
The answer to that question is that the claims of appellant were merely speculating that the 2nd respondent will appoint the 1st respondent a Judge of the Imo State Judiciary. This relief is on speculation and ‘cannot” avail him (appellant) of a cause of action:
See the case of MADUKOLU Vs NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SC NLR, 3;41.
I am of the firm view that since the 2nd respondent was yet to exercise his Statutory function of appointing a person as a Judge of the High Court of Imo State when the appellant instituted the suit, that alone removes the subject matter of this suit from the jurisdiction of the courts.
It is for the above reasons and the more detailed reasons assigned in the lead judgment of my learned brother that I too hold the considered view that this appeal lacks merit and should be dismissed and order accordingly.
I abide by the consequential orders made in the said lead judgment including the order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

JOHN OKORO, JSC: I had read in draft before now, the lead judgment of my learned brother, Bage, JSC just delivered and I totally agree that this appeal has no merit and should be dismissed with cost as set out in the lead judgment. I will add only a few comments to his judgment which has covered all important points raised by both parties. The facts and circumstances leading to this appeal have already been reviewed by my learned brother and I shall not repeat the exercise save as it is necessary to refer to any portion of those facts for the purpose of dealing with any point in discussion in this appeal.
With regard to the question “whether the Appellant has locus standi to institute this action” the position of the law is that a person has locus standi to sue in an action if he is able to show to the satisfaction of the Court that his rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed. In other words, the plaintiffs statement of claim must disclose sufficient legal interest and the plaintiff must show how such interest arose in the subject matter. See Fawehinmi v. Akilu (1981) 4 NWLR (Pt67)797. This is sine qua non to the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court to hear the matter on the merit. See Arowolo vs. Akaiyeyo (2012) 4 NWLR (Pt.268). In the case of Pam v. Mohammed (2008) vol 40 WRN P.69 this Court per Tobi; JSC (of blessed memory) held at pages 122 to 123 as follows:
“…. The term locus standi denotes legal capacity to institute proceedings in a Court of law. It is used interchangeably with terms like standing or title to sue. It is the right of a party to appear and be heard on a question before any court or tribunal”
His lordship went on to say:
“It is the law that to have locus standi to sue, the plaintiff must show sufficient interest in the suit or matter. One criterion or sufficient interest is whether, the party could have been joined as a party in the suit Another criterion is whether the party seeking the redress or remedy will suffer some injury or hardship arising from the litigation….”
See also Makinde v. Orion Engineering Services (UK) Ltd (2014) NWLR (Pt.1417) 1 at 28.
The above is the position of the law and it cannot differ in this appeal. The appellant (as plaintiff) has a duty not only to show that he has sufficient interest in the action but more importantly to show that his legal rights or obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed.
In this appeal, the Appellant has failed to show to the satisfaction of the Court, in his Writ of Summons dated 23/1/2004, how the imminent appointment of the 1st Respondent as judge of the High Court of Imo State, would infringe on his rights under Section 36(1), 38, and 42 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
As afore stated, locus standi of a plaintiff to institute an action is a condition precedent to the Court’s jurisdiction. It is inextricably linked to the exercise of jurisdiction by a Court. In other words, where the party initiating an action lacks locus standi, the Court is robbed of jurisdiction to hear that matter. In the instant appeal, having resolved the question of locus standi against the appellant, I hold that the learned trial judge was right to decline jurisdiction and have the suit struck out as affirmed by the Court below.
On the whole, I hold that this appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed by me. I affirm the judgment of the Court below. I endorse the order as to costs in the lead judgment, in favour of the 1st Respondent only.
Appeal dismissed.

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, JSC: My Lord, Bage, JSC, obliged me with the draft of the ing judgement delivered now. I am in agreement with His Lordship that this appeal, being unmeritorious, should be dismissed.
This contribution is circumscribed to a resolution of the divergent submissions in issue two, namely, whether the appellant’s action disclosed any cause of action. While the appellant maintained that his suit is “preventive in nature;” the respondents, in essence, contend that the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain it.
The submissions of the respondents’ counsel are, in my humble view, unanswerable. The reason is simple. When we speak of “cause of action,” we mean the factual base or a factual situation a combination of which makes the matter in litigation an enforceable right or an actionable wrong, Tukur v Govt of Gongola State [1989] 4 NWLR (pt 117) 717; Ibrahim v. Osim [1988] 3 NWLR (pt. 82) 257; Thomas v. Olufosoye [1986] 3 NWLR (pt 18) 669, 682; Amede v. UBA [2008] 8 NWLR (pt.1090) 623, 656; that is, the factual situation which gives a person a right to a judicial relief, Egbe v. Adefarasin [1987] 1 NWLR (pt.47) 1; Yusufu v. Co-operative Bank Ltd [1994] 7 NWLR (pt. 359) 676; LUTHMB v. Adewole (1998) 5 NWLR (pt. 550) 406.
Simply put, Cause of action means the factual situation, which if substantiated, entitles a plaintiff to a remedy against a defendant, Kasandubu v. Ultimate Pet. Ltd [2008] 7 NWLR (pt.1086) 274, 302; Adimora v. Ajufo [1988] 3 NWLR (pt. 80) 1; U.B.N Ltd v. Oki [1999] 8 NWLR (pt. 614) 244; Adimora v. Ajufo [1988] 3 NWLR (pt. 80) 1; Ogbimi v. Ololo [1993] 7 NWLR (pt. 304) 128.
I, entirely, agree with the leading judgement that the averments in the Statement of Claim are speculative in nature and are not suitable for entertainment in our courts, Agbakoka v INEC [2008] 18 NWLR (pt 1119) 489; Adeogun v Fashogbon [2008] 17 NWLR (pt 1115) 149; Plateau State v AG, Federation [2006] 3 NWLR (pt 967) 346.
It is for these, and the more elaborate, reasons in the leading judgement that I hold that this appeal
deserves to be dismissed. I abide by the consequential orders in the leading judgement.

COUNSELS

Chidi B. Nworka (in person), for the appellant|E. Ofodiie, SAN; with Chukwuma Machukwu Ume, SAN; G. Okereke; Deborah Iniye Warrie, Esq.; and Nliam Okechukwu Benjamin, Esq., for the respondents.|

Close Menu