LOCUS STANDI

• Date: 06 February 2019

(1) "Locus standi or "standing" may be defined as the right of a party to appear and be heard on the question before any Court or Tribunal." - Per Bello, J.S.C., in Senator Abraham Adesanya v. President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria & Anor. Suit No. S.C. 1/1981; (1981) 12 N.S.C.C. 146 at 164; (1981) 5 S.C. 112 at 148.

(2) "Locus standi or standing to sue is an aspect of justiciability and as such the problem of locus standi is surrounded by the same complexities and vagaries inherent in justiciability. The fundamental aspect of locus standi is that it focuses on the party seeking to get his complaint before the High Court not on the issues he wishes to have adjudicated. - Per Obaseki, J.S.C., in Adesanya v. President of Nigeria & Anor. Suit No. S.C. 1/1981; (1981) 12 N.S.C.C. 146 at 173.

(3) "Admittedly, in cases where a plaintiff seeks to establish a "private right" or "special damage", either under the common law or administrative law, in non - constitutional litigation, by way of an application for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus, or for a declaratory and injunctive relief, the law is now well settled that the plaintiff will have locus standi in the matter only if he has a special legal right or alternatively, if he has sufficient or special interest in the performance of the duty sought to be enforced, or where his interest is adversely affected. What constitutes a legal right, sufficient or special interest, or where interest adversely affected, will, of course, depend on the facts of each case. Whether an interest is worthy of protection is a matter of judicial discretion which may vary according to the remedy asked for." - Per Fatai Williams, C.J.N. in Senator Abraham Adesanya v. President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria & Anor. Suit No. S.C. 1/1981; (1981) 12 N.S.C.C. 146 at 160-161; (1981) 5 S.C. 112 at 128 -129 and 140.

(4) "As my brother, Bello J.S.C. pointed out in the judgment just read by him the appellant Abraham Adesanya has not alleged that the appointment of the respondent Justice Ovie Whiskey as the Chairman of the Federal Electoral Commission has in any way affected, or that it is in any way likely to affect his right or interest, that is, any of his civil rights and obligations; in those circumstances he cannot possibly be considered as having any locus standi to prosecute his claims in these proceedings which have been set out in the judgment just read by the learned Chief Justice of Nigeria." - Per Idigbe, J.S.C., in Adesanya v. President of Nigeria & Anor. Suit No. S.C. 1/1981; (1981) 12 N.S.C.C. 146 at 170 - 171.

(5) "As of today we have a stream of authorities defining locus standi. Nnaemeka- Agu J.S.C. observed in Adefulu & Ors. v. Oyesile & Ors (1989) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 122) 377, 418 as follows: - "There can now be little doubt as to what is the implication of locus standi. It literally means a "place to stand", hence a "standing to sue". In law, it denotes the "legal capacity to institute proceedings in a Court of law." Thomas v. Olufosoye (1986) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 18) 669 at p. 685. It is in Nigeria, a constitutional requirement in order to enable a person to maintain action and is limited to the prosecution of matters relating to the civil rights and obligation of the plaintiff." - Per Kolawole, J.C.A., in Nigeria Airways Ltd. v. Gbajumo Suit No. CA/L/171/87; (1992) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 244) 735 at 748.

(6) "Locus standi in general parlance means a recognised position or standing. In law, it means a place of standing in Court or the right to appear in Court. It can be said on the lighter side that not every person is entitled to stand in open Court unless he has a litigation in the Court or has come to give evidence. Such a conduct will be contemptuous. Therefore, before a person can stand in the Court or be allowed to stand in the Court, he must have an interest in the litigation either as a party or as a witness." - Per Tobi, J.C.A., in "K" Line Inc. v. K.R. Int. (Nig.) Ltd. Suit No. CA/L/ 108/88; (1993) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 292) 159 at 175 - 176.

(7) "By the present state of the law in Nigeria and in most other jurisdictions, the determination of locus standi zeroes on two major telling words. One is ‘sufficient’. The other is ‘interest’. They both make up the ‘sufficient interest’ concept. The term sufficient interest is broad and generic. It is also vague and nebulous. It lacks a precise and apt legal meaning. It could only be determined in the light of the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The question of what constitutes sufficient interest is one of mixed law and fact, that is to say, it is not a question of law only or a question of fact only but both. In arriving at a decision one way or the other, the Court will be guided by the overall interest of the parties in the litigation process in the absence of a specific enabling statute. This involves two apparently conflicting duties of the Court to vindicate the rights of the plaintiff to set the litigation process in motion and the concomitant rights of the defendant not to be dragged into unnecessary litigation by a person who has no standing in the matter or a mere busybody parading the corridors of the Court. By and large, the trial Judge, in determining locus standi, will be involved in the delicate balancing of divergent interests, which are diametrically opposed in the enforcement of the judicial process. It is a very complex exercise based on the pleadings of the plaintiff." - Per Tobi, J.C.A., in Busari v. Oseni Suit No. CA/L/284/88; (1992) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 237) 557 at 587.

(8) "Although the concept received some judicial attention, so to say, immediately after independence in the case of Olarwoyin v. Attorney-General, Northern Nigeria (1961) 2 S.C.N.L.R. 5; (1961) 1 All N.L.R. 269 and Gamioba and Ors. v. Ezezi II and Ors. (1961) 2 S.C.N.L.R. 237; (1961) 1 All N.L.R. 584; it was more extensively considered by the Supreme Court in the often cited case of Senator Adesanya v. President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Another (1981) 2 N.C.L.R. 358; a case which has been a victim of both scholarly and judicial comments. In that case, Fatai-Williams, C.J.N. defined the term as follows: - The term locus standi denotes legal capacity to institute proceedings in a Court of law. It is used interchangeably with the terms like "standing" or title to sue." Bello, J.S.C. (as he then was) also gave a helping hand at page 380, where he defined the expression "as the right of a party to appear and be heard on the question before any Court or Tribunal." See: Adesanya v. President (1981) 2 N.C.L.R. 358. In Chief Dr. Thomas and Others v. Rev. Olufosoye (1986) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 18) 669, the Supreme Court adopted the definition of Fatai-Williams, C.J.N. in Adesanya. And in the Hon. Justice Ovie- Whisky and Others v. Chief Olawoyin and Others (1985) 6 N.C.L.R. 156 at 711, Wali, J.C.A. (as he then was) adopted the definition of Bello, J.S.C. (as he then was) in Adesanya. And in Chief Anago-Amanze and Another v. Dr. Onwudiwe and Another (1985) 6 N.C.L.R. 620 at 628, Araka, C.J. described the concept thus: - "By locus standi is meant a sort of self-imposed limitation by the Court over the exercise of its judicial powers." With respect, it may not be invariably correct to say that the concept means a self-imposed limitation on the part of the Court in the exercise of its judicial power. There should be a qualification and the qualification is this: where a statute clearly provides for the locus standi or standing of a party to sue, a Court of law, has no option than to succumb to the provisions of such a statute. In such a situation, there is no self-imposition but is a matter of law which the Court must enforce in the invocation of its interpretative jurisdiction. The definition in Anago-Amanze will apply only in the absence of a statutory limitation and the Court is faced with a factual situation vis a vis the cause of action before it. In 1987, the Supreme Court made further progress by way of expanding the frontiers of the concept. That was in the celebrated case of Chief Fawehinmi v. Col. Akilu and Another. In Re Oduneye (1987) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 67). In that case the Supreme Court gave a more liberal interpretation to the concept. Since Fawehinmi was decided the impression is created that the decision has moved beyond Adesanya and should be regarded as the current position of the law. I do not agree. While Adesanya dealt with a civil matter, Fawehinmi dealt with a criminal matter. It is my understanding of the law that different considerations apply in the determination of locus standi in civil and criminal matters. Therefore, it is not correct to say that Fawehinmi is an improvement or an extension of Adesanya. It cannot be so. And it ought not to be so. I have added this bit of the development of the law as a basis for a further comment in this judgment. One other way of defining Locus standi or standing is the legal right of a party to an action to be heard in a litigation before a Court of law or Tribunal. The term entails the legal capacity of instituting, initiating or commencing an action in a competent Court of law or Tribunal without any inhibition, obstruction or hindrance from any person or body whatsoever." - Per Tobi, J.C.A., in Busari v. Oseni Suit No. CA/L/284/88; (1992) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 237) 557 at 585 - 586.

(9) "Chambers 20th Century Dictionary at page 740 defined Locus Standi a place of standing to interfere. In Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Volume 2 Third Edition page 2044, Locus Standi means a place of standing. A right of appearance in a Court of justice or before a legislative body on a given question. A right to be heard." - Per Onalaja, J.C.A., in Elendu v. Ekwoaba CA/PH/197/91; (1995) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 386) 704 at 737.

(10) "I am also unable to find in these oaths the basis for granting the appellant locus standi or for conceding that he has sufficient interest to bring the claim he...