TITILOYE CHARLES & ANOR. V. GOVERNOR OF ONDO STATE & ORS. (2012)

TITILOYE CHARLES & ANOR. V. GOVERNOR OF ONDO STATE & ORS.

(2012)LCN/5488(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Monday, the 25th day of June, 2012

CA/AK/87/2011

RATIO

ACTION: WHEN WILL A PERSON BE HELD TO HAVE LOCUS STANDI

A person is held to have locus standi to sue in an action if he is able to show to the satisfaction of the court that his civil rights and obligations have been infringed. The two tests for determining whether a person has locus standi are:

The action must be justiciable; and
There must be a dispute between the parties.

It must be observed that in recent times, the courts have adopted a more liberal approach in determining the issue of locus standi. See: Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd. v. The M.V. “Dancing Sister” & Anor. (2012) 1 SC (Pt. 1) 75 @ 98; Gov. of Ekiti State & Ors. Vs Fakiyesi & Anor. (2010) ALL FWLR (501) 828. PER KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN J.C.A

ACTION: MEANING AND NATURE OF LOCUS STANDI

The meaning of locus standi was examined extensively in the case of Inakoju Vs Adeleke (2007) 1 SC (Pt.1) 1 @ 85 – 87 by Tobi, JSC. His Lordship held thus:

“Locus standi or standing is the legal right of a party to an action to be heard in litigation before a court of law or tribunal. The term entails the legal capacity of instituting or commencing an action in a competent court of law or tribunal without any inhibition, obstruction or hindrance from any person or body whatsoever.

It is the law that to have locus standi to sue, the plaintiff must have sufficient interest in the suit. One criterion of sufficient interest is whether the party could have been joined as a party in the suit. Another criterion is whether the party seeking the redress or remedy will suffer some injury or hardship from the litigation. If the Judge is satisfied that he will so suffer, then he must be heard, See generally Chief Ojukwu Vs Governor of Lagos State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 10) 806; Justice Williams vs Mrs. Dawodu (1988) 4 NWLR (87) 189; Chief Nwosu Vs Administrator-General Bendel State (1999) 2 NWLR (Pt 173) 275; Egolum vs Obasanjo (1999) 5 SC (Pt. 1) 1; (1999) 7 NWLR (611) 355.

ACTION: HOW IS LOCUS STANDI ASCERTAINED IN AN ACTION

In ascertaining whether the plaintiff in an action has locus standi, the pleadings, that is, the Statement of Claim must disclose a cause of action vested in the plaintiff and the righ9 and obligations or interest of the plaintiff which have been violated. See Adefulu Vs Oyesile (1989) 12 SC 43; (1989) 1 NWLR (22) 377; Adesokan vs Prince Adegorolu (1991) 3 NWLR (179) 293 …

As held in Inakoju vs. Adeleke (supra), the process that would assist the court in determining whether or not a party has Locus standi to institute an action is the statement of claim. PER KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN J.C.A

WORDS AND PHRASES: DEFINITION OF A CAUSE OF ACTION

Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th edition at page 1349 defines cause of action as:

“A group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person.”

In the case of Edjerode Vs Ikine (2001) 12 SC (Part II) 94 @ 103, the Supreme Court quoted with approval the definition of cause of action as stated by Agbaje, JSC in Amodu Vs Amode (1990) 5 NWLR

(150) 356 @ 367 thus:

“The term “cause of action” means all those things necessary to give a right of action whether they are to be done by the plaintiff or a third person” Hernaman v. Smith (1855) 10 Exch 659, per Parke B at p.666. “Cause of action’, has been held from the earliest time to mean every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed – every fact which the defendant would have a right to traverse.” Cooker Giil (1873) L.R. 8 C.P. 107 per Brett, J. at p. 116.” (Emphasis supplied).

The phrase “cause of action” consists of the totality of the factual situation in a case, which entitles the plaintiff to a relief or reliefs. Furthermore, it is the averments in the statement of claim and the reliefs claimed that determine the accrual of the cause of action. See: Mil. Gov. Ondo State & Ors. vs. Kolawole & Ors. (2008) 4 – 5 SC (Pt.11) 158 @ 185; Ayanboye vs. Balogun (1990) 9 – 10 SC 1; (1990) 5 NWLR (151) 392; Egbe vs. Adefarasin (1987) ANLR 1 @ 21. PER KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN J.C.A

JUSTICES:

KUDIRAT M.O. KEKERE.EKUN Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

MOORE A.A. ADUMEIN Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

1. TITILOYE CHARLES
2. BISI AYENI – Appellant(s)

AND

1. GOVERNOR OF ONDO STATE
2. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONDO STATE
3. CHIEF JUDGE OF ONDO STATE
4. ONDO STATE JUDICIARY – Respondent(s)

KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment): By an originating summons dated 22/2/2010 filed before the High Court of Ondo State sitting at Akure, the appellants herein sought the determination of the following questions:
1. Whether by virtue of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Ondo State High Court Rules, Ondo State Magistrate Court Rules, Ondo State Customary Court Rules, the Governor of Ondo State has the constitutional powers to make rules for practice and procedure and can increase court fees of Ondo State Judiciary.
2. Whether by virtue of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Ondo State Judiciary is a revenue-generating ministry or agency under the supervision of the Governor of Ondo State and the Governor can direct or order the implementation of increment in court fees as contained in Exhibit A.
In the event that the above questions were determined in the negative they sought the following reliefs:
1. A declaration that by virtue of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 the Governor of Ondo State has no Constitutional power and authority to make rules for practice and procedure for High Court of Ondo State and Ondo State Judiciary and or increase oath, affidavit and power of attorney fees payable in the registry of the courts in Ondo State.
2. A declaration that the increment in oath, affidavit and Power of Attorney fees of Ondo State Judiciary by the Governor of Ondo State on 9th of February 2011 which was contained in the circular of Chief Registrar of Ondo State dated 9th of February 2011 is illegal, unconstitutional, null and void.
3. A declaration that Ondo State judiciary is a separate organ of government and not a revenue generating agency or ministry under the supervision of the Governor of Ondo State and the governor of Ondo State has no constitutional powers to interfere in the court fees or rules of court made by the Chief Judge in exercise of his constitutional powers.
4. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 3rd and 4th defendants jointly and severally from implementing or giving effect to the said increment of oath, affidavit and power of attorney fees by the Ondo State governor.
The circular that gave rise to the suit is attached to the supporting affidavit and marked Exhibit A. It reads:
“CROD/001/VOL.5/17
CHIEF REGISTRAR’S OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
AKURE.
9TH FEBRUARY 2011
CIRCULAR LETTER TO:
ALL REGISTRARS, SECTIONAL HEADS & STAFF
ONDO STATE JUDICIARY
INCREASE IN OATH, AFFIDAVIT AND POWERS OF ATTORNEY FEES
In line with the ongoing efforts of Mr. Governor to increase the revenue base of Ondo State, it is necessary to address the aspect of increasing oaths, affidavit and power of afforded fees in Ondo State judiciary with effect from 21st February 2011.
The following fees have been increased by Mr. Governor as follows:
(i) Oath fees N300.00
(ii) Commercial affidavit such as sales of goods and
other affidavits relating to business transactions and
as the Commissioner for Oath might deem fit N2,000.00
(iii) Power of Attorney N5,000.00
It is the responsibility of the Registrars, Sectional Heads and staff to ensure that the provision of this circular are duly publicized and implemented accordingly.
SIGNED
ADEREMI ADEGOROYE
CHIEF REGISTRAR”
The respondents filed a notice of preliminary objection to the originating summons, which they later withdrew. They also filed a counter affidavit with exhibits attached in opposition to the summons. The learned trial Judge after listening to the submissions of the respective counsel, in a considered judgment delivered on 15th April 2011, struck out the originating summons for being incompetent. The appellants were dissatisfied with the decision and filed a notice of appeal dated 20/4/2011 containing six grounds of appeal.
The parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument in compliance with the rules of this court. At the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the respondents, CYRIL AKINRINSOLA ESQ., Director, Office of the Public Defender, Ministry of Justice, Ondo State, sought to withdraw his motion on notice dated 20/10/11 and filed on 14/11/11 wherein he raised a preliminary objection against the hearing of the appeal.
Arguments in respect of the objection were incorporated in his brief of argument dated 20/10/11 and filed on 26/10/11. He applied to withdraw the submissions contained therein. The application and the submissions in respect thereof at pages 2 – 7 of the respondents’ brief were accordingly struck out. TITILOYE CHARLES ESQ., the 1st appellant who appeared in person adopted and relied on the joint brief of argument filed on behalf of the appellants dated 26/9/2011 and filed the same day. He equally adopted and relied on their reply brief dated 1/11/2011 and urged the court to allow the appeal. On the principle of separation of powers, he cited an additional authority: A.G. Abia State Vs A.G. Federation (2003) 4 NWLR (809) 124 @ 158 C -E. MRS. OLUBANKE GBADEBO, learned counsel for the 2nd appellant aligned herself with the submissions of the 1st appellant and urged the court to allow the appeal. CYRIL AKINRINSOLA ESQ., adopted and relied on his brief of argument earlier mentioned and urged the court to dismiss the appeal. He also urged the court to discountenance the Reply brief on the ground that no new issues were raised in the respondents’ brief. He also contended that having filed a joint brief the appellants could not be heard separately. He urged us to discountenance the alignment of learned counsel for the 2nd appellant with the submissions of the 1st appellant.
I agree with learned counsel for the respondents that the appellants having filed a joint brief, Mrs. Gbadebo’s alignment with the submissions of Mr. Titiloye is superfluous. The Reply brief will be considered at the appropriate stage of the judgment.
From the six grounds of appeal, the appellants formulated three issues for determination as follows:
1. Whether the governor of Ondo State can increase court fees payable in all the courts of Ondo State judiciary.
2. Whether the appellants who are legal practitioners engaged in prosecution of case before courts under Ondo State judiciary has locus standi to challenge unconstitutional increment in court fees.
3. Whether the appellants claim is justiciable and discloses a reasonable cause of action.
The respondents also formulated three issues thus:
1. Whether the learned trial Judge was not right in holding that the appellants lacked the locus standi to institute this suit?
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was not right in holding that the appellants process disclosed no reasonable cause of action and therefore liable to be struck out?
3. Whether the learned trial Judge was not right in striking out the appellants’ originating summons for being incompetent?
I am of the view that issues 1 and 2 formulated by the respondents and the appellant’s issue 1 would fully dispose of the issues in contention in this appeal. In the event that the respondents’ issues 1 and 2 are answered in the negative, the appellants’ issue 1 would fall for consideration. In the event that issues 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative, there will be no need to determine the appellants’ issue 1. I shall therefore determine the appeal on the respondents’ issues 1 and 2 (but deleting the word “not” therefrom) and the appellant’s issue 1 as issue 3. The issues for determination therefore are:
1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the appellants lacked the locus standi to institute this suit?
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the appellants process disclosed no reasonable cause of action and therefore liable to be struck out?
3. Whether the governor of Ondo State can increase court fees payable in all the courts of Ondo state judiciary.
The appellants argued their issues 2 and 3 (now issues 1 and 2) together. I adopt the same approach.
Issues 1 and 2
In support of these issues, Mr. Titiloye submitted that he is an Akure based Human Rights Activist whose services were retained by poor and indigent clients to prosecute different cases before the courts in Ondo State. That he discovered the increment when he wanted to file an application requiring an affidavit before the High Court. He submitted that the appellants brought this action to protect their briefs before the Ondo State courts, which have been undermined by the acts of the respondents. He contends that the appellants are not busy bodies, as held by the learned trial Judge because the increment in the court fees affected them beyond the general public in view of their indigent clients who cannot afford the new fees. He submitted that a legal practitioner is not just a citizen of Nigeria, but a minister in the temple of justice who has duty to act in protection of not only his briefs but the institution of justice. He contended that his right as an officer of the court is statutory while he has pending matters before the court. He submitted that based on the principle of separation of power and independence of the judiciary, it is unconstitutional for the executive and judicial arm of government to take any steps internally without recourse to due process in accordance with the Constitution and the Law. He maintained that the appellants, as officers of the court, have a duty to take legal steps to correct such illegality in the interest of proper administration of justice especially as it relates to their briefs pending before the court. He referred to the case of Inakoju vs. Adeleke (2007) NSCQLR Vol. 29 (Pt. 11) (citation incomplete) but also found in (2007) 1 SC (Pt.1) 11). He referred to the affidavit in support of the originating summons wherein he averred that his legal practice would be adversely if the increment in fees is not reversed, as his indigent clients would be shut out of court.
He referred to Section 274 of the Constitution, which empowers the Chief Judge of a State to make rules regulating the practice and procedure in the High Court of the State and submitted that every court of law has a duty to ensure strict adherence thereto. He argued that a challenge to the unconstitutional increment in court fees by the Governor of the State constitutes a reasonable cause of action. Relying on the case of: Governor of Ekiti State & 15 Ors. Vs. Hon. Fakiyesi (2010) FWLR (Pt. 501) 828 Ratio 5, he submitted that the current trend by the courts is a liberal approach to the principle of locus standi. He urged the court to hold that the appellants had the necessary locus to institute the action.
On the issue of reasonable cause of action, he referred to Section 17 of the Constitution and submitted that the increase in court fees affects his clients’ easy access to the court, which is against the clear direction of state policy as contained therein. He submitted that the appellant have both locus standi and a reasonable cause of action and urged the court to exercise its powers under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to exercise full jurisdiction over the matter and grant the reliefs sought.
In reply to the above submissions, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in order to have locus standi to institute an action, a litigant must show that his civil rights and obligations have been infringed upon. He submitted that Section 6 (6) (b) of the 1999 Constitution does not confer locus standi independently. He submitted that when the issue of locus standi is sought to be established, the plaintiff’s claim must disclose a cause of action. He referred to: Sofolahan Vs Fowler (2002) 14 NWLR (788) 673. He submitted that the term locus standi cannot be divorced from the provision of Section 6(6) (b) of the 1999 Constitution since it provides that the constitutional right of a citizen to institute an action can only be exercisable by a person who has complaints touching on his civil rights and obligations. He argued that where he is unable to show that he has either civil rights or obligations he would be held to have no locus standi. He referred to: Senator Abraham Adesanya vs. President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1981) 1 NCLR 358; Attorney-General of Kaduna State vs. Hassan (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt.483) 496 ratios 13 and 14. He referred to part of the judgment of the lower court at page 41 of the record and submitted that the mere fact that the 1st appellant described himself as a Human Rights Activist is not enough to clothe him with locus standi. He referred to: Uwazuronye vs. Governor, Imo State (2005) 1 NWLR (Pt.906) 19. He observed that the so-called indigent clients were not made parties to the suit. He submitted that the learned trial Judge critically examined all the averments in the affidavit in support before reaching the conclusion that the appellants lacked locus standi to institute the action.
On whether the appellants’ suit discloses a reasonable cause of action, he referred to Order 1 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules of the High Court of Ondo State and submitted that the originating summons was not in compliance with the provisions. In other words, that the two situations in which an action could be commenced by originating summons are lacking in the instant case. He submitted further that a reasonable cause of action is a cause of action with some chance of success. He submitted that when only the allegations in the pleading are examined, and it is found that the cause of action is certain to fail, the statement of claim should be struck out. He referred to the observations of the learned trial Judge at pages 44 – 47 of the record and submitted that His Lordship was right in holding that the appellants’ case disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
In reply to the above submissions, Mr. Titiloye contended that the respondents misconstrued his submission on the issue of locus standi. He submitted that the basis of the appellants’ locus was not the fact that they are legal practitioners or human rights activists but the fact that under the Rules of Court they are clothed with locus when they are engaged to prosecute cases before the court. He argued that the respondents have not denied the fact that their clients are indigent and cannot pay the increase in court fees. He distinguished Uwazuronye’s case (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents from the instant case on the ground that the suit in that case was academic while this case is not.
Section 6(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution provides:
“6.(6) The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section –
(b) shall extend to all matters between persons, or between government or authority and to any person in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person.”
The complaint of the appellants, as disclosed in their originating summons is that the 1st respondent, the Governor of Ondo State had illegally and unconstitutionally usurped the powers of the Hon. Chief Judge of the State by increasing the fees payable for filing certain court processes and had thereby violated the provisions of Section 274 of the 1999 Constitution.
A person is held to have locus standi to sue in an action if he is able to show to the satisfaction of the court that his civil rights and obligations have been infringed. The two tests for determining whether a person has locus standi are:
1. The action must be justiciable; and
2. There must be a dispute between the parties.
It must be observed that in recent times, the courts have adopted a more liberal approach in determining the issue of locus standi. See: Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd. v. The M.V. “Dancing Sister” & Anor. (2012) 1 SC (Pt. 1) 75 @ 98; Gov. of Ekiti State & Ors. Vs Fakiyesi & Anor. (2010) ALL FWLR (501) 828.

The meaning of locus standi was examined extensively in the case of Inakoju Vs Adeleke (2007) 1 SC (Pt.1) 1 @ 85 – 87 by Tobi, JSC. His Lordship held thus:
“Locus standi or standing is the legal right of a party to an action to be heard in litigation before a court of law or tribunal. The term entails the legal capacity of instituting or commencing an action in a competent court of law or tribunal without any inhibition, obstruction or hindrance from any person or body whatsoever.
It is the law that to have locus standi to sue, the plaintiff must have sufficient interest in the suit. One criterion of sufficient interest is whether the party could have been joined as a party in the suit. Another criterion is whether the party seeking the redress or remedy will suffer some injury or hardship from the litigation. If the Judge is satisfied that he will so suffer, then he must be heard, See generally Chief Ojukwu Vs Governor of Lagos State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 10) 806; Justice Williams vs Mrs. Dawodu (1988) 4 NWLR (87) 189; Chief Nwosu Vs Administrator-General Bendel State (1999) 2 NWLR (Pt 173) 275; Egolum vs Obasanjo (1999) 5 SC (Pt. 1) 1; (1999) 7 NWLR (611) 355.

A party who seeks a declaratory relief in the Constitution must show that he has a constitutional interest to protect and that the interest is violated or breached to his detriment. The interest must be substantial, tangible and not vague, intangible or caricature.
In ascertaining whether the plaintiff in an action has locus standi, the pleadings, that is, the Statement of Claim must disclose a cause of action vested in the plaintiff and the righ9 and obligations or interest of the plaintiff which have been violated. See Adefulu Vs Oyesile (1989) 12 SC 43; (1989) 1 NWLR (22) 377; Adesokan vs Prince Adegorolu (1991) 3 NWLR (179) 293 …

The question as to the competence of a plaintiff to institute an action is gathered from the statement of claim and not from the evidence that is subsequently led. See Ladejobi Vs Shodipo (1989) 1 NWLR (99) 596.Where the competence of a plaintiff to institute an action is challenged or is in issue, the onus would be on him to establish that he is competent to sue as plaintiff.”
As held in Inakoju vs. Adeleke (supra), the process that would assist the court in determining whether or not a party has Locus standi to institute an action is the statement of claim. In an action commenced by originating summons, the relevant process is the affidavit in support. In paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 17, 18 and 19 thereof the 1st appellant averred as follows:
“3. That I am a legal practitioner, human right activist based in Akure, Ondo State.
4. That I am presently engaged as a lawyer prosecuting twenty-five cases before different courts in Ondo State,
5. That the 2nd plaintiff is also a lawyer having fifteen cases pending before different courts in Ondo State.
6. That on the 21st of February 2011, I wanted to file some application before the High Court Ondo State which required an affidavit and I was shown a circular letter signed by the Chief Registrar of the 4th defendant that the 1st defendant, the Governor of Ondo State has increased oath fees of Ondo State Judiciary from N50 to N300 and N2,000 respectively with effect from 21st of February 2011.
7. That a copy of the said circular letter from the Registrar of the 4th defendant is attached as Exhibit A.
8. That the 1st defendant reason for the hike in fees is the need to generate more revenue for Ondo State.
10. That some of my clients are indigent and poor and cannot pay the fees currently imposed by the fiat of
the Ondo State Governor
12. That the 3rd defendant who is the chief Judge of Ondo State is the only authority saddled by the constitution to make rules of Court and impose appropriate fees,
17. That the 3rd defendant has abandoned his duty as the Chief Judge of Ondo State in making rules of court by allowing the 1st defendant to make Court rules and increase Court fees,
18. That it is in the interest of justice for this Court to grant all the reliefs sought in order to protect the independence of the Judiciary.
19. That my practice as a legal practitioner in Ondo State will be adversely affected if the 1st defendant is allowed to implement his increment in court fees.” (Emphasis supplied).
Mr. Titiloye argued quite forcefully that by virtue of Order 11 Rule 7 of the Magistrate Court Laws of Ondo State “every solicitor while retained for a cause in a Magistrate Court shall be an officer of the Court” and therefore in his capacity as an officer of the court he has the locus to challenge the unlawful increment of court fees. He argued that the learned trial Judge did not take this provision into account when he described the appellants as busy bodies. He also argued in his reply brief that the failure of the respondents to join issue with him in this regard must be construed as their having conceded the issue. With due respect to learned counsel, I am of the view that the submission is much ado about nothing. Even without the provisions of the Magistrate Court Laws of Ondo State,
it is trite any legal practitioner practicing before any of the courts of the land does so as an officer of the court. Paragraph 30 of the Statutory Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007 states that a lawyer is an officer of the Court and accordingly he shall not do any act or conduct himself in any manner that may obstruct, delay or adversely affect the administration of justice. See: Hope Democratic Party Vs INEC (2009) 8 NWLR (1143) 297. The issue is whether merely being an officer of the court is sufficient to clothe the appellants with locus standi to institute the action at the court below. The appellants gave four reasons for instituting the action:
1. That they are legal practitioners who have cases pending before the Ondo State High Court.
2. That many of their clients are indigent and cannot afford the new fees.
3. That the Hon. Chief Judge is the only authority as prescribed by the Constitution who can make rules of court and impose appropriate fees.
4. That the 1st appellant’s practice would be adversely affected if the 1st respondent were allowed to increase the fees.
The appellants are challenging the alleged violation of Section 274 of the Constitution by the 1st respondent. They must show not only what constitutional interest they seek to protect but also that such interest is substantial, tangible and not vague or caricature. They must also show a violation of their constitutional right for which they are seeking redress.
The fact that they have pending cases before the court without more would not satisfy the requirement of locus standi. The appellants contend that many of their clients are indigent and cannot afford to pay the increased fees. The identities of the alleged indigent clients are not disclosed. There is no averment by any one of them stating his financial status and/or his inability to pay the new fees. There is also no averment by the appellants that they pay the legal fees of their indigent clients out of their own resources. In any event, it is pertinent to note that there are provisions in the rules of court of various jurisdictions to take care of indigent litigants, namely proceedings in forma pauperis. Order 52 Rule 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules Cap. 62 Laws of Ondo State provides:
“2. The court or a Judge in chambers may admit a person to sue or defend in forma pauperis except in bankruptcy proceeding, if satisfied that his means do not permit him to employ legal aid in the prosecution of his case and that he has reasonable ground for suing or defending as the case may be.”
The constitutional duty allegedly violated is that of the Hon. Chief Judge of the State. The alleged usurpation of powers is that of the Judiciary by the Executive. The Hon. Chief Judge, in the circumstances of this case’ is therefore the proper person to complain. Where it is contended that the Hon. Chief Judge failed to perform his statutory duty, any litigant who is able to show that his constitutional right of access to the court has been denied by such neglect would have the locus to institute an action. Even with a liberal approach to the issue of locus standi in the circumstances of this case, I am inclined to agree with the learned trial Judge that the appellants failed to show sufficient nexus between them and the reliefs claimed to clothe them with locus standi to invoke the judicial process. Where the party initiating an action lacks locus standi the court is robbed of jurisdiction to entertain it. See: Yesufu vs. Gov. Edo State (2001) 6 SC 56; Senator Adesanya vs. The President of Nigeria (1981) 5 SC 112; (1981) 5 SC (Reprint 69.
The other issue to consider is whether the appellants, claims disclose a reasonable cause of action.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th edition at page 1349 defines cause of action as:
“A group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person.”
In the case of Edjerode Vs Ikine (2001) 12 SC (Part II) 94 @ 103, the Supreme Court quoted with approval the definition of cause of action as stated by Agbaje, JSC in Amodu Vs Amode (1990) 5 NWLR
(150) 356 @ 367 thus:
“The term “cause of action” means all those things necessary to give a right of action whether they are to be done by the plaintiff or a third person” Hernaman v. Smith (1855) 10 Exch 659, per Parke B at p.666. “Cause of action’, has been held from the earliest time to mean every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed – every fact which the defendant would have a right to traverse.” Cooker Giil (1873) L.R. 8 C.P. 107 per Brett, J. at p. 116.” (Emphasis supplied).
The phrase “cause of action” consists of the totality of the factual situation in a case, which entitles the plaintiff to a relief or reliefs. Furthermore, it is the averments in the statement of claim and the reliefs claimed that determine the accrual of the cause of action. See: Mil. Gov. Ondo State & Ors. vs. Kolawole & Ors. (2008) 4 – 5 SC (Pt.11) 158 @ 185; Ayanboye vs. Balogun (1990) 9 – 10 SC 1; (1990) 5 NWLR (151) 392; Egbe vs. Adefarasin (1987) ANLR 1 @ 21.
I have earlier reproduced the relevant averments in the supporting affidavit. I also reproduced Exhibit A, the circular issued by the Chief Registrar of the Ondo State High Court. It is instructive to note that the action was instituted by way of originating summons. Order 1 Rule 3 of the High Court of Ondo State (Civil Procedure) Rules provides for proceedings, which may be begun by originating summons. They are:
a. Were the sole or principal question at issue is, or is likely to be, one of the construction of a written law or of any instrument made under any written law or of any deed, will, contract or other document or some other question of law; or
b. Where there is unlikely to be any substantial dispute of fact.
In the instant case, what the appellants are challenging is the power or authority of the 1st respondent, the Governor of Ondo State to make rules of practice and procedure for the High court of Ondo State, particularly with regard to the increase in certain filing fees. The source of the complaint is the circular (Exhibit A) issued by the Chief Registrar of the Court informing all registrars, sectional heads and staff of the Ondo State Judiciary of the increase in court fees purportedly effected by the Governor. A vital consideration in this regard is whether there is any document’ instrument or other legal process under the hand of the Governor of the State directing an increase in filing fees. The learned trial Judge at pages 45 – 48 of the record held as follows:
“Exhibit A, which is an internal memo or circular on the face of it communicates increment of filing fees relating to certain documents within the Ondo State Judiciary, which seems to have its origin purportedly from ‘Mr. Governor’. The document sought to be interpreted itself is not a legal instrument and was not backed by a legal instrument, nor was it intended to be a legal instrument. The Chief Registrar of the Ondo State High Court, who works for the Ondo State Judiciary could not have been acting under any orders received from the Governor of Ondo State who is the Head of the Executive arm of the Government The duties and powers of the Governor of Ondo State does (sic) not include and is absolutely unrelated to the internal workings and administration of the Ondo State Judiciary, Issues relating to fees charged in court are exclusively reserved for the Chief Judge of Ondo State. There is no evidence before the court that the Governor has usurped the functions and duties of the chief Judge in this regard. From the wordings of the circular therefore, no harm has been done or could have been done, which could be traced to the Governor of Ondo State which gives the plaintiffs a cause to complain.
The plaintiffs claim in their 2nd relief that the Governor’s act was illegal, unconstitutional, null and void. No acts of the Governor or any instrument emanating from him has been placed before the court for it to decide whether such act or instrument of the Governor was illegal, unconstitutional, null and void.
Secondly, there is no evidence before the court disclosed in the applicant’s supporting affidavit to suggest that the Governor has made any law or rules relating to practice and procedure for the High Court of Ondo State the applicant’s 1st relief is meaningless and baseless. The information contained in the letter written by the Chief Registrar is no proof of any wrongful acts done by the Governor of Ondo State relating to any interference by him in the affairs of the Judiciary in the making of rules for practice and procedure of the High Court or dictating what filing fees should be paid by litigants who come before the courts in Ondo State.
…The applicant’s 2nd and 3rd reliefs are not even justiciable as there is no real controversy between the applicants and the respondents in respect of this relief because the Ondo State Judiciary could not have been and is neither an agency nor a Ministry not to talk of revenue generating one under the supervision of the Governor of Ondo State. In effect the plaintiffs’ 2nd and 3rd relief is (sic) not capable of being disposed of judicially. Rather, the Ondo State Judiciary is an independent and distinct arm of the Ondo State Government but has relationship with the Government which funds it. All the declarations claimed by the plaintiffs do not disclose a reasonable cause of action fit for the court’s determination.”
Having carefully examined all the averments in the affidavit in support of the originating summons and in particular Exhibit A annexed thereto, I find the views of the learned trial Judge reproduced above unassailable. There is not a single document before the court to show that the Governor of Ondo State made rules of practice or procedure for the High Court of the State or that he prescribed filing fees for the court. The circular issued by the Chief Registrar of the High Court, which does not contain any attachment showing a directive, order or instrument under the hand of the Governor of the State cannot be the basis for the declarations sought by the appellants. I agree with the learned trial Judge that the originating summons filed by the appellants discloses no reasonable cause of action. It was therefore rightly struck out for being incompetent. Issues 1 and 2 are accordingly answered in the affirmative and are hereby resolved against the appellants.
Having resolved issues 1 and 2 against the appellants, a consideration of issue 3 becomes academic. It is not the duty of the court to expend precious judicial time in determining academic or hypothetical issues.
In conclusion, I find no merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the High Court of Ondo State sitting at Akure in Suit No. AK/63/2010 delivered on 15/4/2011 is hereby affirmed. There shall be no order for costs.

CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA J.C.A: The appellants, herein who described themselves as legal practitioners and human rights activists brought an action at the High court of Ondo State Akure by originating summons challenging the increase in court fees in the State on the basis that the Governor of Ondo State has no constitutional powers to increase court fees of Ondo State Judiciary. Their claim that the Governor increased court fees was based on a circular signed by the Chief Registrar High Court of Justice Akure addressed to Registrars, sectional heads and Staff Ondo State Judiciary captioned “INCREASE IN OATH, AFFIDAVIT AND POWERS OF ATTORNEY FEES” The circular reads in part: “In line with the ongoing efforts of Mr. Governor to increase the revenue base of Ondo State, it is necessary to address the aspect of increasing oaths, affidavit and power of attorney fees in Ondo State judiciary with effect from 21st February 2011. The following fees have been increased by Mr. Governor as follows……..” After listening to the submissions of the appellants and the respondents, the lower court in a considered ruling struck out the originating summons as incompetent on the grounds that the reliefs sought by the appellants are not justiciable, that the appellants lacked locus standi to institute the suit, and that their affidavit in support of the originating summons disclosed no reasonable cause of action. Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellants appealed to this court. In the lead judgment, my learned brother Kekere-Ekun JCA combined the issues formulated by the parties and came up with the following three issues for determination:
1. Whether the learned Judge was right in holding that the appellants lacked the locus standi to institute this suit?
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the appellants process disclosed no reasonable cause of action and therefore liable to be struck out?
3. Whether the Governor of Ondo State can increase court fees payable in all the courts of Ondo State Judiciary.
His Lordship dealt exhaustively with all the issues and I agree with his conclusions. Mr. Titiloye Charles in his argument on locus standi and whether their case is justiciable lost sight of the fact that the main focus of their case at the lower court from the reliefs sought was the constitutional power or right of the Governor to increase court fees, not the propriety or otherwise of the increase. The truth of the matter is that the circular by the Chief Registrar exhibit A cannot by any stretch of the imagination be deemed the act of the Governor in such a way as to give rise to a suit questioning the powers of the Governor to do what was alleged in the circular. There is simply no basis for ascribing the act to the Governor. The Chief Registrar could have ignorantly framed the circular the way he did in order to secure compliance. There simply was no legal basis for the complaint of the appellants. Their case was not justiciable. If the appellant’s case was that the fees were too high and that his clients cannot pay, then his contention that his practice as a legal practitioner in Ondo State will be adversely affected could be considered as possibly conferring locus standi on him. But with the nature of the reliefs sought as clearly set out in the lead judgment and exhibit A, the case is not justiciable and the appellants have no locus standi to institute the suit. I totally agree that the originating summons filed by the appellants disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was rightly struck out by the lower court as incompetent. I agree that there is no merit in this appeal. I also dismiss it. I abide by the consequential orders in the lead judgment.

MOORE A.A. ADUMEIN, J.C.A: I had a preview of the judgment just delivered by learned brother, KEKERE-EKUN, JCA. His Lordship has, as usual, admirably addressed and resolved the issues in this appeal.
The appellants are legal practitioners and the 1st appellant is also human rights activist. The fact that the 1st appellant is human activist is not a blank cheque giving to him or clothing him with locus standi to commence or institute every conceiveable lawsuit. Apart from being a human rights activist, he must show special interest in the law suit. No such special interest has been shown or proved in this case.
It is for the foregoing reason and the well-articulated reasons given in the lead judgment that I also dismiss this appeal.
I abide by all the orders in the lead judgment, including the order as to costs.

Appearances

Titloye Charles Esq.,
Obinna Esione Esq.
Mrs. Olubanke Gbadebo For Appellant

AND

Cyril Akinrinsola, Director, Office of Public Defender, Ministry of Justice, Ondo State
Miss Chinwe Akabogu For Respondent