Chief S.A. Dada & Ors. V. Otunba Adeniran Ogunsanya & Anor. (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

KAWU, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court Of Appeal, Lagos Division, delivered on the 5th day of June, 1990, allowing the appeal from the ruling of Adeyinka, J dated 15th April, 1988 striking out the claim of the plaintiffs in the High Court for disclosing no cause of action. As stated in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the plaintiffs’ Amended Statement of Claim, at all the times material to this case, both the plaintiffs and the defendants were members of the African Church.

The claims of the plaintiffs in the High Court, who are respondents herein, as contained in paragraph 62 of the Amended Statement of claim are as follows:-

“1. A declaration that the time-honoured convention of appointing Lay President of the African Church from the Lagos Division namely any African Church member who is ordinarily resident in Lagos Division which accommodates the Headquarters of the African Church and of Vice Lay President rotationally from Divisions outside the Lagos Division ought to operate in this Election year of 1987 and ought not now to be disturbed having regard to the fact that the Vice Lay President for the period of 1987-1992 has this year been appointed from outside Lagos Division, to wit from Ijebu Division.

2. A declaration that until this time-honoured convention of appointment of Lay President and Vice Lay president has been changed or otherwise altered by a motion passed at the Annual convention of the African Church no individual or group of individuals can alter the position:
3. A declaration that the nomination of Chief Adeniran Ogunsaya of the African Church Cathedral (Bethel) Lagos in the Lagos Division of the African Church for the office of Lay president on 9th May, 1987, at the 86th Session of the Conference of the African Church held at Ijesha was valid, proper, conventionally constitutional, wherefore any other nomination from any Division of the African Church outside Lagos is invalid, irregular, null and void and of no legal effect being in flagrant violation of the convention of the African Church since or about the year 1982.
4. A declaration that the 1st Defendant is estopped from competing with the 1st Plaintiff or otherwise contesting against him for the office of the Lay President of the African Church in the year 1978 having in writing by letter dated 12th August, 1986, indicated to the African Church and the 1st Plaintiff as Chancellor, inter alia, that he had after a long deliberation finally and irrevocably decided not to stand for the said post of Lay President in 1978.
5. Consequentially, an order that Chief Adeniran Ogunsanya be declared the only candidate validly nominated as candidate for the office of Lay President, wherefore he be deemed to have been appointed unopposed as Lay President of the African Church with effect from 9th May, 1987, when Otunba J, Olu Awopeju was by convention of the African Church appointed Vice Lay President of the African Church and when 1st Defendant ceased to hold office both as Vice Lay President and Acting Lay president of the African Church.
6. An injunction to restrain the 2nd Defendant his servants and/or agents from taking order from 1st Defendant to damnify or impede the administration of the African Church and/or otherwise acting in concert with the 1st Defendant or independently to block or freeze the Account of the African Church with the First Bank of Nigeria Ltd., at Odunlami Street, Lagos, or in any other place wheresoever.
7. An injunction to restrain the Defendants their servants collaborators and/or agents from holding any meeting of the Conference of the African Church either as planned by them for 28th August, 1987, or for any other date at all pending the determination of the action herein.
8. An order that pending the determination of the action herein the 2nd Plaintiff as Vice Lay President of the African Church be at liberty to function, act as and perform the office of the Lay President of the African Church.
9. N250,000.00 general damages against the Defendants jointly and severally for falsely parading themselves as Acting Lay President and General Treasurer respectively, whereby the 1st and 2nd Defendants successfully blocked or froze the Account of the African Church at First Bank at Odunlami Street, Lagos, and thus prevented the African Church from paying the wages and emoluments of their staff and pensioners, namely the Primate, retired Bishops and other Clergy and workers of the African Church generally and also for inhibiting 2nd plaintiff from functioning as a duly and unanimously elected Vice Lay president of African Church. ”

The defendants, who are appellants herein, entered a conditional appearance after the commencement of the action and subsequently filed a motion dated 30th November, 1987 praying for the following reliefs:-

“(a) An order pursuant to Order 22 of the High Court of Lagos (civil Procedure) Rules and Order18, Rule 19 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1965, striking out the plaintiffs endorsement on the writ of summons, and the statement of claim, and dismissing the action on the ground that it is frivolous, vexatious and it discloses no reasonable cause of action.

(b) For such further and/or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in all the circumstances.”

The ground for the application was that

“Even if all the averments in the Statement of Claims are proved, they do not support the Claim.”

After hearing submissions of counsel on the motion, the learned trial judge, on the 15th April, 1986 delivered his ruling, striking out the plaintiffs’ claims, holding, in the concluding part of the ruling as follows:-

“Whatever may be the convention the plaintiffs have not established in their Amended Statement of Claim that the convention had created a contract among the members of the African Church and that it was a term of the contract that the convention can only be changed or altered by a motion. There is also no authority for the relief sought that the convention can only be changed or altered by a motion, not by conduct, acts or omissions. Conventions are by their nature susceptible to change even by time.

The declaration of estoppel by the 1st defendant’s letter of 12th August, 1986 is also not justiciable. The Plaintiffs did not plead the consideration they had given for the 1st defendant’s letter which prevented him from changing his mind. It may well be unconscionable, immoral or even unchristianly of the 1st defendant to change his mind to contest the office of the Lay President in 1987, having decided in 1986 in the names of Christ not to do so but the Court is not concerned with morality or christianity but under Sec. 6(6) (b) 1979 Constitution, with the adjudicating for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of persons. If nine out of the eleven divisions of the African Church ganged up to change the convention, that shows an intention to change or alter the convention.

If the convention is not justiciable in a Court of law, the Court cannot restrain the defendants from changing it. The Plaintiffs’ action based on convention, estoppel by letter morality and Christianity is not enforceable in Court of law. The Plaintiffs’ action therefore discloses (sic) no reasonable cause of action.”

He thereafter advised the parties “to go back to the African Church to settle their disputes amicably in the name of Jesus Christ.”

Being dissatisfied with the Ruling of the learned trial judge, the plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal, Lagos judicial Division, which Court, as previously staled, allowed the appeal on 5th day of June, 1990 and set aside the ruling of the trial Court. This appeal is from that decision. With the Notice of Appeal, the appellants have filed three grounds of appeal and arising from those grounds of appeal, the following issues were formulated for determination:-

“(i) Whether the issue of locus standi could be raised for determination at the time and in the manner in which the Defendant did at the trial court.

(ii) Whether the Plaintiffs’ locus standi is an issue relevant to the determination of a Motion under Order 22 of the Lagos High Court Rules.

(iii) Whether the plaintiffs’ pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action.”

Now, the provisions of Order 22 of the High Court of Lagos (Civil procedure) Rules, 1972 arc as follows:-

“Proceedings [n Lieu of Demurrer

1. No demurrer shall be allowed.
2. Any party shall be entitled to raise by his pleading any point of law and, unless the Court or a judge in Chambers otherwise orders, any point so raised shall be disposed of by the judge who tries the cause at or after the trial.
3. If, in the opinion of the Court or a judge in Chambers, the decision of such point of law substantially disposes of the whole action, or of any distinct cause of action, ground of defence, set-off, counterclaim. or reply therein, the Court or Judge may thereupon dismiss the action or make such other order therein as may be just.
4. The Court or a judge in Chambers may order any pleading to be struck out, on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or answer, and in any such case or in case of the action of defence being shown by the pleadings to be frivolous or vexatious, the Court or a judge in Chambers may order the action to be stayed or dismissed, or judgment to be entered accordingly, as may be just.
5. No action or proceeding shall be open to objection, on the ground that a merely declaratory judgment or order is sought thereby, and the Court may make binding declarations of right whether any consequential reliet is or could be claimed, or not.”

It is settled law that locus standi is the legal capacity to institute an action in a Court of law- Thomas v. Olufosoye (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.18) 669, and if a person had no legal standing to institute an action, the Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain his claims – See Madukolu v. Nkemdi!im (1962) 1 All N.L.R. 587 at 595, (1962) 2 SCNLR 341. The main question raised in issues I and 2 for determination in this appeal is whether the issue of locus standi, which is admittedly an issue of law, can properly be raised under Ord.22, Rule 4 of the High Court of Lagos (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1972 (supra). I think the Court of Appeal, in its judgment fully dealt with matter and, in my view, correctly construed the provisions ofthe Rules when in its judgment is stated as follows:-

“The question here is whether locus standi can be raised in a motion under Order 22 Rule 4, as appears to have been done in this case. Although the Appellant was said to have been heard in reply, was the issue of locus standi really before the trial judge on a motion under Order 22 Rule4 I do not think so. Order 22 had five limbs.

The first abolished demurrer, the second and third provide for points of law to be raised by pleadings and disposed of by the judge, if successful. Under Rules 2 and 3 therefore, an issue of locus standi or jurisdiction, may be so raised and disposed of. They cannot however, be so raised under Rules 4, which deals with the striking out of a claim and pleadings where no reasonable cause of action or answer is disclosed. or where the action is shown to be frivolous or vexatious. In other words, the issue of locus standi being a point of law to be disposed of before trial, was not before the trial judge.”

As to whether the plaintiffs’ pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action, having carefully perused their Amended Statement of Claim, I have no doubt at all that they did. It should however be pointed out that when considering the issues of disclosure of a cause of action, it is irrelevant to consider the weakness of the plaintiffs’ claims as the learned trial judge would appear to have done in this case.

What is important is to examine the averments in the pleadings and see if they disclose some cause of action or raise some questions fit to be decided by a judge. See Thomas v. Olufosoye (supra). I am in complete agreement with the Court of Appeal that the learned trial judge was in error when he held that the plaintiffs’ claim disclosed no cause of action. I see no substance in this appeal. The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal setting aside the Ruling of Adeyinka, J., delivered on 15th April, 1986 is hereby affirmed with N1000.00 costs awarded to the respondents.

SC.287/1990