Locus Standi (92)
"Be that as it may, a person is said to have locus standi if he has shown sufficient interest in the action and that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed -
"Locus standi is the legal right of a party to an action, to be heard in litigation before a Court or tribunal. The term connotes 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.
"I intend to comment on Locus standi of the plaintiff/respondent to institute this action. This is so since locus standi is a threshold issue which can be raised at anytime in proceedings or on appeal. A party instituting proceeding must have locus standi." Per RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. (P. 84, Para. F) B.B APUGO & SONS LIMITED v. ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT BOARD(2016) LPELR-40598(SC)
"It follows that a plaintiff can only invoke the judicial power entrenched in Section 6(6) (b) of the Constitution if, he has locus standi. He has locus standi if he can show that he has a stake in the subject matter or outcome of the case, and must be able to establish that what he suffers or the injury to his person was the consequence of the defendant's act or conduct.
"In Pacers Multi Dynamics Ltd v. M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 SC (Pt. 1) p.75. I explained locus standi as follows: I said: "A person has 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 or are in danger of being infringed.
For a person to have locus standi to sue, all he needs to do is to show that he has sufficient interest in the subject matter of the action and that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed.
When a Plaintiff has been found not to have the standing to sue or locus standi, the question whether other issues in the case had been properly decided or not does not arise. This is because, the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The correct position of the law therefore is that where a Plaintiff is held to lack the locus standi to maintain his action, the finding goes to the jurisdiction of the court and denies it jurisdiction to determine the action. The proper order, in such a situation therefore, is to strike out the claim. Herbert Ohuabunwa Emezi v. Akujobi David Osuagwu & Ors. (2005) 12 NWLR (Pt. 939) 340, Thomas v. Olufusoye (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 669.
Okwu & Anor vs Umeh & 4 ors [2016]1 M. J. S. C (Pt. II) [Po 25] Paras. E-G
The legal concept of standing or locus standi is predicated on the assumption that no court is obliged to provide a remedy for a claim in which the applicant has a remote, hypothetical or no interest. Thus, where a Plaintiff by his pleading, fails to show that he has a locus standi to institute an action, no issue in the case can be gone into, not even the question whether or not the statement of claim discloses a cause of action. Nigeria Airways Ltd. v. F.A. Lapite (J 990) LPELR -1988 (SC), 199011-12 SC, 60. The only and proper order to make in such circumstance is that of striking out the suit. Iwuaba v. Nwaosigwelem (J 989) 5 NWLR (Pt. 123) 623.
Okwu & Anor vs Umeh & 4 ors [2016]1 M. J. S. C (Pt. II) [Po 24] Paras. B-F