H.R.H. EZE G.A. AKWAGBULAM v. SAMUEL MBALISI & ORS
(2014)LCN/6931(CA)
RATIO
CONSIDERATION EXAMINED IN AN ACTION TO CHALLENGE LOCUS STANDI
The issue of locus standi is indeed fundamental in any action in court. In our civil jurisprudence, a Defendant can impeach the locus standi of a Plaintiff under S. 6(6) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. Once the locus standi of a party is challenged by the Defendant, that issue must first be resolved before any other consideration of the matter.
In consideration of the challenge to locus standi, it is pertinent to examine the Writ of Summons and the averments in the Statement of Claim. It is the averments in the latter that are paramount. The court shall then consider whether there is a justiciable issue before the court. See, LADEJOBI V. OGUNTAYO (2001) FWLR (pt. 45) 780, ELENDU V. EKWOABA (1995) 5 NWLR (Pt. 386) 704. When a person’s standi is in issue, the question is whether he is a proper person to request an adjudication of the issue. The question whether the person has sufficient justifiable interest or sufficient injury or damage depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The purport of this is that the court will be very wary of busybodies and meddlesome interlopers.
In the instant case, from the averments, the 1st Respondent has stated how he was identified, selected and presented to the 2nd Respondent for recognition. By these averments, the 1st Respondent is eminently qualified to institute the action having shown sufficient legal interest and a fortiori; the requisite locus standi to maintain the action against the Appellant at the lower court. See BADEJO V. FED. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (1990) 4 NWLR (143) 254.
There is no gainsaying the fact that the issue of locus standi of a Plaintiff is a threshold issue and should be decided on adequate consideration of the Plaintiff’s pleadings once the said issue has been raised by the Defence. See the case of THOMAS V. REV. T. OLUFONYE (1985) 3 NWLR (pt. 13) 523. It is however the right of a party to appear and be heard on the question before any court or tribunal. See also the case of ADESANYA V. PRESIDENT, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (1981) 2 NCLR 358, DADA V. OGUNSANYA (1992) 3 NWLR (pt. 232) 754. Per PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE, J.C.A.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: LEGAL EFFECT ON WHEN ACTION IS STATUTE BARRED
Where an action is statute barred, a Plaintiff who would have had a cause of action automatically loses his right to enforce same by judicial process because the period laid down for the institution of such an action has elapsed. Any action brought after the period stipulated by statute is totally barred as the right of the injured person to commence such an action would have been extinguished by law. See, the case of SPDC (NIG.) LTD V. FARAH (1995) 3 NWLR (pt. 382) 148, IBRAHIM V. JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMITTEE, KADUNA STATE (1998) 14 NWLR pt. 584 1, 1998 I SCNJ 255.
Again in deciding if an action is caught by the Statute of Limitation, the time must be ascertained when the right or cause of action accrued to a party. The cause of action would accrue when it becomes complete, such that the aggrieved party can begin and maintain his claim. Also, what must be looked into is the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim alleging when the wrong which gave the Plaintiff a cause of action, was committed. Comparison must be made of the date when the said action was committed and when the Writ was subsequently filed. Per PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE, J.C.A.
