MR LATEEF OKEDEYI & ORS v. GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE & ANOR (2014)

MR LATEEF OKEDEYI & ORS v. GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE & ANOR

(2014)LCN/7247(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 30th day of May, 2014

CA/L/5THEREOF

RATIO

PRINCIPLE OF LAW GOVERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

The aforementioned provision of Section 128(1) & (2) of the Constitution is very clear and unambiguous as to the limit of the powers exercisable by the House of Assembly of a State pursuant to any inquiry or investigation conducted by it or any inquiry or investigation carried out by it on any issue within its Legislative competence. Authorities abound on the principle guiding the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution.
In AG KADUNA STATE V. HASSAN (1985) 2 NWLR (pg 8) 483 it was held by the Supreme Court that in construing constitutional document, there is need to look at its provisions as a whole and where possible, give such provision their ordinary and natural meaning. SEE ALSO AMALGAMATED TRUSTEES LTD V. ASSOCIATED DISCOUNT HOUSE LTD (2007) 7 SC 168; ISHOLA v. AJIBOYE (1994) 1 NWLR (PT 352) 506; NAFIU RABIU v. THE STATE (1980) 8-11 SC 130; in IKENNE LOCAL GOVERNMENT v. WAPC PLC (2011) 12 NWLR (PT 1261) 223 AT 247 this court held that, where the words of a document, legislation or the Constitution are clear and unambiguous, there is need to give them no other meaning than their ordinary, natural and grammatical construction would permit unless that would lead to absurdity. SEE ALSO ADETAYO v. ADEMOLA (2010) 15 NWLR (PT 1215) 169; BRONIKS MATORS LTD V. WEMA BANK LTD (2006) NWLR PT (965) 506. IN OGAGA V. UMUKORO (2011) 18 NWLR (PT 1279) 924 AT 948 the Apex court per Adekeye JSC posited thus:-
“The Courts are vested with the power to interpret the constitution and statutes. They are in fact custodians of the Constitution. In the interpretation and construction of the Constitution and statutes, the courts are enjoined to act in accordance with the intendment of the lawmakers, and to lean against any interpretation that will provide absurdity. A statute must not be given a construction that will defeat its purpose. The words of the statutes here are clear and unambiguous; they ought to be accorded their simple grammatical meaning. ADEWUMI V. A. G. EKITI STATE (2002) 2 NWLR (PT 751) 494, FAWEHINMI V. IGP (2000) 7 NWLR (PT 665) PAGE 481; AWOLOWO V. SHAGARI (1979) 6-9 SC 51”
The bottom line here therefore is that the Principle of Law governing the interpretation of the Constitution is that such interpretation as would serve the interest of the Constitution and best carry out its object and purpose should be preferred. Thus its relevant provisions must be read together and not disjointedly and where the words of any section are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their ordinary meaning unless this would lead to absurdity or be in conflict with other provisions of the Constitution. See A.G. FEDERATION V. ABUBAKAR (2007) 6 SC (Pt 11) 62. per MUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A.

GUIDELINES TO INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION

The Constitution is the organic law of the land. Its interpretation must not only be based on the letters of the provisions sought to be interpreted, but also on the spirit of the said provisions. In doing so, regard must be had to the following parameters – (1) Effect should be given to every word used in the Constitution; (2) a construction nullifying a specific clause in the Constitution should be avoided, save absolutely necessary; a constitutional power should not be deployed to achieve an unconstitutional result; (4) the language of the Constitution, where clear and unambiguous must be given its plain and evident meaning (5) the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is an organic scheme of government to be dealt with as an entity hence, a particular provision should not be severed from the rest of the Constitution; (6) while the language of the constitution does not change, the changing circumstances of a progressive society for which it was designed, can yield new and further import of its meaning; (7) a Constitutional provision should not be construed in such a way as to defeat its evident purpose; (8) under the Constitution granting specific powers, a particular power must not be granted before it can be exercised; (9) declaration by the National Assembly of its essential legislative functions is precluded by the Constitution (10) words are the common signs that men make use of to declare their intention one to another, and when the words of a man express his intention plainly, there is no need to have recourse to other means of interpretation of such words; (11) the principles upon which the Constitution was establish rather than the direct operation or literal meaning of the words used should measure the purpose and scope of its provisions, (12) words of the Constitution are, therefore, not to be read with stultifying narrowness.

These guidelines are copied from the case of A. – G., Bendel State v. A. – G., Federation (1981) 10 S.C. page 1 per Obaseki; J.S.C., (as he was). See also the cases of Justice Elelu-Habeeb v. A.- G., Federation (2012)13 NWLR (pt. 1318) 423 at 489 – 491, Ishola v. Ajiboye (1994) 6 NWLR (pt. 352) 506. per SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A.

WHETHER A PERSON WITH NO INTEREST INTEREST IN A SUBJECT MATTER CAN BRING AN ACTION IN RESPECT THEREOF

It is trite law that for a person to bring an action in respect of any subject matter, such a person must show that he has a legal right or special interest in that subject matter. In other words, for a litigant to invoke the judicial power of the court, he must show sufficient interest or threat to injury he has or will suffer from the infringement complained of. This interest or injury test is the yardstick in determining the question of the locus standi of a complainant and it is to be determined in the light of the facts or special circumstances of each case. See INAKOJU v. ADELEKE (2007) 4 NWLR (PT 1025) 423; A.G. AKWA IBOM STATE V. ESSIEN (2004) 7 NWLR (PT 872) 288; AKANNI v. ODEJIDE (2004) 9 NWLR (PT 879) 575; AKINNUBI V. AKINNUBI (1997) 2 NWLR (PT 86) 144 and WAZIRI V. DAMBOYI (1994) 4 NWLR (PT 598) 239. Where a plaintiff has no locus standi to bring an action in court, the suit becomes incompetent and the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain it. See AYOOLA V. BARUWA (1999) 11 NWLR (PT 628) 595 and EJIKEME V. AMAECHI (1998) 3 NWLR (PT 542) 456. per SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A.

JUSTICES

JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

1. MR LATEEF OKEDEYI
2. MR AKINOLU FALOLU
3. MR LAWAL OLAGURO
4. MR BISI ASHADE
5. MR ISAIAH MAKU
6. HON OLURANTI AJOSE
7. MR AHIMI ADEOSUN
8. MR RASAQ IDOWU
9. ALH. ABDULFATAI BADAMOSI
10. MR GABRIEL FALOLA
11. MR DAVID ADTOLA
12. MR JOSEPH FALOLA
13. PA AMOS AJOSE
14. MR JUBRIL ASHIMI Appellant(s)

AND

1. GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE
2. ADEWALE OKOYA Respondent(s)

SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State Badagry Division delivered by O.H. Oshodi J. on the 28th day of February, 2012 wherein the appellants’ Originating Summons dated 20th January 2011 was dismissed.

The Appellants herein were the claimants in the lower court while the 1st and 2nd Respondents were also the 1st and 2nd defendants respectively.

In brief, the facts of the case as can be gleaned from the Records is that, sequel to the demise of the Late Oba David Beyioku, the Oba of Ibereko in 2006, the Local Council Development Area in accordance with the relevant Chieftaincy Declaration and Section 17 of the Obas and Chiefs Law CAP 02 Laws of Lagos State 2003 issued a public notice inviting the Idi Aro Ruling House of Ibereko whose turn it was to produce the next Oba, to nominate a candidate to fill the vacant stool.

The Idi Aro Ruling House ended up submitting three names for consideration by the Kingmakers. They are Amos Olowode Joel, Hon. Taliat Adele Adeosun and Aliasan Akinosi. The name of the 2nd Respondent was also submitted to the Kingmakers by the Iga Ogboni faction of the Idi Aro Ruling House through The Regent of Ibereko.
Three other candidates namely, Saheed Nureni Seidu, Ezekiel Olanrewaju Ogunyemi and Albert Olayiwola Olayinka nominated themselves to the kingmakers.

The kingmakers, using the Ifa Oracle as well as Islamic and Christian Clerics, examined the seven candidates out of which two came out tops, they are Amos Olowode Joel and Albert Olayiwola Olayinka. At the ended of voting by the kingmakers, Amos Olowode Joel was duly nominated as the Oba elect and his name forwarded to the local Council Development Area for recognition as such.

The report of the selection process by the kingmakers was said not to have gone down well with the State government and acting in accordance with Section 19(1)(a-c) of the Obas and Chiefs Law, approved the appointment of a panel of five traditional Rulers to discharge the functions of the Kingmakers in a fresh selection process.

At the conclusion of the panel’s sitting and screening of candidates with the assistance of security report on each of the seven candidates by the State Security Service, the panel recommended the appointment of the 2nd Respondent Adewale Okoya as the new Oba elect. The said recommendation was eventually approved by the State government by way of official gazette and he was given the staff of office. This did not go down well with members of Idi Aro Ruling House who felt that they have been shortchanged. Hence they filed an action in the Lagos State High Court, in Suit No. BD/36/07 claiming amongst other reliefs, a declaration that the installation of the 2nd Respondent as the Oba of Ibereko is null and void. This was subsequently followed with a petition to the Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly to intervene in the matter which was causing crisis in Ibereko Community. The House of Assembly after investigation and hearing on the petition concluded that the petition had merit and consequently, by a resolution of the House, directed that the Secretary of the Local Council Development Area be removed for gross misconduct and that the installation of the 2nd Respondent as Oba of Ibereko be reversed in view of the fact that the State government was misled into approving his appointment which has caused crisis in Ibereko Community.

Apparently peeved by the failure or neglect of the State government to act on the Resolution of the House of Assembly made on 29th October, 2007, the Appellants as Claimants in the lower court filed an originating summons dated 20th January, 2011 wherein they sought the following reliefs:-
A DECLARATION that the failure or refusal of the 1st defendant to effectuate and or execute the resolution dated 29 October 2007 duly passed by the Lagos State House of Assembly to the effect that “the Government of Lagos State should reverse the installation of the purported Oba, Israel Adewale Okoya (2nd defendant herein) in view of the fact that the Government was misled into taking the action” is a gross infringement of the provisions of the Constitution, 1999 and the oath of office of the 1st defendant set out in the seventh schedule thereto.

A DECLARATION that by virtue of the findings contained in the Lagos State Hansard based on the uncontroverted facts disclosed in the Legislative proceedings of the Lagos State House of Assembly held on 29 October 2007 to wit:

(a) That the Government of Lagos State having been misled in installing the 2nd defendant as Oba, he is, for that reason a purported or illegitimate Oba, and in respect of which the Government has an abiding duty to and should, reverse such installation (pages 19 and 29, Hansard 29 October 2007)
(b) That the State Security Service rather than the kingmakers nominated the 2nd defendant for the Ibereko Obaship Stool (page 24, Hansard 29 October, 2007)
(c) That the office of the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs was “to a reasonable extent, deceived” and “misled” on the issue of the installation of the 2nd defendant as Oba of Ibereko (page 24, Hansard 27 October, 2007)
(d) The factual statement of one Mr Kunle Abass, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs that, there has been no peace in Ibereko since the installation of the 2nd defendant is unquestioned and unassailed. (page 24, Hansard 29 October 2007)

It is constitutionally obligatory on the 1st defendant to reverse the 2nd defendant’s installation as Oba of Ibereko and revoke the Lagos State Government Gazette No 15 Vol 40 of 8 June 2007 being the Instrument approving the appointment and recognition of the 2nd defendant as Oba of Ibereko.

AN ORDER nullifying and revoking the Lagos State Government Gazette No. 15 Volume 40 of 8 June 2007 being the instrument approving the appointment of the 2nd defendant as Oba of Ibereko for the reason that the 1st defendant and the Government of Lagos State were “deceived” and “misled” in so approving the 2nd defendant and issuing the said instrument.

AN ORDER reversing the appointment, installation and recognition of the 2nd defendant as Oba of Ibereko solely on the Lagos State House of Assembly’s finding of facts of willful deception of and wrong decision by the 1st defendant and the Government of Lagos State.

The following questions were also sought to be determined by the lower court:-
(a) Whether the tacit refusal or failure of the 1st defendant to comply with the resolution of the Lagos State House of Assembly dated 29 October 2007 directing “the Government” of Lagos State to reverse the installation of the 2nd defendant as the Oba of Ibereko, is an abdication of the 1st defendant’s constitutional duties and a breach of oath of office to preserve the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, do right to all manner of people, according to law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and to devote himself to the service, peace and well-being of the people of Ibereko qua people of Nigeria.
(b) Whether, in view of the uncontroverted facts and findings of the Lagos State House of Assembly, to the effect that the government of Lagos State was misled and deceived into installing the 2nd defendant as Oba of Ibereko, the instrument approving the appointment of the 2nd defendant as Oba of Ibereko, and the Government Gazette publishing same, ought to be nullified or revoked as they were issued and induced by error.
(c) Whether the State Security Service, has any statutory role under the Obas and Chiefs Law, in determining who becomes an Oba in Lagos State, or whether the enabling law which created State Security Service gives it any statutory duty to nominate or recommend a candidate for the vacant Obaship stool in Ibereko.

The summons was supported by a 20 paragraph affidavit sworn to by one Akinolu Falola. Some documents tagged Exhibit A to Exhibit H were also attached to the said affidavit in support along with a written address. A further affidavit of 19 paragraphs dated 27th June 2011 with some documents attached and another further affidavit of 6 paragraphs dated 31st June, 2011 both deposed to by Akinolu Falola were filed in response to the 1st Respondents counter affidavit.

A counter affidavit deposed to on behalf of the 1st defendant is dated and filed on 25th October, 2011.

The 2nd defendant also deposed to a 61 paragraph counter affidavit which was filed together with a written submission.

The originating summons was eventually heard on the 8th December, 2011 wherein the parties’ written addresses were adopted on their behalf by their respective counsel.

In a judgment delivered on 28th February, 2012, the learned trial judge in dismissing the originating summons held inter alia that:-
In sum total, Sections 128 (1) & (2) of the constitution does not compel the Governor of a State to execute Resolutions duly passed by a State House of Assembly, since same is not a law. And since a Resolution of a State House of Assembly is not a law of the State, this court has no power to grant the declaration sought, or to nullify and revoke the Lagos State Gazette No. 15 vol. 40 of 8th June 2007 or to order the reversal of the appointment, installation and recognition of the 2nd Defendant as being sought by the claimants in the summons. The courts have no power to make laws, as being implied by the Claimants. The power of the court is to interpret laws. The organ responsible to make laws is the legislative houses.
Accordingly, the summons is hereby dismissed.

Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellants filed a Notice of Appeal containing four grounds. It is dated 14th May, 2012 and filed on 15th May, 2012.

Briefs of argument were subsequently filed and served by the parties in compliance with the Rules of this court.

The appellant’s brief of argument dated and filed on 14th September, 2012 was settled by Taiwo Kupolati with kingdom Uche Ani Esq.

The 1st Respondent did not file any brief of Argument.

The 2nd Respondent’s brief of argument filed on 15th October, 2012 was settled by Babatunde Olubando with Mrs Marian Jones.

In the Appellants brief, three issues were formulated for determination as follows:-
(1) Whether the trial court was right when it held that the court has no powers to enforce exhibit B, the resolution of the Lagos State House of Assembly dated 29th October, 2007 directing the government of Lagos State to reverse the installation of the 2nd Respondent as the Oba of Ibereko, notwithstanding that the investigation which culminated into the resolution exposed the huge acts of corruption and deception which trailed the emergence of the 2nd Respondent as the Oba of Ibereko (Ground 1)

(2) Whether the resolution of the Lagos State House of Assembly dated 29th October, 2007, is enforceable in Law, being of a special character and made pursuant to section 128 of the 1999 constitution to redress the injustice, breach of peace, insecurity and social disorder engendered in Ibereko community as a result of acts of corruption and deception which led to the emergence of the 2nd Respondent as Oba of Ibereko (Ground 2 and 4)

(3) Whether the appellants are sufficiently interested in the subject matter of the resolution and possess the requisite Locus Standi to seek the enforcement thereof (Ground 3)

The 2nd Respondent, in his brief of argument, adopted the three issues for determination formulated in the appellants brief.

I will accordingly adopt the said three issues in the consideration of this appeal.

Issues 1 & 2 were argued together by both parties and I do not intend to alter the trend, in which case the two issues will be resolved together.

ISSUES 1 & 2
Herein, learned counsel for the appellants referred to the judgment of the lower court where it was stated that:-
“By Section 128 (1) & (2) of the constitution, resolution made by a State House of Assembly is not a law that can be enforceable by the courts unless same has been made a law pursuant to section 4 (7) of the constitution”

It was then submitted that the said reasoning of the trial court is fundamentally wrong in law and represents a passive style of judicial interpretation. Also that the trial court completely overlooked the special character of the resolution of the Lagos State House of Assembly which was sought to be enforced.

He added that the trial court completely misinterpreted the legal purport of Section 128 of the Constitution by stating that the section is limited to passing of resolution for the purpose of making laws to correct any defect in existing Laws. Also that the powers conferred on the House of Assembly under Section 128 include powers to conduct investigations that will expose corruption, inefficiency or waste in the execution or administration of Laws within it’s legislative competence and as such it is not intended to operate in a vacuum or meant to be limited to an advisory proposal to the executive without cloak of enforceability.

It was further submitted that resolutions are used by the legislature when passage of a law on the subject matter is unnecessary or not feasible as in this case and which resolution was made on the strength of Section 128 of the Constitution and not a naive expression of opinion by the House of Assembly but culmination of thorough legislative inquiry and investigation of the illegality and corruption which attended the installation of the 2nd Respondent.

He added that the said resolution was intended to permanently redress the corruption and injustice which produced the 2nd Respondent as Oba of Ibereko community and to quell the violence and breach of peace ignited by the 2nd Respondent in his bid to consolidate his illegal hold on the stool as Oba of Ibereko and as such the 1st Respondent as the head of the executive arm of government of Lagos State is bound to implement the said resolution because to do otherwise will tantamount to betrayal of his oath of office and the court, as the watch dog of the other arms of government ought to, as a matter of duty enforce same.

It was further submitted that chieftaincy matters in Lagos State are within the legislative competence of the Lagos State House of Assembly and as such the House has the constitutional powers to exercise supervisory control over any executive actions or involvement in that respect. It was therefore in the exercise of that function that the House conducted an investigation into the emergence of the 2nd Respondent as Oba of Ibereko leading to the Resolution of the House directing the Government of Lagos State to reverse the installation of the 2nd Respondent as the Oba of Ibereko.

Learned counsel also referred to the provisions of Section 143(a) of the Constitution which provides for the removal of the President and Vice President by a resolution passed by not less than two thirds majority of the two legislative houses of the National Assembly and Section 188(a) which provides for the removal of the Governor or Deputy Governor of a State by a resolution of two thirds majority of members of the State House of Assembly.

He argued further that based on the above, a resolution passed pursuant to a Section of the Constitution is an official decision of the House of Assembly as envisaged by Section 98(1) of the Constitution and as such, has the binding force once passed by the House and need not be made a Law.

It was submitted that the trial court ought to have adopted the purposive rule of interpretation otherwise known as the golden rule as established in the case of BECKE V. SMITH (1836) 2 M & W 195 and followed by Nigerian Courts in the case of THE COUNCIL OF UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN V. ADAMOLEKUN (1967) 1 ALL NLR 213. Therefore the holding of the trial court that the Resolution passed pursuant to Section 128 of the Constitution is unenforceable even when it touches on the security of lives and property of a part of the State is manifestly absurd. He added that the trial court failed to draw a distinction between a resolution which is of legislative and constitutional expediency and one which is merely expression of opinion.

Reference was made to a situation when the Resolutions of the National Assembly was given enforcement status like ordinary Law, such that the Resolution of the National Assembly passed on the 9th February 2010 empowering the then Vice President, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan GCON to take over the function of the President and Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federation in the absence of the substantive President who was incapacitated by protracted illness.

In this regard, he argued that it will be absurd to contend that the resolution is unenforceable because the National Assembly did not make law to enforce same.

Learned counsel also contended that the refusal of the 1st Respondent to give force to the resolution of the State House of Assembly is strategically detrimental to the appellant’s constitutional rights and this court as the watchdog of the Constitution must not shirk its responsibility to protect our Constitution and democratic values. He cited the case of ATTORNEY GENERAL, ABIA STATE v. ATTORNEY GENERAL, FEDERATION (2006) 16 NWLR (pt 1005) 316 AT 454.

He concluded by submitting that it is the constitutional duty of the court to redress the injustice, by reversing the illegal installation of the 2nd Respondent as the Oba of Ibereko and urged this court to enforce the resolution of the Lagos State House of Assembly by granting the reliefs sought in this appeal.

ISSUE No. 2
Dwelling on this issue, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that a careful examination of the affidavits and exhibits in support of the originating summons will clearly show that the findings of the learned trial judge on the locus standi of the Appellants was erroneous. He referred to paragraph 3 of the supporting affidavit as well as the further affidavit which he says show that the appellants deposed that they are bonafide members of Ibereko Community as well as the Ruling House they belong to.

It was submitted that the locus standi in this appeal is founded on the membership of Ibereko community and their authorship of the complaint which gave rise to the resolution which is sought to be enforced. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ADEFULU v. OYESILE (1985) 5 NWLR (PT 122) 377 AT 411 where the issue of locus standi of Ruling Houses or members of Ruling Houses was laid to rest.

It was further submitted that contrary to the holding of the trial court that the appellants were not parties to the Resolution, the mere fact that the inquiry giving rise to the resolution was triggered by the petition written to the House of Assembly, makes the appellants parties to the resolution, more so that they are beneficiaries of the said resolution which directed the Lagos State Government to reverse the installation of the 2nd Respondent.

In the 2nd Respondent’s brief of argument, the three issues formulated for determination were argued together; wherein, the learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent referred to the holding of the learned trial judge in his judgment at page 455 lines 26-32 of the Record. Reference was also made to Section 4(6) & (7) and 100 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) on the legislative powers of law making.

It was then submitted that by Section 128(1) of the 1999 Constitution, what is required of the State House of Assembly is to direct or cause to be directed an inquiry or investigation into matters listed under paragraphs (a) & (b) whilst Section 128(2) stipulates the purpose of the power in Section 128(1) which is exercisable only for the purpose of enabling the House to: (a) make laws with respect to any matter within its competence and correct any defect in existing laws and (b) expose corruption, inefficiency or waste in the execution or administration of Laws within its legislature competence and in the disbursement or administration of funds appropriate by it.

On the principle guarding the interpretation of statutes learned counsel referred to the following authorities: – SUSSEX PEERAGE CLAIM (1844) C.I FINN 85 AT 143; UWAIFO v. ATTORNEY GENERAL (1983) 7 SC 124 AT 185; SOLICITOR GENERAL v. ADEBONOJO (1971) 1 ALL NLR 178 and SMITH V. LUCAS (1881) 18 CH.D. 531 at 542

It was then submitted that the resolution prescribed by Section 128(1) of the Constitution is to direct or cause to be directed, an inquiry or investigation, the result of which will enable the House to make laws with respect to any matter within it’s legislative competence and correct any defects in existing Laws. Therefore he argues, the resolution of the Lagos State House of Assembly is not in tandem with the provisions of Section 128(1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution and is therefore a simple resolution which, according to Blacks Laws Dictionary, 8th Edition, expresses the opinion of the legislature on a subject matter but does not have the force of Law.

In Response to paragraph 4.2 to 4.9 of the appellants brief, it was submitted that the reasoning of the trial court in dismissing the originating summons is sound in law and in line with the canons of interpretation of statute which stipulates that statutes should be construed according to the intent of the parliament which passed the act.

Responding to the appellants submission in paragraph 4.10 – 4.26 of their brief, learned counsel traced the history of the process of nomination of a candidate to fill the vacant stool of the Oba of Ibereko up to the filing of suit No B4/36/07 and the eventual investigation and resolution of the House of Assembly that is now sought to be enforced by the order of court.

He also noted that the High Court of Lagos State, Badagry Division, in suit No BD/76/2007 made an interim order nullifying the efficacy of the Resolution made by the Lagos State House of Assembly on 29th October, 2007 which interim order was with the consent of counsel to both parties extended on 14th January, 2008 to last till the court vacates same.

He therefore contended that the said resolution of the Lagos State House of Assembly which the appellants intend to enforce has been suspended by order of court of competent jurisdiction, but the House of Assembly defied it.

Responding on the appellants submission in paragraph 4.27 to 4.29 of their brief, learned counsel submitted that the appellants are turning logic upside down by equating resolution under Section 143(a) and 188(a) of the Constitution with the provisions of Section 128(1) & (2), more so that the preconditions provided in Sections 143(2) – (8) and 188(2) – (8) must be satisfied before the resolution referred to in Section 143(a) and 188(a) will be effective.

On the issue of Locus Standi as argued in paragraphs 5.2 to 5.15 of the appellants brief, it was submitted by 2nd Respondent counsel that the term Locus Standi is the legal capacity to institute proceedings in a court of law and as such it can only avail a plaintiff who shows that his civil rights and obligation have been or are in danger of being violated or adversely affected vide MOGAJI & ORS v. MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR OF EKITI STATE (1998) 2 NWLR (PT 538) 425 AT 441; THOMAS V. OLUFOSOYE (1986) NWLR (Pt 18) 669.

It was also argued that the issue is between the Lagos State House of Assembly and the Governor of Lagos State and the fact that the appellants are beneficiaries of the resolution, does not confer them with the legal right to enforce it and added to that, is the fact that the issue is subjudice by virtue of the preexistence of suit No. BD/36/2007 and also the interim order of the trial court suspending the efficacy of the proceedings of the Lagos State House of Assembly made on 29th October, 2007. He then urged this court to dismiss the appeal.

Taking issues one and two together as argued in the appellants brief of argument, the nagging question is, what is the status of the Resolution of the Lagos State House of Assembly passed on the 29th October, 2007 vis a vis the provisions of Section 128(1) & (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended. It provides as follows:-
Section 128
(1) “Subject to the provision of this constitution, a house of Assembly shall have power by resolution published in its journal or in the official Gazette of the Government of the state to direct or cause to be directed an inquiry or investigation into:-
(a) any matter or thing with respect to which it has power to make laws; and
(b) The conduct of affairs of any person, authority, ministry or government department charged, or intended to be charge, with the duty of or responsibility for:-
(i) Executing or administering Laws enacted by the House of Assembly, and
(ii) Disbursing or administering moneys appropriated or to be appropriated by such House
(2) The powers conferred on a House of Assembly under the provisions of this section are exercisable only for the purpose of enabling the House to:-
(a) Make Laws with respect to any matter within its legislature competence and correct any defects in existing Laws: and
(b) Expose corruption, inefficiency or waste in the execution or administration of Laws within the legislative competence and in the disbursement or administration of funds appropriated by it.”
To my mind, the above reproduced provision of Section 128(1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution is quite clear, succinct and unambiguous as to its intent and purpose.
Subsection (1) therein confers on the House of Assembly of a State the power to conduct or direct the conduct of an inquiry or investigation into any matter to which it has power to make Laws or on any issue relating to the conduct of affairs of any person, authority, ministry or government department charged, or intended to be charged with the duty or responsibility of executing or administering the laws enacted by the House of Assembly. The House under the subsection also has the power to conduct inquiry or investigation into the way and manner the moneys appropriated or to be appropriated by the House is disbursed or administered.
The aforesaid power cannot however be exercised or invoked by the House except by a resolution published in its journal or the official gazette of the Government of the State.
Subsection (2) however, prescribed the limit to which such power can be exercised. In other words the powers conferred under Subsection (1) shall only be channeled towards the making of Laws with respect to matters within the Legislative competence of the House and also for the purpose of correcting any defects in the existing Laws of the State. It shall also be exercised for the purpose of exposing corruption, inefficiency or waste both in the execution and administration of the Laws within the legislative competence of the House and the disbursement or administration of funds appropriated by the said House of Assembly.
It seems to me that subsection (2) clearly prescribed the purpose, extent and operational limit of powers conferred under subsection (1) which in Simple terms means that the House of Assembly of a State has the Constitutional power to pass a resolution which shall be published in its journal or official gazette, to conduct or direct the conduct of an inquiry or investigation into any matter wherein it has power to make Laws and that includes the affairs of any person, authority, ministry or government department charged with the responsibility of running the affairs of government according to the Laws passed by the House including how the funds appropriated by the House are disbursed or utilized. This is with the aim of:-
(a) Making Laws within its legislative competence to reflect the outcome of such inquiry or investigation pursuant to the goal of attaining good governance.
(b) To correct any defects that might have been detected in the existing Laws as a result of the inquiry or investigation.
(c) To expose corruption, inefficiency or waste on the part of any person, authority, ministry or government department in the cause of the execution or administration of the Laws made by the House of Assembly or in the course of disbursement or administration of funds appropriated by the said House.
Section 128(1)(2) no doubt enacted an ideal avenue through which the legislative arm of the Government of any State can effectively check the activities of government; ministry, departments and Agencies with the aim of ensuring and enthroning probity, accountability, disciplined conduct and good governance.

In the instant case, a group of aggrieved persons from Ibereko community had cause to write a petition to the Lagos State House of Assembly to complain about the conduct of the executive secretary of the Olorunda Local Council Development Area, the SSS and the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs who wrongly adviced the State government on the installation of the 2nd Respondent as the Oba of Ibereko.

The State House of Assembly acting within the ambit of its legislative competence (given the fact that the Obas and Chiefs Law Cap 02 Laws of Lagos State 2003 is a law made by the State House of Assembly) conducted an investigation based on the said petition. The outcome of the said investigation and report by the House is a resolution amongst others, that the Government should reverse the installation of the purported Oba, Israel, Adewale Okoya in view of the fact that the Government was misled into taking the action.

The said resolution was passed on the 29th October, 2007 and by an originating Summons dated 20th January 2011 the appellants herein as claimants in the Lower Court sought the orders as earlier set out in this judgment and it includes a Declaration that the failure of the 1st Respondent to give effect to the resolution of the State House of Assembly is unconstitutional having regard to the oath of office taken by the 1st Respondent, an order nullifying or revoking the government gazette appointing the 1st Respondent as the Oba of Ibereko and an order reversing the said appointment.

Strong reliance was placed on the provisions of Section 128(1) & (2) of the Constitution by the appellants to contend that the 1st Respondent is under an obligation to give effect to the resolution of the House passed on 29th October, 2007. In this regard, very rich and persuasive submissions and postulations were made by their counsel. To justify their stance and I indeed commend him for his altruistic zeal to expand the frontiers of our constitutional democracy.

However, I have taken great pains and concentration to study the provisions of Section 128(1) and (2) over and over again but unfortunately failed to see any basis therein to support or justify the appellants contention that the 1st Respondent is under a duty or obligation to give effect to the Resolution of the Lagos State House of Assembly passed on 29th October, 2007 that the appointment and installation of the 1st Respondent as the Oba of Ibereko should be reversed.

In AG KADUNA STATE V. HASSAN (1985) 2 NWLR (pg 8) 483 it was held by the Supreme Court that in construing constitutional document, there is need to look at its provisions as a whole and where possible, give such provision their ordinary and natural meaning. SEE ALSO AMALGAMATED TRUSTEES LTD V. ASSOCIATED DISCOUNT HOUSE LTD (2007) 7 SC 168; ISHOLA v. AJIBOYE (1994) 1 NWLR (PT 352) 506; NAFIU RABIU v. THE STATE (1980) 8-11 SC 130; in IKENNE LOCAL GOVERNMENT v. WAPC PLC (2011) 12 NWLR (PT 1261) 223 AT 247 this court held that, where the words of a document, legislation or the Constitution are clear and unambiguous, there is need to give them no other meaning than their ordinary, natural and grammatical construction would permit unless that would lead to absurdity. SEE ALSO ADETAYO v. ADEMOLA (2010) 15 NWLR (PT 1215) 169; BRONIKS MATORS LTD V. WEMA BANK LTD (2006) NWLR PT (965) 506. IN OGAGA V. UMUKORO (2011) 18 NWLR (PT 1279) 924 AT 948 the Apex court per Adekeye JSC posited thus:-
“The Courts are vested with the power to interpret the constitution and statutes. They are in fact custodians of the Constitution. In the interpretation and construction of the Constitution and statutes, the courts are enjoined to act in accordance with the intendment of the lawmakers, and to lean against any interpretation that will provide absurdity. A statute must not be given a construction that will defeat its purpose. The words of the statutes here are clear and unambiguous; they ought to be accorded their simple grammatical meaning. ADEWUMI V. A. G. EKITI STATE (2002) 2 NWLR (PT 751) 494, FAWEHINMI V. IGP (2000) 7 NWLR (PT 665) PAGE 481; AWOLOWO V. SHAGARI (1979) 6-9 SC 51”
The bottom line here therefore is that the Principle of Law governing the interpretation of the Constitution is that such interpretation as would serve the interest of the Constitution and best carry out its object and purpose should be preferred. Thus its relevant provisions must be read together and not disjointedly and where the words of any section are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their ordinary meaning unless this would lead to absurdity or be in conflict with other provisions of the Constitution. See A.G. FEDERATION V. ABUBAKAR (2007) 6 SC (Pt 11) 62.
As earlier stated, I do not find any ambiguity or confusion in the wordings of Section 128(1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution and as such I am inclined to accord it its simple grammatical meaning which I am convinced will not lead to any absurdity or engender any conflict with other provisions of the Constitution. In this regard, the provisions of Section 4(6) and (7) of the 1999 Constitution is quite apt with regard to scope of the power, jurisdiction and function of the House of Assembly of a State and on this provision hangs the ancillary powers conferred by Section 128(1) & (2). The said Section 4(6) and (7) provides thus:
Section 4(6) “The legislative powers of a state of the Federation shall be vested in the House of Assembly of the State.
(7) The House of Assembly of a State shall have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the State or any part thereof with respect to the following matters that is to say:-
(a) Any matter not included in the Executive Legislative list set out in part 1 of the second schedule of this Constitution.
(b) Any matter included in the concurrent List set out in the First column of part II of the second schedule of this Constitution to the extent prescribed in the second column opposite thereto; and
(c) Any other matter with respect to which it is empowered to make laws in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.”

In this regard, and except as otherwise specifically provided by the provisions of the Constitution, the function of the legislative arm of the State government is strictly limited to the making of laws while by Section 5(2), the executive powers of a State is vested in the Governor of that State who shall exercise it by himself or through the Deputy Governor, Commissioners or officers in the public service of the State and which power includes the execution and maintenance of the provisions of the Constitution, all laws made by the State House of Assembly and to all matters on which the House, for the time being, have powers to make laws.

In other words, the State House of Assembly has the constitutional powers of laws making for the peace, order and good governance of the State, the power to execute the laws inheres in the executive arm of government and it is not within the contemplation of the Constitution that the performance of the executive function shall be with the directive or instruction of the legislature through resolutions. This will no doubt lead to unnecessary interference with the constitutionally prescribed function of the executive arm of government by the State House of Assembly which end result will be chaos, acrimony and endless disharmony in government and governance.

Consequently, I see any resolution passed by the State House of Assembly pursuant to Section 128(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution as advisory or a suggestion to the executive arm of government to tow a particular line of action but definitely not an order, instruction or directive requiring sanction in the event of a refusal or failure to act on the said resolution. Therefore I am of the firm view that conceding to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, that it is constitutionally imperative that resolutions made by the representatives of the people on matters affecting peace and existence of the people must be respected and executed, will no doubt open an endless floodgate of Resolutions by the House with a view to imposing its view on the executive in the day to day running of government without due regard to the principles of separation of powers which is one of the pillars of democracy.

Consequently, this court cannot make an order compelling the Governor of Lagos State to give effect to the Resolution of the House of Assembly passed on 29-10-2007.

In the final result, issues No 1 and 2 are hereby resolved against the Appellants.

On issue No 3, that is, whether the appellants are sufficiently interested in the subject matter of the Resolution and possess the locus standi to seek the enforcement thereof.

The contention of the Appellants is that they have the locus standi by reason of their hereditary connection with the ruling houses in Ibereko and their involvement in the complaint that gave rise to the resolution of the House of Assembly.
It is trite law that for a person to bring an action in respect of any subject matter, such a person must show that he has a legal right or special interest in that subject matter. In other words, for a litigant to invoke the judicial power of the court, he must show sufficient interest or threat to injury he has or will suffer from the infringement complained of. This interest or injury test is the yardstick in determining the question of the locus standi of a complainant and it is to be determined in the light of the facts or special circumstances of each case. See INAKOJU v. ADELEKE (2007) 4 NWLR (PT 1025) 423; A.G. AKWA IBOM STATE V. ESSIEN (2004) 7 NWLR (PT 872) 288; AKANNI v. ODEJIDE (2004) 9 NWLR (PT 879) 575; AKINNUBI V. AKINNUBI (1997) 2 NWLR (PT 86) 144 and WAZIRI V. DAMBOYI (1994) 4 NWLR (PT 598) 239. Where a plaintiff has no locus standi to bring an action in court, the suit becomes incompetent and the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain it. See AYOOLA V. BARUWA (1999) 11 NWLR (PT 628) 595 and EJIKEME V. AMAECHI (1998) 3 NWLR (PT 542) 456.

The appellants had deposed in paragraph 3, 13 and 14 of the affidavit in support of their originating summons as follows:-
“3. The claimants are bona fide members of Ibereko Community and part of the 26 concerned indigenes of Ibereko Community who filed a complaint to the Lagos State House of Assembly on the wrongful appointment and installation imposition of the 2nd defendants as Oba of Ibereko Community.
13. In the face of the gross injustice and illegality which attended the emergence of Mr. Adewale Okoya as Oba of Ibereko, 26 concerned indigenes of Ibereko community, which includes the claimants herein, filed a written complaint to the Lagos State House of Assembly on the wrongful imposition and installation of the 2nd defendant a the Oba of Ibereko Community. A copy of the said written complaint is herewith attached and marked Exhibit A.
14. The Lagos State House of Assembly pursuant to its constitutional powers under Section 128 of the Constitution conducted an investigation in the matter and at the hearing, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Matters, made the following far-reaching uncontradicted revelations before the Lagos State House of Assembly.”

Dwelling on this issue of locus standi, the learned trial judge in his judgment at page 455 of the record held that:-
“Though it is conceded that an action for declaration is the appropriate way for challenging the validity of legislation – see HEAD, FED MIL GOVT V. MIL GOVT MID-WEST STATE & ANOR (1973) NSCC PG 668, and it is trite that for a person to be entitled to a declaration he must show the existence of a legal right, subsisting or in the future, and that the right is contested – see DANTATA V. MOHAMMED (2000) 7 NWLR PT 664 PT 176, the Claimants herein have not shown the existence of any legal right which they seek to protect. The document they want the court to uphold is not a document that gives them any legal right. The document contains just the proceedings and findings of the State House of Assembly, and not a law, in which the latter is constitutionally empowered to make.
It should also be mentioned that the Resolution the claimants seek to enforce by this suit does not donate any legal benefit to the Claimants. They are not party to the Resolution, though the Resolution arose from the Petition they forwarded to the State House of Assembly.”

I am indeed inclined to agree with the stance of the learned trial judge though the appellants are the authors of the petition that led to the investigation resulting in the Resolution of the House sought to be enforced. In other words, they are potential beneficiaries of the said resolution. I am however of the firm view that the issue of enforcement of the said resolution which is the product of the proceedings of the Lagos State House of Assembly is strictly between it and the Executive arm of Government headed by the Governor of Lagos State. The legal rights of the Appellants does not extend and cannot be stretched to the bringing of an action to enforce a resolution passed by the House of Assembly. The locus standi to do so can only inhere in the House itself.

Accordingly, I hold that the appellants lack the locus standi to bring the action in the lower court by way of originating summons for the enforcement of the Resolution passed on 29-10-2007 by the Lagos State House of Assembly.

This issue is accordingly resolved against the appellants.

I however commend the intellectual input of learned counsel for the parties, particularly Taiwo Kupolati Esq., in their legal submissions and postulations which will no doubt enrich the jurisprudence of our legal system and oil the wheels of our nascent constitutional democracy. On the whole, it is my finding and I so hold that this appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed.
The judgment of the High Court of Lagos State, Badagry Division delivered by O.H. Oshodi J. on the 28th day of February, 2012 is hereby affirmed.

Parties to bear their costs.

JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.: The nascent democracy in vogue in Nigeria is structured on the separation and distribution of powers between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial arms of Government. The foundation of democracy is the Legislative arm of Government. It is elected by the people in an election by ballot that is expected to be free and fair. It is the only arm of Government that has the largest body of elected persons representing the interest of the electorate.

The primary function of the Legislative arm of Government is to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the State or any part thereof within the province of Section 4(6) and (7) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as altered, (1999 Constitution) exercised by the House of Assembly vide Sections 128 and 129 of the 1999 Constitution, as altered, as is relevant to the present dispute.

The present controversy concerns the extent to which the judicial powers of the court can be exercised by the enforcement of a Resolution passed by the House of Assembly of Lagos State respecting a chieftaincy tussle whereby it directed the Governor of Lagos State, 1st respondent, to implement the chieftaincy Resolution in question.

The lead judgment prepared by my learned brother, Samuel Chukwudumebi Oseji, J.C.A., has adequately covered the entire ground. I entirely agree with the lead judgment. I need to add only a few words, by way of emphasis.

A Resolution passed by a House of Assembly of a State in the exercise of its oversight functions under Sections 128 and 129 of the 1999 Constitution, as altered, (which is reproduced in the lead judgment) is in reality the product of a main motion that formally expresses the sense, will, or action of the Legislature over certain issues of public interest covered by the Resolution. See Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, page 1337.

But a Resolution does not have the force of law. It becomes law upon the exercise of the legislative powers of the House of Assembly to convert it into law under Section 128(2)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, as altered. Until a Resolution goes through the rigorous channel and procedure for the preparation and reading of bill before it may be enacted into law and possess the force of law.

However, a Resolution passed by the House of Assembly of a State deserves respect and reverence. Because it comes from the voice of the people represented by elected Honourable members of the House of Assembly. As between the Executive and Legislative arms of Government, a fair balance of synergy based on mutual respect, cooperation, rapport/understanding should be the turf on which to discharge their respective functions devoid of friction. In such circumstances Resolutions passed by the Legislative arm of Government for the implementation of the Executive arm of Government would hardly face grief.

The trend of arguments in the appeal ably summarised in the lead judgment proceeds on the irrefutable footing that the House of Assembly of Lagos State has the powers to pass the Resolution at stake. The arguments for and against the appeal, also, reasonably appear to concede that the court below had the jurisdiction to entertain the originating summons in relation to the said Resolution. These two issues are settled, in my view. Nothing further needs be agitated about them.

I turn to the argument of the 2nd respondent that the Resolution was made sub-judice and does not carry efficacy on that ground. The 2nd respondent did not appeal or cross appeal. The grounds of appeal and the issues for determination in the appeal do not accommodate the sub judice allegation. The argument of the 2nd respondent on the Resolution being sub judice hangs in space. I hereby disregard the said argument.

The Legislative powers of the House of Assembly to pass the Resolution in issue is rooted in Section 128(1) and (2) (b) of the 1999 Constitution, as altered; earlier set out in the lead judgment.

The guidelines (supra) lean on the side of purposive interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution. See in addition the case of P.D.P. v. I.N.E.C. (1999) 11 NWLR (pt. 626) 200 at 241 where the majority lead judgment of the Supreme Court stated inter alia that –
“Now for the court to perform its functions under the constitution effectively and satisfactorily, it must be purposive in its construction of the provisions of the constitution… It is for the court to be creative in its decision in order to ensure that it preserves and protects the right by providing remedy for the citizen….”
It has to be so, because where there is a right but there appears to be no remedy, the court must provide a remedy for the established or proved violated right under the Latin maxim ubi jus, ibi remedium. See Afolabi v. Governor of Oyo State (1985) 2 NWLR (pt.9) 734.

Accordingly, I agree with the skillful arguments of Mr. Kupolati, for the appellants, that creative interpretation (but within the four walls of the letters and spirit of the relevant provisions of the Constitution) should be the canon of interpretation of provisions of the Constitution.

The benchmark of the Resolution at stake is the exposure of corruption in the process that led to the emergence of the incumbent Oba of Ibereko after the demise of his predecessor-in-office in 2006. The Resolution as it affects the 1st respondent with respect to the chieftaincy dispute is contained in page 59 of the record of appeal (the record) under Resolution (3) as follows –
“(3) That the Government should reverse the installation of the purported Oba, Israel Adewale Okoya in view of the fact that the Government was misled into taking the action.”

In this case there is a remedy. But its enforcement lies elsewhere. I think the House of Assembly has its own internal machinery/mechanism of seeing to it that any Resolution reached by it is not in vain or is not an exercise in futility. The remedy for this type of case therefore lies with the House of Assembly. It should know how to enforce its own Resolution. I say no more.

For the elaborate reasons given by my learned brother, Samuel Chukwudumebi Oseji, J.C.A., in the judgment just read, with which I agree, I too find the appeal unmeritorious and hereby dismiss it and uphold the decision of the court below (Oshodi, J.). Parties to bear their costs.

I commend the industry and brilliance put by Mr. Kupolati of learned counsel for the appellants in the well prepared appellants’ brief which I found refreshing/illuminating in the course of the discourse. Mr. Olubando of learned counsel for the 2nd respondent is also commended for putting together a useful brief of argument for the 2nd respondent.

CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA, J.C.A.: I read before now, the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, S.C. OSEJI JCA. I agree with my learned brother that the appeal lacks merit. I also dismiss the appeal. I abide by the consequential orders in the judgment.

Appearances

Taiwo Kupolati with K.U. AniFor Appellant

AND

B.A. OlubandoFor Respondent