IF PLAINTIFF RIGHT IS AFFECTED THERE IS LOCUS STANDI

ALEX OLADELE ELUFIOYE & ORS VS IBRAHIM HALILU & ORS (1993) – SC. 310/1989: “Once the civil rights and obligations of the plaintiffs as individuals are affected, as I hold they are here the courts in exercise of their judicial power set out above can look into such rights and obligations, and for that purpose...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER IN RESPECT OF LOCUS STANDI

The pertinent questions to consider here are: has the Appellant who was the Plaintiff been able to show sufficient nexus between itself and the purported actions of the Respondents? Has the Appellant been able to demonstrate that its civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed? Has the Appellant been...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

PERSON MAY HAVE STANDING TO SUE YET DISABLED

Locus standi which simply means capacity or standing of a claimant to institute an action by more than one person. A person may have the standing to sue, yet have his suit disabled by the procedure he has adopted. — A.B. Mohammed, JCA. ITDRLI v NIMC (2021) – CA/IB/291/2020 Was this dictum helpful? Yes 0...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

WHY LOCUS STANDI WAS EVOLVED

In INEC v. Ogbadibo LGC (2014) 22640(CA) 24-25, F-C, by Ogbuinya, JCA as follows: “From the etymological perspective, the cliche expression, locus standi, traces its roots to Latin Language which means: “place of standing”. In its expounded legal form, locus standi denotes the legal right or capacity of a person to institute an action in...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

RESTRICTIVE RULES ON STANDING ARE INIMICAL TO A HEALTHY JUDICIAL SYSTEM (India)

The Supreme Court of India in Fertilizer Corporation Kamager Union v Union of India (1981) AIR (SC) 344, succinctly captured the modern Jurisprudence on locus standi as follows: “Restrictive rules about standing are in general inimical to a healthy system of growth of administrative law, if a Plaintiff with a good cause is turned away merely because he is not sufficiently affected personally, that could mean that some government agency is left free to violate the law. Such a situation would be extremely unhealthy and contrary to the public interest. Litigants are unlikely to spend their time and money unless they have some real interest at stake and in some cases where they wish to sue merely out of public spirit, to discourage them and thwart their good intentions would be most frustrating and completely demoralizing”. [This case was relied on in Abdullahi & Ors. v Government of Federal Republic of Nigeria & Ors. (ECW/CCJ/JUD/18/16) [2016] ECOWASCJ 55]

Was this dictum helpful?

PETITION ON BEHALF OF VICTIMS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH THEIR CONSENT

Para 16: “Where a petition is submitted on behalf of a victim, it must be with their consent, unless submitting it without their consent can be justified. Such justification would be the case of serious or massive violations pursuant to article 58 of the African Charter or a documented and well-reasoned problem for the victims in doing so themselves.”

— Osaghae v Nigeria (2017) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/17

TO CHALLENGE A LAW, AN INDIVIDUAL MUST SHOW THAT HE IS DIRECTLY AFFECTED

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Was this dictum helpful?

IF PLAINTIFF RIGHT IS AFFECTED THERE IS LOCUS STANDI

Membership Required

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER IN RESPECT OF LOCUS STANDI

Membership Required

PERSON MAY HAVE STANDING TO SUE YET DISABLED

Membership Required

WHY LOCUS STANDI WAS EVOLVED

Membership Required

RESTRICTIVE RULES ON STANDING ARE INIMICAL TO A HEALTHY JUDICIAL SYSTEM (India)

Was this dictum helpful?

PETITION ON BEHALF OF VICTIMS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH THEIR CONSENT

Was this dictum helpful?