ALHAJA SILIFAT AJILOWURA & 13 ORS V. TAOFIK DISU (2006)

Background

This appeal concerned the proper procedure for challenging a plaintiff’s locus standi under the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1972. The respondent commenced an action in the High Court of Lagos State seeking declarations concerning two properties known as 48 Aroloya Street, Lagos, and 60 Smith Street, Lagos. She also sought a perpetual injunction, production of rent receipts, and accounts of rents allegedly collected by the appellants.

The respondent’s case was founded on a family and testamentary interest in the properties. She pleaded that she was a great-grandchild of late Disu Dada, the original owner. According to the statement of claim, Disu Dada was survived by three children, including the respondent’s grandmother, Tawakalitu Ajiun. The disputed properties were allegedly devised by will to Tawakalitu Ajiun and Animotu Abeke. Although their brother, Momodu Lawani Ishola, collected rents as their agent, his widow and children later allegedly took control of the properties and retained the rents.

Rather than file a statement of defence, the appellants filed a motion on notice seeking to strike out the writ, statement of claim and action for want of jurisdiction. They argued that the respondent had no right, title, capacity or legal standing to institute the action. The High Court dismissed the motion, holding that the appellants ought first to plead the objection in a statement of defence. The Court of Appeal affirmed that ruling, leading to the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the appellants were required to file a statement of defence before raising an objection to the respondent’s locus standi.
2. Whether the statement of claim disclosed sufficient facts concerning the respondent’s source of title, interest and capacity to sue.
3. Whether the earlier authorities, particularly Bambe v. Aderinola and Dada v. Ogunsanya, were conflicting and whether the Supreme Court should overrule the later decision.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that locus standi means the legal capacity to institute an action. A person without locus standi cannot invoke the court’s jurisdiction, because the court lacks competence to entertain the claim. Ordinarily, the question whether a plaintiff has standing is determined primarily from the statement of claim. A defendant who challenges standing at the outset is taken to accept the material averments in that statement of claim as true for the purpose of the objection.

The Court further held that the respondent’s pleading sufficiently disclosed an interest in the properties. Her asserted relationship with the original owner, the alleged devolution of the properties to her grandmother, and the claim to protect the family interest and recover rents were adequate to establish standing at that stage.

However, where the defendant seeks to contest the pleaded capacity or factual foundation of the plaintiff’s standing, the proper course in Lagos is to file a statement of defence and join issues. Order 23 rule 1 abolished demurrer. Consequently, a defendant cannot revive the abolished procedure by presenting a preliminary motion that effectively asks the court to determine disputed matters before pleadings are completed. Under Order 23 rules 2 and 3, a point of law may be raised by pleading and dealt with by the trial court at or after trial, subject to the rules.

Court Findings

The appellants’ motion was procedurally defective. Although their objection was framed as one concerning jurisdiction and lack of standing, they relied on Order 23 rule 4, which deals with striking out pleadings disclosing no reasonable cause of action or answer, or showing that an action is frivolous or vexatious. The Supreme Court held that locus standi was not properly raised under that provision. The correct procedural route was to plead the objection in a statement of defence under Order 23 rules 2 and 3.

The Court distinguished the authorities relied upon by the appellants. It found no real conflict between Bambe v. Aderinola, Fadare v. Attorney-General, Oyo State, and Dada v. Ogunsanya. Cases must be compared by reference to their facts, issues and applicable procedural rules. The Court also rejected the invitation to overrule Dada, explaining that the Supreme Court does not depart from its previous decisions merely at the request of a litigant. Cogent and compelling reasons are required, and the appellants had supplied none.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed in its entirety. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal and remitted the matter to the High Court of Lagos State for the parties to complete their pleadings and for the trial to proceed. Costs of N10,000 were awarded against the appellants in favour of the respondent.

Significance

The decision reinforces the importance of pleadings in Nigerian civil procedure. It confirms that a statement of claim is the central document for determining a plaintiff’s locus standi, while a defendant who disputes the factual or legal basis of that standing must ordinarily respond through a statement of defence. The judgment also prevents the resurrection of demurrer through interlocutory motions in jurisdictions where demurrer has been abolished. More broadly, it illustrates the Supreme Court’s cautious approach to overruling precedent and its insistence that alleged conflicts between authorities must be genuine, not merely asserted.