By Oyetola Muyiwa Atoyebi, SAN, FCIArb. (UK).
The legal cliché ‘ubi jus ibi remedium’, has it that for every wrong there must be a resultant remedy. This presupposes that the Court would readily aid a victim of an alleged wrong, where such a victim approaches the Court with the prayer that justice is meted out. Interestingly, however, it is not the case that the temple would readily dish out “justice” in every circumstance, nay, we dare say that there are instances where certain jurisdictional impediments could clog the wheel of justice.
As a result, the Court would have her hands tied and hampered from doing the desired justice. One of these thorny circumstances is occasioned where the supposed victim cannot show how he has particularly suffered from the acts of the alleged oppressor; consequently, even where it is not in doubt that the alleged oppressor did commit the acts complained about, the inability of the victim to personalize the wrong suffered would be detrimental to the Court action emanating therefrom.
This article would be addressing, the limitations posed by locus standi in the exercise of the powers of the Court.
THE CONCEPT OF LOCUS STANDI:
This simply refers to the standing to sue. Locus Standi 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, initiating or commencing an action in a competent Court of law or tribunal without any inhibition, obstruction, or hindrance from anybody or person whosoever, including the provisions of any law whatsoever[1]. The Supreme Court aptly postulated the position of law in CITEC INTL ESTATES LTD. V. FRANCIS (2021) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1768) 148 @ 196, paras. A-F viz.:
A person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something.
Whether an interest is worthy of protection is a matter of judicial discretion which often varies according to the remedy asked for. It is however settled beyond equivocation that where a claimant lacks the requisite locus standi, no matter the colossal nature of the injury or damages allegedly done or suffered, he cannot sue or have the right standing in a Court of law to seek redress over such an alleged injury or damage done. Such a person can simply or safely be described as a meddlesome interloper[2]
Against this backdrop, can it be safely concluded that all interests must be personal before a claimant could be vested with the requisite standing to sue?
PUBLIC INTEREST SUITS & THE STANDING TO SUE:
It would appear that actions/matters/suits brought in a personal capacity by an individual (albeit on behalf of a public interest) ought to be crowned with a toga of public interest. Public interest litigation is essentially an action brought for the benefit of a group or class of persons who have suffered a general wrong or are about to suffer as a result of the activities of other persons, usually corporate institutions and governments, for political, religious or economic gains. A key feature of this type of litigation is that the victims are often groups of persons who would not ordinarily be in a position to approach the Court on their own due to impecuniosity or lack of awareness of their rights.
By their nature, public interest suits ought to be commenced on behalf of the public by the authority vested with the requisite powers to act as the legal officer of the affected public. More explicitly, the settled position of the law remains that in an action to assert a public right or to enforce a performance of a public duty, only the Attorney-General of the Federation or that of a state (as the case may be) has the standing to sue.[3]
What then becomes of the fate of a suffering public if the requisite authority vested with the power of locus standi on the public’s behalf fails to do the needful? It is the opinion of the writer – in tandem with the unequivocal position of superior Courts evidenced in a plethora of judicial authorities – that a person/group of persons can only circumvent their way through the jurisdictional quagmire of locus standi in public interest suits, where the person/group of persons can establish they have suffered more wrongs or peculiar wrongs, vis-à-vis the alleged acts/omission complained about. Simply, they must have suffered special wrongs.
The above position has always stood as trite, the authority of AMADI V. ESSIEN (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 354) 91 @ 115. paras. B-C has the following instructive submissions:
Sufficient interest to ground locus to a plaintiff to sue is an interest which is peculiar to the plaintiff, an interest which he does not necessarily share with the members of the public. The interest in the subject matter must be over and above what the ordinary members of the society have. The interest must be unique and proprietary. This position may however be unsatisfactory in view of its restrictive approach to the issue of locus standi but it remains the current legal position in Nigeria.
In spite of the progressive approach our Courts have adopted over the years, the above position has remained immutable. For an individual to have locus standi in public law, he must necessarily establish personal interest over and above the generality of the public. He must show he would incur injury over the justiciable issue(s) he intends to ventilate in Court. The paramount consideration is whether the person suing is a proper party to request an adjudication of the case and his interest must be peculiar, not general.[4] Hear the Supreme Court speak in yet another case:
To invoke the judicial power of the court in the realm of public law, a litigant must show sufficient interest or threat of injury he will suffer. 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. [5](underlining mine, for emphasis)
In the determination and consideration of each distinct public interest suit, there is need to adopt an approach that would promote the cause of justice, as ‘justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.’ Since the question of whether or not a claimant has sufficient justiciable interest or sufferance of injury or damage depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, a purposive and liberal approach would do a world of good.
There was strong clamour for this position by the Justices of the Apex court in CENTRE FOR OIL POLLUTION WATCH V. N.N.P.C. (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666) 518, it was submitted as follows:
It would be a grave lacuna in the system of public law if a pressure group or even a single public-spirited tax-payer were prevented by outdated technical rules of locus standi from bringing a matter to the attention of the court to vindicate the rule of law and get an unlawful conduct stopped……Rigid adherence to the common law rule that insists on locus standi for prospective genuine claimants or applicants poses a hindrance to enforcement of the rule of law. The outdated technical rules of locus standi should not be used to prevent an individual or group of public-spirited individuals from bringing a matter of unlawful conduct that violates the rule of law to the attention of the court. Every person, including non-governmental organisations, public-spirited individuals or associations, have sufficient interest in ensuring that public authorities or corporations submit to the rule of law and that no public authority has power to, arbitrarily or with impunity, break the law or general statute. The right of the citizen or lawful associations to see that the rule of law is enforced vests in him or the association sufficient standing to request the court to call to order a public authority allegedly violating the law.
CONCLUSION
It is the writers’ opinion that in deciding whether a party has locus standi, it ought not to be a question of pitching public interest against the interest of an applicant to see if his interest is greater. It is a question of whether an applicant has sufficient interest to protect, and sufficient interest now has a very wide concept. It is high time the Court relaxed the application of the rule of locus standi in cases founded on public interest litigation, in a bid to do justice at all material times.
SNIPPET
Rigid adherence to the old common law rule that insists on locus standi in public interest Suits, poses a hindrance to the swift enforcement of the rule of law, the need to adopt a liberal approach cannot be overemphasized…
Key terms: Public interest, Locus standi, Justice and Equity
Author
Mr. Oyetola Muyiwa Atoyebi, SAN is the Managing Partner of O. M. Atoyebi, S.A.N & Partners (OMAPLEX Law Firm).
Mr. Atoyebi has expertise in and vast knowledge of Legal Practice and this has seen him advise and represent his vast clientele in a myriad of high-level transactions. He holds the honour of being the youngest lawyer in Nigeria’s history to be conferred with the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria.
He can be reached at atoyebi@omaplex.com.ng
Contributor: Afolabi Samuel
Samuel is a member of the Dispute Resolution Team at OMAPLEX Law Firm. He also holds commendable legal expertise in Human Right Law Practice
He can be reached at afolabi.samuel@omaplex.com.ng
[1] DR. TOSIN AJAYI VS. PRINCESS (MRS.) OLAJUMOKE ADEBIYI & ORS (2012) 8 S.C.M. 1 AT 26 B-1 TO 27 A-per ADEKEYE, JSC; Nyame v. FRN (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1193) 344
[2] See Human Rights & Empowerment Project LTD/GTE V. President of FRN & Ors 2022) LPELR-58230(CA); Adesanya V. President, Federal Republic of Nigeria (2001) FWLR (Pt. 46) 859.
[3] See CENTRE FOR OIL POLLUTION WATCH V. N.N.P.C. (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666) 518
[4] See Diamond Pet. Int l Ltd. v. Gov., C.B.N (2015) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1478) 179
[5]Owodunni v. Reg. Trustees of CCC (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 675) 315 @ 345, Para A-B
