Locus Standi (92)
HELD:
"My Lords, the dictum of Bairamian, F. J. in MADUKOLU V. NKEMDILIM (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587 at 593,
HELD:
I however agree that the issue of locus standi is a jurisdictional issue and where a party lacks the standing to sue, the Court will also lack jurisdiction to hear the matter, the trial Court was right to my mind as the Respondent cannot be shut out of having the claim determined, where there is a damage, there should be a remedy except if the claimant fails to prove his claim.
HELD:
"Locus standi simply 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.
HELD:
"Locus standi is not dependent on the claim succeeding at the end of trial but largely on the facts averred in the statement of claim which must disclose an interest which deserves to be protected by the Court determining the claim on the merits.
HELD:
"The phrase locus standi denotes the legal capacity to institute proceedings in a Court of law and has been used interchangeably with terms such as standing or title to sue.
HELD:
"Locus standi connotes the legal capacity which a person has to enable him file an action in a Court of law.
HELD:
"The principle of locus standi is designed to keep out busy bodies and their frivolities. This application is frivolous. The Applicant has no locus standi. The Applicant is simply a busy body. The application is hereby dismissed." ATTORNEY GENERAL OF RIVERS STATE & ORS v. LAGOS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY(2018) LPELR-45944(SC) Per EKO, J.S.C. (P. 13, Paras. A-B)
FACTS:
HELD:
"...beyond analogical inferences or conjectures, the issue of locus standi is the actual legal capacity of instituting or commencing an action in a competent Court of law without inhibition, obstruction or hindrance from any person or body whatsoever, See INAKOJU VS ADELEKE (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 353) 1 at 96; THOMAS VS OLUFOSOYE (1986) 2 SC 325, MOMOH VS JIMO OLOTU (1979) ALL NLR 117, at 123, A.G. ANAMBRA VS EBOH (supra). Locus Standi is a condition precedent to instituting an action before a Court of law.
HELD:
"With regard to the question "whether the Appellant has locus standi to institute this action," the position of the law is that a person has locus standi to sue in an action if he is able to show to the satisfaction of the Court that his rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed. In other words, the plaintiffs' statement of claim must disclose sufficient legal interest and the plaintiff must show how such interest arose in the subject matter.
HELD:
"The Appellants predicated their contention that the Respondents do not have locus standi on the fact that the Respondents on record reside in Belgium. Apart from the fact that there is nothing on record with regards to where the Respondents reside, the question of locus standi as rightly submitted by the Respondents' counsel is a matter of interest, not residence. In any event, it has to be remembered that the Respondents maintain the action in a representative capacity, for themselves and on behalf of the entire family of the late Henry Adeleke Omole. So every member of the family is part and parcel of the action notwithstanding where they reside. See APEH vs. PDP (2016) ALL FWLR (PT 824) 1 and DURBAR HOTEL PLC vs. ITYOUGH (2016) LPELR (42560) 1. The term locus standi denotes the legal capacity to institute proceedings in a Court of law.