OTUNBA SEGUN ADESINA v. PRINCE (DR.) FRANCIS KEHINDE ODUSOTE & ORS
(2016)LCN/8120(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 22nd day of January, 2016
CA/I/124/2010
RATIO
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: ‘LOCUS STANDI’: THE MEANING OF ‘LOCUS STANDI’ AND HOW THE COURT DETERMINES THE ISSUE OF WHETHER A PARTY POSSESSTHE REQUISITE LOCUS STANDI
In the case of Adefulu vs. Oyesile (1989)5 NWLR Part 122 Page 418, the Supreme Court
explained that the term “locus standi.” “…literally means a “place to stand’, hence a standing to
sue. In law it denotes the legal capacity to institute proceedings in a Court of Law. Thomas vs. Olufusoye (1986) 1 NWLR Part 18 page 669 para. 685. It is in Nigeria, a constitutional requirement in order to enable a person to maintain an action and is limited to the prosecution of matter relating to the civil rights and obligations of the Plaintiffs, be that Plaintiff a person or
persons, a group of persons, a statutory body, a government, and authority or may other juristic person (see Section 6(6)(6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic 1979.” It is also clear that in determining the issue of whether a party possesses the requisite locus standi, the Court will only consider the Statement of Claim filed in the case. This point was made clear by the Court in Bamisile vs, Obasuyi (2007) 9 NWLR Part 1042 page 225, where it was held that: “It is the Statement of Claim that will be considered in determining whether or not a plaintiff has locus standi.” It is thus clear that in deciding the issue of locus standi, the Court has no business considering any averments contained in any Statement of Defence filed in replication. Locus Standi stands or falls by the averments contained in the Statement of Claim alone. per. ONYEREM OKORONKWO, J.C.A.
CHIEFTANCY DISPUTE: THE TWO CLASSES OF PERSONS WHO HAVE THE LOCUS STANDI TO SUE IN A CHIEFTAINCY DISPUTE AND WHAT THE PLAINTIFF MUST PLEAD IN CHIEFTAINCY DISPUTE
It should be noted that action before the trial Court was premised on a chieftaincy dispute. The law is that, in a chieftaincy dispute, two classes of persons have the locus standi to sue. These are a candidate or contestant or the family or the ruling house. The reason is that in such cases, just like in all other claims before the Court, for a person to possess the required locus standi, he must disclose by his statement of claim that he has sufficient interest which has been or threatened to be injured. In chieftaincy disputes generally, as was settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Emezi v. Osuagwu (2005) 12 NWLR (pt. 939) to p. 340 it is not enough for the plaintiff to State that he is a member of the family, but must further state that he has an interest in the chieftaincy title and how his interest in the chieftaincy in issue arose. In other words, where the plaintiff asserts his own right to the chieftaincy separate from that of the family, he must clearly plead the nature of his own right to the chieftaincy stool. See also Momoh & Anor v. Olotu (1970) 1 ALL N.L.R. p. 117.
In the case of Aroworo v. Akapo (2003) 8 NWLR (pt. 823) p. 421; (2002) LPELR – 7063 (CA), Onalaja JCA held that: “The guiding principle on the right of a plaintiff to sue in a chieftaincy contest was laid down in the locus classicus case of M.A. Eleso v. The Government
of Ogun State & 4 Ors (1990) 2 NWLR (pt. 133) page 420 at 444 wherein the Supreme Court held: “(9) The right of a plaintiff to sue in a chieftaincy contest can arise in two different ways, viz:- (a) the plaintiff may by his statement of claim and evidence such that the right that is being asserted is that of his family by reason of, say, their hereditary interest. In this type of case, it is the family, usually through their representative, who can bring the action on the premise that it is the civil right of the family that has been pleaded.(b) The plaintiff may assert his own right to the
chieftaincy stool. What is required in such a case, is that his statements of claim and evidence – if
evidence has been called should show the nature of his interest and his entitlement of the stool. In such a case, he has locus standi, by virtue of Section 6 (6) (b) of the 1979 Constitution…” per. HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI J.C.A.
ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
NONYEREM OKORONKWO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
OTUNBA SEGUN ADESINA – Appellant(s)
AND
1. PRINCE (DR.) FRANCIS KEHINDE ODUSOTE
2. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, OGUN STATE
3. THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR OGUN STATE
4. THE OGUN STATE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
5. THE SECRETARY, IJEBU-EAST LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCIL
6. THE EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN, IJEBU-EAST LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCIL
7. HRM OBA (DR.) S.K. ADETONA, THE AWUJALE OF IJEBU LAND
8. CHIEF OLU OGUNJOBI
9. NAVY CAPTAIN JAIYE BADEJOKO (RTD)
10. ALHAJI (SURV.) SUPO OFUKOYA
11. HON. MUFUTAU ADEBAMBO
12. PRINCESS MRS ADENIKE ADENIRAN
13. ALHAJI SULUKA ODUKOYA
14. CHIEF LASISI GBAMUGBAMU – Respondent(s)
ONYEREM OKORONKWO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
The appeal in this proceedings arose from a ruling given by Hon. Justice Catherine Ogunsanya at the Ogun State High Court on July 16th, 2009 dismissing an application by the appellant challenging the locus standi of the 1st respondent who as plaintiff in HCJ/43/07 had sued the appellant and others claiming by his amended statement of claim as follows:-
1. A declaration that the plaintiff is a prominent member of
Sikunoye (Adefeya) Branch of Esega Ruling House of
Owu- Ijebu and according to native law, custom and
tradition of Owu-Ijebu is eligible to contest for the Olowu
of Owu-Ijebu stool.
2. An order that the judgment delivered by the Honourable
Justice T. Ibikunle Adesalu on 8th March, 2005 operates
as an estoppels per rem judicatam having not been
appealed against, the re-appointment of the 7th- 13th
defendants is wrongful, illegal, against the native law,
custom and tradition of Owu-Ijebu, unconstitutional null,
void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. A declaration that the subsequent meetings held by the
7th – 13th defendants as warrant kingmakers on
27/05/2006 and other meetings purportedly held to
select the 14th defendant to fill the vacant stool of the
Olowu of Owu-Ijebu amounted to a willful and flagrant
disobedience of the Court Order of perpetual injunction
restraining the 2nd – 8th defendants now the 7th – 13th
defendants from performing the duties of warrant
kingmakers or kingmakers by whatever name called, for
the purpose of selecting, appointing or approving the
nomination of the next Olowu of Owu-Ijebu
4. A declaration that the subsequent approval granted by
the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendant approving the
appointment of the defendant in a letter reference No.
CHM.7/18/T/III dated 18th May, 2007, when this suit filed
on 19th February, 2007 is stilt pending at the High Court
No. 2, Ijebu-Ode is contemptuous, illegal,
wrongful,
ultravires and void and the same be set aside on gross
irregularities.
In the application brought in limine to terminate the suit, the respondent prayed for;
“Setting aside the writ of summons and statement
of claim in this suit on the ground that the same do
not disclose a reasonable cause of action in that;
i. The plaintiff does not have the necessary locus
standi to prosecute this suit.
ii. This Honourable Court does not possess the
requisite jurisdiction to entertain this action as
currently constituted.
The support for the application is founded on the affidavit in support of the application wherein it was deposed for and on behalf of the appellant thus:-
1. That I am a uterine brother of the 14th
Defendant/Applicant in this matter and I have his full
authority and mandate to depose to this affidavit in
support.
2. That by reason of the circumstances of my birth as a
Prince of Owu ljebu and a principal member of the
Esega
ruling house of Owu I am very much conversant with the
facts relevant to this case.
3. That the plaintiff’s claim against the 14
defendant/applicant and as well as other defendants in
this action relate to the filling of the erstwhile vacancy in
the stool of the Olowu of Owu-Ijebu.
4. That I was informed by our Counsel O.O. Ojutalayo Esq.,
and I verily believed him as follows:-
i. That this action is a chieftaincy one relating to the
stool of Olowu of Owu-ijebu.
ii. That this Honourable Court does not have
jurisdiction to entertain this action.
iii. That this action as constituted does not touch on
the right of the plaintiff to aspire to the erstwhile
vacant stool of the Olowu of Owu-Ijebu.
5. That it is in interest of justice that this application be
granted.
6. That I swear to this affidavit in good faith.
The relevant portions of the amended statement of claim for consideration in this
appeal are paragraphs 1 and 3 of the amended statement of claim which reads thus:-
1. The plaintiff is a Prince in Esega Ruling House of Owu-
Ijebu and a prominent member of SIKUNOYE BRANCH of
the Esega Ruling House who is much interested to
contest the Olowu of Owu-Ijebu stool.
2. The Plaintiff resides at Taiwo and Kehinde Odusote
Estate, Odusote Village, Owu-Ijebu, in ljebu East Local
Government of Ogun State.
3. The Plaintiff is one of the 3 candidates nominated on 19th
May, 2006 to fill the vacant stool of Oba Olowu of Owu-
Ijebu by Esega Ruling House of Owu-Ijebu and for this
purpose a certificate of Nomination was given to the
plaintiff by Esega Ruling House on the said date.
In his brief of argument by learned counsel O.O. Ojutalayo Esq. a lone issue for determination was formulated for the appellant thus:
“whether the 1st Respondent has by his pleadings
of the l8th day of January 2008 successfully shown
his locus standi to the stool of Olowu of
Owu-Ijebu
and explicitly stated how such interest arose- thus
clothing the Court with the requisite jurisdiction to
adjudicate his cause.”
In arguing the issue, appellant contend that locus standi is the foundation on which a disputant must rest before the Court can look into and adjudicate his case” citing INAKOJU VS. ADELEKE (2002) 4 NWLR (PT 1025) 489 AT 601; BAMISITE VS. OBASUYI (2007) 9 NWLR (PT. 402) 225 AT 279; ADEFULU VS. OYESITE 1989) 5 NWLR (PT, 122) 377 AT 409.
In effect appellant’s contention is that the 1st respondent must disclose sufficient interest in the subject matter of his claim to come within the compass of Section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 for his claim to be cognizable in Court and that in considering whether such interest has been disclosed to invest the Court with jurisdiction and cloth the suit with competence, it is only the statement of claim that must be considered and no extraneous matter.
Against the legal background, the appellant contend at paragraph 4.05 – 4.06 of the appellants brief thus:
The
gravamen of the application filed by the Appellant which
is the subject of this appeal was that it is not enough for the
Plaintiff/1st Respondent to state that he is in line for the
chieftaincy and that he is an aspirant, the 1st Respondent
has an additional mandatory duty to go further and show
through his pleadings how the interest he is trying to protect
has arisen. He has the duty to show how he is personally
connected to the family that is entitled to the stool. In the
case of Emezi vs. Osuagwu (2005) 72 NWLR (Part
939) Page 340 at 360 – 361 the Supreme Court held
thus:
“…the Plaintiff may assert his own right to the
Chieftaincy stool if he could show from his pleadings and
evidence, the nature of his interest and his entitlement to
the stool. It is not enough for him to merely say further that
he has interest in the Chieftaincy title and plead further in
his Statement of Claim how his interest arose
…… he still
needs to show how he became a candidate,”
Underlining ours.
See also OBALA VS. ADESHINA (1999) 2 SCNJ at 24.
We submit with respected that the action at the lower Court
was not instituted by the 1st Respondent in a representative
capacity therefore; he (the 1st Respondent) has the onus of
establishing how his interest in the Olowu of Owu
Chieftaincy has arisen.
It is the appellant’s view that the 1st respondent did not disclose sufficient interest in the stool of Olowu of Owu-Ijebu as 1st respondent did not plead how his interest in the said stool arose. Appellant contends at 4.07 and 4.08 at his brief thus:
From a careful perusal of the Amended Statement
of Claim dated the 18th day of January 2008, it is
disclosed vide paragraphs 1 and 3 (page 165) of the
records) that the 1st Respondent is a Prince of
Esega Ruling House of Owu-Iiebu and that he was
nominated for consideration for selection along with
two other aspirants to the stool of Olowu of Owu-
Ijebu. The Amended Statement of Claim is
however amazingly silent on how the Respondent
became entitled to the stool in contention. Sequel
to this grave omission, we humbly submit that the
1st Respondent can only show his locus by a clear
genealogy linking him with the family; it is only
such genealogy that can convincingly demonstrate
how
the Plaintiff’s interest in the Olowu stool has
arisen.
Appellant then argues that the 1st respondent did not show how he became candidate for the stool even by paragraph 1 and 3 of the amended statement of claim and that the learned trial judge was in error to have based her decision on an earlier Supreme Court case of Odeneye vs. Efunuga (1990) 3 NSCC 543 at 550 without any advertence to the more recent Supreme Court case of Emezi vs. Osuagwu (2005) 12 NWLR (pt. 939) page 340 at 360 – 361 where it was stipulated that in such situations, a plaintiff needs to show not merely that he is interested but must go on to show how that interest arose. Appellant concludes that paragraph 1 and 3 of the amended statement of claim has not satisfied the essentials of pleadings required in a Chieftaincy dispute.
For the 1st respondent, the brief filed on his behalf by George M. Oguntade SAN, similarly raised one issue for determination namely;
The 1st Respondent submits that the issue for determination in this appeal is –
“Whether the trial Court was correct in law in
holding that the averments contained in the 1st
Respondent’s Amended Statement of Claim
dated 18th, January 2008 was sufficient to
imbue him with the requisite locus standi to
maintain and prosecute the action and thereby
vest the Court with jurisdiction to hear same.”
1st respondent reiterates the hackneyed phrase of locus standi agreeing that it is the bedrock of litigation and the parties or suitors in Court must be those to whom rights and obligations attach. Throwing light on the concept of locus standi, learned senior counsel submits thus at paragraph 3.3 and 3.4 of the 1st respondents’ brief thus:
The term locus standi denotes the legal capacity
based upon
sufficient interest in a subject matter to
institute proceedings in a Court of law to pursue a
specified cause. See the case of Emezi vs.
Osuagwu (2005) 12 NWLR Part 939 at page
361.
In the case of Adefulu vs. Oyesile (1989)5
NWLR Part 122 Page 418, the Supreme Court
explained that the term “locus standi.”
“…literally means a “place to stand’, hence a standing to
sue. In law it denotes the legal capacity to institute
proceedings in a Court of Law. Thomas vs. Olufusoye
(1986) 1 NWLR Part 18 page 669 para. 685. It is in
Nigeria, a constitutional requirement in order to enable a
person to maintain an action and is limited to the
prosecution of matter relating to the civil rights and
obligations of the Plaintiffs, be that Plaintiff a person or
persons, a group of persons, a statutory body, a
government, and authority or may other juristic person (see
Section 6(6)(6) of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic
1979.”
It is also clear that in determining the issue of whether a
party possesses the requisite locus standi, the Court will only
consider the Statement of Claim filed in the case. This point
was made clear by the Court in Bamisile vs, Obasuyi
(2007) 9 NWLR Part 1042 page 225, where it was held
that:
“It is the Statement of Claim that will be considered
in determining whether or not a plaintiff has locus
standi.”
It is thus clear that in deciding the issue of locus standi, the
Court has no business considering any averments contained
in any Statement of Defence filed in replication. Locus
Standi stands or falls by the averments contained in the
Statement of Claim alone.
Upon this submission, 1st respondent refers to paragraph 1, 2 and 3 of the Amended Statement of Claim where it was pleaded thus:
“1. The Plaintiff is a Prince in Esega Ruling House of Owu
Ijebu and a prominent
member of Sikunoye Branch of
the Esega Ruling House who is much interested to
contest the Olowu of Owu ljebu stool.
2. The Plaintiff resides at Taiwo and Kehinde Odusote
Estate, Odusote Village Owu ljebu in ljebu East
Local Government of 0gun State.
3. The Plaintiff is one of the 3 candidates nominated on
l9th May 2006 to fill the vacant stool of Oba Olowu
of Owu ljebu by Esega Ruling House of Owu ljebu
and this purpose a certificate of Nomination was
given to the plaintiff by Esega Ruling House on the
said date.”
In showing that the 1st respondent had the requisite locus standi vesting a special interest in him (1st respondent) it was contended on his behalf at paragraph 3.12 and 3.13 at the 1st respondent’s brief thus:
In the Appeal presently under consideration, the Respondent
has sued in respect of issues affecting him directly. Apart
from stating that he is a Prince in Esega ruling House and a
prominent member of the Sikunoye Branch and
particularly
interested in contesting the Olowu of Owu-Ijebu Chieftaincy
stool, he has gone further to aver that as a matter of fact,
he was one of the three candidates nominated on 19th May
2006 to fill the vacant stool of Owu ljebu and in furtherance
to which a certificate of nomination was given to him by the
Esega Ruling House on the said date.
We submit with great respect that this latter averment surely
settles the issue of the locus standi of the lst Respondent.
The fact of his nomination on l9th May 2006 has patently
demonstrated a clear acknowledgment and existence of the
1st Respondent’s interest in the Chieftaincy stool. The fact of
his nomination and presentation with a Certificate to this
effect has clearly rendered the submissions of the Appellant
idle and
redundant.
It was then contended on behalf of 1st respondent that quite apart from the personal interest of the 1st respondent and being a Prince in the Esega Ruling House of Owu ljebu, the fact of the nomination of the 1st respondent amongst the three candidates so nominated and being issued with a certificate of such nomination clearly cloths the 1st respondent with sufficient interest in the subject matter he (1st respondent) sued for.
On the issue of nomination to contest for the stool being sufficient to invest locus standi, 1st respondent at paragraphs 3.14 and 3.15 argues thus:
It was in apparent recognition of this clear and manifest fact
that the trial Judge in the concluding part of her judgment
(see Page 286 of the Record of Proceedings) pronounced
that:
“….A man whose name came up as having been
nominated to a stool has more than one satisfied his
interest in that stool, is so relevant. It would be the
height of absurdity and in fact
and outlandish to shut
out the Respondent/Claimant in his purported quest in
this matter…”
We submit that on the facts of this Appeal, the relevant
judicial authority, which was correctly indentified by the trial
Judge (See Page 283 of the Record of Proceedings), is the
case of Oduneye vs, Efunuga (1990) 3 NSCC Page 543
where the Supreme Court pronounced thus:
“There is the contention between persons about the
filing of the vacant Chieftaincy stool of Alakenne of
Ikenne. It is also not in dispute that the Respondent
is one of those presented to the Kingmakers for the
filing of the vacant stool. It is therefore not arguable
that the Respondent is interested in the exercise for
the filing of the vacant stool of Alakenne of
Iikenne…”
In the same vein Belgore JSC opined at Page 640 that:
……The
Respondents in this matter as appeal not only claims
that he is entitled to be nominated for the vacant stool of
Alakenne (which in all respects is enough to confer locus
standi) but went further that his name really came up as one
of those nominated which to my mind more than satisfies his
right to sue…….” (emphasis added).
1st respondent further relied on the case of Obala vs, Adesina (1999) 2 SCNJ 1 where the following dicta on the relevance of nomination appeared.
“…….But in the instant case, it was the turn of the
Olasuka family to produce the next Owa Atan-
Aiyegbaju, according to the Chieftainry declaration
of 1957 and the second Appellant had already been
nominated by his family as the Owa elect. He
cannot therefore be said not to have any interest in
the subject matter, or to have failed to show how
his interest arose……………… “
‘The 1st Respondent as head of Olasuka Ruling
House sued on behalf of the Ruling House and the
2nd Respondent who was unanimously nominated as
the candidate of Olasuka
Ruling House for the
vacant stool sued for himself. It is without doubt
that the Plaintiff had locus standi to initiate these
proceedings. I agree entirely with Akpabio JCA that :
the Respondents had locus standi to sue “(Page 180
para. F-B) (emphasis added).
The respondent referred to the Emezi vs. Osuagwu (2005) 12 NWLR(pt,939) 340 at 360-361 and argued at para. 3.7-3.10 that the two cases were distinguishable and not irreconcilable; that is the cases of Emezi vs. Osuagwu supra and Oduneye vs. Efunuga. In Emezi vs. Osuagwu, the case specifically dealt with the question of an individual bringing a personal action in respect of communal interest whereas in the present case the 1st respondent is relying on his personal nomination. In the former case, he had to plead the interest of the community and show how his own interest therein arises.
In conclusion, it was submitted for 1st respondent that from paragraphs 1 – 3 of the amended Statement of Claim and the expositions of the law in the judicial authorities cited, 1st respondent had the necessary locus standi to contest the suit.
For the 2nd – 6th respondents and the 8th –
14th respondents, a composite brief was filed by I.B. Awofeso Esq., of the Ogun State Ministry of Justice.
For these respondents the issue for determination is
“Whether the In respondent has by his pleadings of
the 16th day of January 2008 successfully shown
his locus standi to the stool of Olowu of Owu-Iiebu
and explicitly stated how such interest arose thus
clothing the Court with the requisite jurisdiction to
adjudicate the issue.”
The brief of these respondents is virtually a replication of the appellant’s brief and reliance was on the same authorities relied on by the appellant particularly those at Inakoju vs, Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (pt, 1025) 489 at 601; Ajayi vs., Adebiyi (2012) 11 NWLR (pt, 1370) 137 at 154; Bamisile vs, Obasuyi (2007) I NWLR (pt, 1042) 225 at 279; Adefulu vs, Oyesile (1989) 5 NWLR (pt. 122) 337 at 409 and Thomas vs. Olufosoye (1986) All NLR 669 at 685.
The main point of the composite brief of the multipartite respondents is captured in paragraphs 4.08 and 4.09 reproduced hereunder.
From a careful perusal of the
Amended Statement
of Claim dated the 18th day of January 2008, it is
disclosed vide paragraphs I and 3 (page 165 of the
records) that the 1st Respondent is a prince of
Esega Ruling House of Owu-Iiebu and that he was
nominated for consideration for selection along with
two other aspirant to the stool of Olowu of Owu-
Ijebu. The Amended Statement of Claim is
amazingly silent on how the Respondent became
entitled to the stool in contention. Due to this fatal
omission, we humbly submit that the 1st
Respondent has not shown sufficient interest in the
stool in question herein. we submit that a Plaintiff
can only show his locus by a clear genealogy linking
him with the family; it is only such genealogy that
can convincingly demonstrate how the Plaintiff’s
interest in the Olowu stool has arisen.
Judicial authorities are very clear on what is
expected of a plaintiff as the one in this suit. He
must of
necessity not only show by his pleadings
that he has an interest in the title but must go
further to show how that interest has arisen. The
1st Respondent herein has not, with due respect,
discharged the onus imposed on him by law in that
regard. The In Respondent merely limited and
confined himself through his pleadings to what the
plaintiff did in EMEZI’S case (supra) wherein the
Supreme Court held at page 360 – 361 of the
judgment as follows:-
“The Appellant had deposed in paragraph 1 of
his affidavit in support of the originating
summons inter alia:
“that I am the Plaintiff in this Originating
Summons and that I am a native of Ndegbelu
Village of Awaka Autonomous community in
Owerri Local Government Area of Imo State and
that I have direct personal interest in the subject
matter of Awaka Autonomous Community.”
The above averment in my view is not enough to
confer on the Appellant
the required locust standi to
institute the claim. This is because, apart from
stating that he is a native of Ndegbelu village,
which is not enough and that he has direct personal
interest in the subject matter of the suit as a
candidate for the stool, he still needs to show how
he became a candidate.”
It was concluded for this respondents that respondent’s case did not meet the standard in Emezi vs. Osuagwu supra. It is incompetent and liable to be struck out.
The respective cases of the parties and their arguments have now been highlighted above. How did the trial judge handle the issues After a considerable review of the cases and arguments, of the parties particularly the pleadings in paragraphs 1 – 2 and 3 of the amended statement of claim where at paragraph 3 it was pleaded that “the plaintiff i.e. (1st respondent)” is one of the 3 candidates nominated on 19th May, 2006 to fill the vacant stool of Oba Olowu of Owu Ijebu by Esega Ruling House of Owu-Ijebu and for this purpose a certificate of nomination was given to the plaintififf by the
Esega Ruling House on the said date.”
The trial judge considered this claims in the pleadings above highlighted as sufficient interest to justify a proper standing or locus standi in the 1st respondent to bring the suit. The denial or explanation by the appellant at paragraph 23 of the statement of defence to the effect that notwithstanding plaintiff’s connection to the throne, he (plaintiff/1st respondent) was not eligible to contest for it is a matter of evidence and not of locus standi which is only established in and by the statement of claim only.
The learned trial judge, on the basis of the nomination of the 1st respondent and on the authority of Oduneye vs. Efunuga (1990) 3 NSCC 543 held that the 1st respondent had the requisite locus standi to present his case in the manner it was done.
I do not think there is any basis for contesting the validity of the learned judges finding and view of the law in the context of this case.
Clearly, the case of Emezi vs. Osuagwu (2005) 12 NWLR (pt. 939) 340 at 360- 301 does not suit the facts of this case and so is inappropriate as a support as the facts and circumstances are different. perhaps
the arguments of the 1st respondent’s counsel at paragraph 3.7, 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10 are instructive and are hereby adopted. They are herewith reproduced.
In furtherance of his submission, the Appellant has
sought to place reliance on and draw an analogy
from the decision of the Court in Emezi vs.
Osuagwu (2005) 12 NWLR part 939 page 340
at pages 360 – 361.
With respect, the fact of Emezi vs. Osuagwu is
clearly distinguishable from that of this appeal and
the issues involved in both are clearly different. In
the Emezi’s case the Appellant therein vide an
originating summons prayed the Court to hold that
the Eze stool of Awka Autonomous community was
rotational amongst the three villages of Ndegbelu,
Amuzu and Umuodu.
The Appellant therein wanted the Court to decide
that since the Ezeship Constitution and the
Government white Paper made succession to the
throne of the Eze rotational, it was wrong for the 1st
and 2nd Respondents to have conducted a plebiscite
in
order to fill the Ezeship vacancy. The Appellant
contended that it was the turn of his village,
Ndegbelu, to produce the next Eze. In support of
this contention, the Appellant deposed in his
Affidavit that he is a native of Ndegbelu village of
Akwa Autonomous community and therefore has
direct personal interest in the subject matter. He
said no more.
In delivering the lead judgment, Akintan JSC held
that the averment of the Appellant was not enough
to confer on him the requisite locus standi to
institute the action. The Justice opined further that:
“This is because apart from stating that he is a
native of Ndegbelu village which is not enough
and that he has a direct personal interest in the
subject matter of the suit as a candidate for the
stool, he still needs to show how he became a
candidate”
The
Court observed that in this case, the Appellant
had essentially filed a representative action in a
personal capacity and had failed to show how his
interest in the suit arose.
In the same case, Oguntade JSC pointed out that:
“…the Plaintiff by his suit was only trying to
show that Ndegbelu Village was the
community entitled to present a candidate for
the Ezeship .clearly therefore the right
were those belonging to the Villages of
Ndeabelu and Amuyi” (Page 366 para. E-F)
(emphasis added).
The facts and circumstances of the present case the subject of this appeal are quite different from those of Emezi vs. osuagwu supra but fit more into the mould of Oduneye vs, Efunuaga 1990) 3 NSCC at 53 which the trial judge applied, correctly in my respectful view. The submissions at page 312 and 313 of 1st Appellant’s brief states thus:
In the Appeal presently under
consideration, the 1st
Respondent has sued in respect of issues affecting
him directly. Apart from stating that he is a Prince
in Esega Ruling House and a prominent member of
the sikunoye Branch and particularly interested in
Contesting the Olowu of Owu-Ijebu Chieftaincy
stool, he has gone further to aver that as a matter
of fact, he was one of the three candidates
nominated on 19th May 2006 to fill the vacant stool
of Owu-ijebu and in furtherance to which a
certificate of nomination was given to him by the
Esega Ruling House on the said date.
We submit with great respect that this latter
averment surely settles the issue of the locus standi
of the 1st Respondent. The fact of his nomination
on 19th May 2006 has
patently demonstrated a clear
acknowledgment and existence of the 1st
Respondent’s interest in the Chieftaincy stool. The
fact of his nomination and presentation with a
Certificate to this effect has clearly rendered the
submissions of the Appellant idle and redundant.
This settles the issue and clearly excludes Emezi vs. Oswagwu supra.
In conclusion, I see no merit in this appeal. The learned trial judge in my view was right in holding that plaintiff (herein 1st respondent) had the necessary interest to sustain the action in the lower Court.
Therefore, the appeal is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
The respondents notice and response thereto are unnecessary and therefore discountenanced.
There shall be cost of N50,000.00 in favour of 1st respondent against appellant.
ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL. J.C.A.:
I have had a preview of the leading judgment delivered by my learned brother, Okoronkwo, JCA. I agree that this appeal is devoid of any merit and it ought to be dismissed, I dismiss it and
abide by all the consequential orders in the leading judgment.
HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI J.C.A.:
I had the privilege of reading before now, the judgment delivered by my learned brother, Nonyerem Okoronkwo, JCA.
The Appellant in this appeal had by a motion sought that the Court below, dismiss in limine the action instituted by the 1st Respondent seeking for some declaratory reliefs as stated in the Amended statement of claim on the ground that the 1st Respondent has no locus standi to institute the action. The learned trial Judge dismissed the application and held that the 1st Respondent had the required locus standi.
It should be noted that action before the trial Court was premised on a chieftaincy dispute. The law is that, in a chieftaincy dispute, two classes of persons have the locus standi to sue. These are a candidate or contestant or the family or the ruling house. The reason is that in such cases, just like in all other claims before the Court, for a person to possess the required locus standi, he must disclose by his statement of claim that he has sufficient interest which has been or threatened to
be injured. In chieftaincy disputes generally, as was settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Emezi v. Osuagwu (2005) 12 NWLR (pt. 939) to p. 340 it is not enough for the plaintiff to State that he is a member of the family, but must further state that he has an interest in the chieftaincy title and how his interest in the chieftaincy in issue arose. In other words, where the plaintiff asserts his own right to the chieftaincy separate from that of the family, he must clearly plead the nature of his own right to the chieftaincy stool. See also Momoh & Anor v. Olotu (1970) 1 ALL N.L.R. p. 117.
In the case of Aroworo v. Akapo (2003) 8 NWLR (pt. 823) p. 421; (2002) LPELR – 7063 (CA), Onalaja JCA held that:
“The guiding principle on the right of a plaintiff to
sue in a chieftaincy contest was laid down in the
locus classicus case of M.A. Eleso v. The Government
of Ogun State & 4 Ors (1990) 2 NWLR (pt. 133) page
420 at 444 wherein the Supreme Court
held:
“(9) The right of a plaintiff to sue in a chieftaincy
contest can arise in two different ways, viz:- (a)
the plaintiff may by his statement of claim and
evidence such that the right that is being asserted
is that of his family by reason of, say, their
hereditary interest. In this type of case, it is the
family, usually through their representative, who
can bring the action on the premise that it is the
civil right of the family that has been pleaded.
(b) The plaintiff may assert his own right to the
chieftaincy stool. What is required in such a case,
is that his statements of claim and evidence – if
evidence has been called should show the nature
of his interest and his entitlement of the stool. In
such a case, he has locus standi, by virtue of
Section 6 (6) (b) of the 1979 Constitution…”
In the instant case, the 1st Respondent had pleaded in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Amended Statement of Claim as follows:
“1. The Plaintiff is a Prince in Esega Ruling House of
Owu-Ijemu and a prominent member of
SIKUWOYE BRANCH of the Esega Ruling House
who is much
interested to contest the Olowu of
Owu-Ijebu Stool.
2. The Plaintiff is one of the 3 Candidates
nominated on 19th May, 2006 to fill the vacant
stool of Oba Olowu of Owu-Ijebu by Esega
Ruling House of Owu-Ijebu and for this purpose
a certificate of Nomination was given to the
Plaintiff by Esega Ruling House on the said
date.”
It is clear to me that, by the above pleadings, the 1st Respondent has sufficiently disclosed his interest in the chieftaincy stool. Any assertion to the contrary is a matter of evidence to be determined at the hearing. He may or may not be able to prove his assertion. On the face of those pleadings reproduced above, the locus standi of the 1st Respondent had been sufficiently disclosed.
It is for the above reasons and the detailed reasons ably adumbrated in the leading judgment, that I agreed that this appeal has no merit. I also dismiss same, and affirm the Ruling of the learned trial Judge delivered on the 16/7/2009. I abide by the order on costs.
Appearances
O.O. Ojutalayo with him, I.O. Akinfenwa For Appellant
AND
T. J. Odesola for the Ist Respondent
I.B. Awofeso for the 2nd – 6th and 8th – 14th Respondents For Respondent
