Authorities have also defined cause of action as a factual situation which a Plaintiff relies upon to support his claim, recognized by law as giving rise to a substantive right capable of being enforced against a Defendant. See Agbanelo v. Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd (2002) 4 SC (Pt. 7) 243; Adesokan v. Adegoloru (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt. 493) 61; Emiator v. Nigerian Army (1999) 12 NWLR (Pt. 631) 362; Akande v. Adisa (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 236) 413.
– Oseji, JCA. SIFAX v. MIGFO (2015)
SHARE ON
The Supreme Court in the case of A.G. OF ADAMAWA STATE & ORS v. A.G. OF THE FEDERATION (2014) LPELR-23221(SC) (P. 28, paras. C-F) Per PETER-ODILI, J.S.C, defined cause of action thus: ”The definition that has been followed on cause of action is that cause of action is the fact or facts which establish or give rise to a right of action. It is the factual situation which gives a person a right to judicial relief. Thus, when an action is said to be statute-barred, what it connotes is that the plaintiffs may have an actionable cause of action, but their recourse to judicial remedy is voided. No proceedings could be brought to prosecute the action. Muhammed v Military Administration, Plateau State (2001) 16 NWLR (Pt.740) 510 at 544 – 545; Egbe v Adefarasin (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 3) 1; Yusuf v C.C.B. Ltd (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt.359) 676.”
As to what constitutes a “Dispute”, Uwais, CJN, (Rtd) in his Ruling in the case of Attorney-General of the Federation v Attorney-General of Abia State & 35 others (supra), stated as follows:- “What constitutes a dispute under section 212 subsection (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979, which has exactly the same provisions as section 232 subsection (1) in question, had been considered by this Court in the cases of Attorney-General of Bendel State v Attorney-General of the Federation & 22 others (1981) 10 SC 1 and Attorney-General of the Federation v Attorney-General of Imo State & 2 others (1983) 4 NCLR 178. In Attorney-General of Bendel State’s case , Bello, JSC, (as he then was), stated as follows on pages 48 to 49 thereof:- ‘To invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court there must be a dispute as so qualified between the Federation and a State or between States. The issue of jurisdiction was contested on three grounds, firstly, that there is no dispute which affected the interest of the Federation and Bendel State between the plaintiff (Bendel State) and the Federation. Secondly, . . . I think the first point may be easily disposed of from the definition of the word “dispute”. The Oxford Universal Dictionary defines it as ‘the act of arguing against, controversy, debate, contention as to rights, claims and the like or on a matter of opinion . . .’
Ogbuagu JSC also held as follows on page 320 thereof:- “It is well established principle of the interpretation of constitution that the words of a constitution are not to be read with stultifying narrowness – United States v Classic 313 U.S 299 and Nafiu Rabiu v The State (1980) 8-11 SC 130. The word ‘dispute’ in section 212(1) should therefore be given such meaning that will effectuate rather than defeat the purpose of that section of the Constitution. Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary (2ed), provides that ‘dispute’ is synonymous with controversy, quarrel, argument, disagreement and contention”. (Relied on in AG Kano State v AG Federation (2007) – SC 26/2006)
In determining the existence or non-existence of a cause of action in a suit, the Court is to consider the Writ of Summons and the statement of claim. And what distinguishes a claim which discloses cause of action from the one that does not is that where a statement of claim discloses some reasonable cause of action on the facts alleged in it, it is where the claim has some chances of success and once it raises some issues of law or fact calling for determination by the Court. Put differently, it is irrelevant to consider the weakness of the plaintiff’s claim but whether it raise some questions fit to be decided by a Court. And for a statement of claim to be said to disclose no cause of action it must be such as nobody can understand what claim he is required to meet.
– Shuaibu JCA. Diamond Bank v. Mocok (2019)
It must be borne in mind, the settled principle that the hearing and determination of any cause or matter must be confined to the cause of action and the issues raised on the pleadings.
– Ejinwunmi JSC. Awoniyi v. AMORC (2000)
Two types of Estoppel by record are:- (a) Cause of Action Estoppel – which precludes a party to an action or his agents and privies from disputing as against the other party in any subsequent proceedings, matters which had been adjudicated upon previously by a court of competent jurisdiction between him and his adversary and involving same issue. (b) Issue Estoppel which precludes a party his servant, agent or privy from re-opening or relitigating as against the other party or his agents and privies in any subsequent proceedings, issues which were distinctly raised in a cause of action and appropriately resolved or determined in any suit between the parties in a court of competent jurisdiction.
– ADEKEYE, JCA. NOGA v. NICON (2007)
What then is a “cause of action ? Admittedly, the term “cause of action” defies a single precise definition. However, it has been variously defined or described as a bundle or aggregate of facts which the law recognizes as giving a Plaintiff a right to claim a relief or remedy against a defendant. It is thus, a factual situation which gives a person a right to judicial remedy. It is the operative fact or factual situation which gives rise to a right of action which itself is a remedial right EGBE Vs. ADEFARASIN (1987) 1 SC at 34 36. Cause of action may be defined as; (i) a cause of complaint; (ii) a civil right or obligation by a Court of Law; (iii) a dispute in respect of which a Court of Law is entitled to invoke its judicial powers to determine; (iv) consequent damages; See A. G. F. VS ABUBAKAR (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt1047) 1 SC MOBIL OIL PLC VS DENR (2004) 1 NWLR (Pt 853) 142. Thus, the words “cause of action” comprises every fact which would be necessary for the Plaintiff to prove, if traversed to support his right to the Judgment of the Court READ VS. BROWN (1882) 22 4 BD. it is all those things necessary to give a right of action whether they are to be done by the Plaintiff or a 3rd party. per Agbaje JSC in E. O. Amodu vs. Dr J, O, Amode & 4 Ors ( 1 990) 9 SCNJ 1, at 9 . It has also been defined simply as “a factual situation” the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the Court a remedy against another THOMAS vs OLUFOSOYE (1996) 1 NWLR (pt 18) 6691 per Obaseki JSC.
— A.A. Wambai, JCA. Skye Bank v. Haruna & Ors. (CA/K/264/2011, 17th December, 2014)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry