ALHAJI KAMORU AGBAJE & 7 ORS V. MISS ADESOLA OTUNLA & ANOR (2017)

Background

This appeal arose from a ruling of the Oyo State High Court sitting at Ibadan in Suit No. I/438/2008. The respondents, who were children of late Chief L. A. Otunla, commenced an action seeking declarations, orders setting aside alleged sales, and a perpetual injunction in respect of landed properties said to have formed part of their late father’s estate. They alleged that various persons, including some of the defendants, had unlawfully sold or dealt with the properties without the authority of the estate or the proper executors.

The appellants, who were among the defendants and had built houses on some of the disputed plots, challenged the respondents’ locus standi. Their contention was that the particular plots occupied by them at Omolayo Estate, Akobo, Ibadan, or Bamgbose Village, were not among the properties identified in the deceased’s Will, which referred to properties at Orita Bashorun and Logun Village. They argued that the respondents therefore had no legal interest in the land and that the suit ought to be struck out at the preliminary stage.

The challenge was raised in the pre-trial information and supported by an affidavit. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit. However, the appellants did not file a formal motion seeking an order striking out the suit, although the trial court permitted written addresses on the issue. In a considered ruling delivered on 2012-09-25, the trial judge dismissed the objection and directed that the substantive dispute be determined on its merits. The appellants appealed.

Issues

1. Whether, having regard to the respondents’ pleadings, reliefs and the materials before the trial court, the respondents possessed sufficient legal standing to institute the action.
2. Whether the dispute concerning the identity and location of the land could properly be resolved at the interlocutory stage as a question of locus standi.
3. Whether the appellants could introduce, after the appeal had been argued and judgment reserved, a new contention that the action was incompetent because it had not been instituted by the executors or trustees named in the Will.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ruling of the trial court. The court restated that locus standi means the legal capacity or standing of a person to institute proceedings. A claimant must disclose a sufficient personal or legal interest in the subject matter, together with an actual or threatened infringement of that interest. Where no standing exists, the action may be incompetent and the court may lack jurisdiction to entertain it.

In determining locus standi, the court must ordinarily confine itself to the writ of summons and the statement of claim. A defendant who challenges standing in limine is deemed, for that limited purpose, to accept the material averments in the claimant’s statement of claim as true. The statement of defence, affidavits raising extraneous factual disputes, and evidence relating to the ultimate merits are not the proper basis for deciding the preliminary question.

The court further held that the respondents’ pleadings sufficiently disclosed their interest. They pleaded that they were children and beneficiaries of the deceased, that the disputed land formed part of his estate, and that the alleged sales violated the Will and the rights devolving upon them. Whether the specific plots occupied by the appellants were actually part of the estate was a factual issue requiring evidence at trial, not a proper basis for striking out the action for want of standing.

Court Findings

The Court of Appeal held that the appellants’ objection essentially concerned the identity and location of the disputed land. It did not demonstrate that the respondents had no interest whatsoever in the subject matter. The respondents’ claim was that the properties belonged to their deceased father and had been unlawfully alienated. That pleaded interest was sufficient to entitle them to approach the court. Their eventual success would depend on proving the relationship between the disputed plots, the estate, the Will and the alleged sales.

The court also criticised the attempt to raise, after judgment had been reserved, the additional argument that only the executors and trustees could institute the action. That contention had not been canvassed before the trial court and did not arise from the grounds of appeal or the ratio decidendi of the ruling appealed against. An appellate court does not ordinarily entertain a fresh issue that the lower court had no opportunity to consider, unless the applicable requirements for raising such an issue are satisfied.

The motion filed on 2017-01-16, after counsel had adopted their briefs and judgment had been reserved on 2017-01-12, was treated as an attempt to arrest or stay the judgment. The court held that the procedure for arresting judgment is generally alien to the Nigerian civil procedural system and unavailable under the applicable Rules of Court. The narrow exception recognised in cases involving the prevention of an abuse of judicial process did not apply here. The motion was therefore refused and discountenanced.

Conclusion

The appeal was found to be without merit and was dismissed. The ruling of the Oyo State High Court delivered on 2012-09-25 was affirmed. The case was returned to the Chief Judge for hearing and determination on the merits on the basis of the pleadings already filed. The appellants were ordered to pay costs of N30,000 to the respondents.

Significance

The decision emphasises that locus standi is concerned primarily with the claimant’s legal interest, not with whether the claimant will ultimately prove the substantive claim. It protects access to justice by preventing a court from deciding disputed questions of title, land identity or inheritance under the guise of a preliminary standing objection. It also reinforces appellate discipline: issues must arise from the grounds of appeal and from the decision challenged, while fresh arguments cannot ordinarily be introduced after proceedings have concluded and judgment has been reserved.