PRINCE MICHAEL ADETOYE OBATUGA & ANOR v. PRINCE RAYMOND ADEWOLE OYEBOKUN & ORS
(2014)LCN/6936(CA)
RATIO
CONSIDERATION WHERE A PARTY INTENDS TO INSTITUTE A REPRESENTATIVE ACTION
This is because for the purpose of initiating any process in the representative action, such process must be by and in the name of the named plaintiff or defendant so long as his mandate from those he represents remains acceptable and uncounter manded. See: Oketie V. Olughor (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt.392) 655. Ifekwu V. Madu (2000) 14 NWLR (Pt. 688) 459.
In all of these, there is no suggestion whatsoever in the case of Obajimi Ogunyombo & 1 Anr. v. Tijani Bello Okoya & 3 Ors. (2002) 16 NWLR (Pt.793) 224 relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the appellants that the plaintiffs are incapable of bringing a representative class action against any other members or group of the same Ijama Kingmakers group that are not with them on the salient point constituting their common interest that the selection process of the 4th defendant to the stool of Jegun of Idepe was wrongful and unlawful. This is more so when the case of Ogunyombo V. Okoya (supra) itself at page 252 (per ONALAJA JCA) relied on the cases of Chief Gordon Joe Young Jack & 2 Ors. v. Chief R. I. T. Whyte & 5 ors. (2001) 6 NWLR (pt. 709) 266 at 275 and Alhaji Rasheed Adeoye Adesanya & Anr. v. Alhaji Rabiu Adekola Olayeni & ors. (1999) 2 NWLR (Pt.592) 558 at 568 to come to the conclusion on the need for flexibility of representative actions as follows:
1. The rule as to representative action which was derived from the court of chancery, requires the presence of all parties to an action so as to put an end to the matter in controversy (Anatogu v. A. G. East Central State of Nigeria (1976) 11 SC 109 506).
2. The rule as to representative action which has been described as “a rule of convenience only is a rule that was originated for convenience, and has been relaxed.
It is a rule which ought not to be treated as rigid but as a flexible tool of convenience in the administration of justice. Thus, even where a court finds that the representative suit is not properly entitled, necessary amendments may be allowed to rectify the error. (Anatogu v. A. G. East Central State of Nigeria (1971) 11 SC 109, Odeneye V. Efunuga (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt.164) 618, Dadi V. Garba (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt.411) 12.
Per MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.
