Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

FAILURE TO OBTAIN LEAVE TO SUE IN REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY WILL NOT VITIATE PROCEEDINGS

Dictum

In Oyewole v. Lasisi (2000) 14 NWLR (Pt. 687) 342, the Court held that where a plaintiff institutes an action in a representative capacity, leave of Court to sue in representative capacity is superfluous. See also Ifekwe v. Madu (2000) 14 NWLR (Pt. 688) 459, where the Court also held that failure to obtain the leave of Court to sue in a representative capacity is not fatal as to vitiate the proceedings. The Court cannot therefore strike out or dismiss an action just because the plaintiff did not obtain the leave of the Court to sue in a representative capacity, as this will defeat the justice of the case. See also Otapo v. Sunmonu (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 58) 587.

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

FOR REPRESENTATIVE INTEREST, THERE MUST BE COMMON INTEREST

Another aspect of the law on representative action is that the persons who are to be represented and the persons representing them must have the same interest. In other words, both must have a common interest and a common grievance. Accordingly, where there is a common interest and a common grievance, a representative action will...

This content is for PAYMENT - 1-DAY and PAYMENT - 1-MONTH members only.
Login Join Now

REPRESENTATIVE ACTION IS A RULE OF CONVENIENCE – HISTORY OF THE PRACTICE

Assuming that I am wrong and the action ought to have been instituted in a representative capacity, what is the position of the law? The rule as to representative actions was derived from the Court of Chancery in England, which required the presence of all parties to an action so as to put an end...

This content is for PAYMENT - 1-DAY and PAYMENT - 1-MONTH members only.
Login Join Now