STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

ACCRUAL OF RIGHT VS ACCRUAL OF CAUSE OF ACTION

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

As I had earlier stated, there is a difference in accrual of right from accrual of cause of action, even though it is a very thin line of demarcation between them. When a right accrues, it is the duty of the beneficiary of that right to make moves to claim his right. When the move is made without success or a favourable response from the other party, there is nothing more to infer than that that refusal to respond is tantamount to a denial. At this point, the cause of action has accrued and is now enforceable through the instrumentality of a judicial process.

– M. Peter-Odili, JSC. Oko v. Ebonyi State (2021)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

cause of action

CAUSE OF ACTION IS A COMBINATION OF FACTS THAT GIVES RIGHT TO SUE

Cause of action has been defined as the facts or combination of facts which give rise to a right to sue. In the case of: Afolayan v. Ogunrinde (1990)1 NWLR (Pt. 127) p. 369, the Supreme Court per Obaseki, J.S.C., (of blessed memory) held thus: In its simplest terms, I would say that a cause of action means (1) a cause of complaint; (2) a civil right or obligation fit for determination by a Court of law; (3) a dispute in respect of which a Court of law is entitled to invoke its judicial powers to determine. It consists of every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment. Therefore, a cause of action is the bundle or aggregate of facts which law and equity will recognize as giving the plaintiff a substantive right to make the claim for the relief or remedy being sought. Thus, the factual situation on which the plaintiff relies to support his claim must be recognized by law and or equity as giving rise to a substantive right capable of enforcement or being claimed against the defendant. See the cases of: (1) Ogbimi v. Ololo (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 304) p. 128; (2) Bello v. A.-G., of Oyo State (1986) LPELR 764 and (3) Cookey v. Fombo (2005) 15 NWLR (Pt. 947) p. 182.

— O.F. Omoleye JCA. Amaechi V. The Governor of Rivers State & Ors. (CA/PH/342/2015, 8 May 2017)

Was this dictum helpful?

DETERMINE A CAUSE OF ACTION

In OPIA v. INEC & ANOR (2014) LPELR-22185(SC) (P. 20, paras. D-F) Per GALADIMA, J.S.C, held thus: ”A cause of action is determined by reference to the plaintiff’s statement of claim. The immediate materials a Court should look at are the Writ of Summons and averments in the statement of claim.”

Was this dictum helpful?

DEFINITION OF CAUSE OF ACTION

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

NATURE OF A CAUSE OF ACTION

A cause of action is that action which connotes every fact which is material to be proved before a competent Court of law to entitle the plaintiff to succeed or all those things necessary to give a right to relief in law or equity. Thus, it is the factual base or some factual situation, a continuation of which makes the matter in litigation an enforceable or an actionable wrong. Consequently, before a party files a matter in Court, he must possess a cause of action against some person(s) or institution(s). In other words, a plaintiff/claimant must show by his pleadings that he has a cause of action maintaining in a Court of law against the defendant.

– Shuaibu JCA. Diamond Bank v. Mocok (2019)

Was this dictum helpful?

ACCRUAL OF RIGHT VS CAUSE OF ACTION

That accrual of rights is not the same thing as accrual of cause of action or accrual of right of action. The implication is that an unviolated right does not confer on the holder of right, any rights of action because there is no cause of action. In my humble view therefore, right of action and cause of action can be coterminous but accrual of right per se stands alone. It follows that accrual of right under the Constitution entitles the holder of the right to call in aid the judicial powers of the Court under our statutes. It is the infringement of that right which is the cause of action and gives the holder the right of action to activate the judicial powers of the Court under Section 6 (6) (a) & (b) of the CFRN 1999 as amended.

– M. Peter-Odili, JSC. Oko v. Ebonyi State (2021)

Was this dictum helpful?

WHAT IS A CAUSE OF ACTION?

Literally, the noun ’cause’ simply means to bring about or effect. A ’cause of action’ invariably denotes a combination (group) of operative facts thereby resulting in one or more bases for suing. In a sense, a cause of action is a factual situation that entitles one person to a remedy in Court from another person. An action brought outside the prescribed period offends against the provision of the section and does not give rise to a cause of action. A cause of action means the factual situation stated by the Plaintiff, if substantiated, entitle him to a remedy against the defendant.

– Saulawa, JSC. Oko v. Ebonyi State (2021)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.