Background
In February 2004 Chief Gani Fawehinmi, SAN instituted an originating summons at the Federal High Court, Abuja seeking declarations and injunctive reliefs against the President, the Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission and other public officers, including Dr. (Mrs.) Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, over payment of ministerial salaries allegedly in excess of statutory limits and in foreign currency. The trial court struck out the action for lack of locus standi. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed this ruling, set aside the striking out order and granted the substantive reliefs. Dr. Okonjo-Iweala then appealed to the Supreme Court.
During the pendency of this appeal Chief Fawehinmi died and was successively substituted by his elder son and later by Mr. Saheed Fawehinmi, who now appears as 1st respondent. The originating summons had posed three questions of law under the Certain Political, Public and Judicial Office Holders (Salaries and Allowances) Act No. 6 of 2002 and sought wide-ranging declarations and an injunction to compel refund of excess salaries.
Issues
- Whether the trial court correctly held that the respondent had locus standi to institute the suit.
- Whether the Court of Appeal properly invoked its powers under section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to grant reliefs in an originating summons not yet heard on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that locus standi is a personal right requiring proof of direct, personal interest or injury; that an originating summons binds questions of law to reliefs and must be determined in sequence; that section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act does not expand appellate jurisdiction beyond the notice and grounds of appeal; and that personal actions do not survive the death of the plaintiff (action personalis moritur cum persona).
Court Findings
On locus standi, the Court reviewed the affidavits in support and found no evidence that Chief Fawehinmi or his successors suffered any personal or direct legal injury by ministerial salary payments. Assertions of status as party chairman, former presidential candidate, senior advocate or taxpayer without evidentiary proof were held insufficient to confer standing. The Court endorsed the trial judge’s view that challenges to executive salary decisions require demonstration of personal interest in danger.
Regarding section 15, the Court held that the Court of Appeal lacked power to decide substantive issues and grant reliefs in a suit not yet heard on the merits. Section 15 is restricted to curing procedural defects and efficiently resolving issues raised on appeal as defined by the notice of appeal. The Court noted that the originating summons posed questions which were never determined before reliefs were granted, violating the originating summons procedure and principles of fair hearing.
The Court further held that the death of the originator terminated the action, as locus standi is non-transmissible, and appeals are continuations of the original suit. Substitution of heirs could not revive an action personal to the deceased.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal, set aside the Court of Appeal judgment, struck out the originating summons as incompetent and ordered that each party bear its own costs.
Significance
This decision imposes strict proof requirements for locus standi, confirms that originating summons reliefs hinge on pre-determined questions of law, limits appellate powers under section 15, and reiterates that personal causes of action die with the plaintiff. It safeguards judicial resources against frivolous public interest litigation lacking genuine personal stake.