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!

WHAT IS A “DISPUTE”

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

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)

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?

WHAT IS A CAUSE OF ACTION IN LAW

What then is a cause of action in law? Simply put a cause of action refers to those facts which show or give life to a right of action. It is the factual situation which gives a person a right of action. It is only where the claim of the Claimant does not disclose his sufficient interest in the subject matter that it must be terminated in limine by the Court if so moved by the Defendant. See Thomas v. Olufosoye (1986) 1 NSCC 321. See also AG. Federation v. AG Abia State and Ors (2001) FWLR (Pt. 64) 202 @ p. 264; Ndamzu v. Nemson Fishing Enterprises (2000) FWLR (Pt. 7) 1064 @ p. 1072.

— B.A. Georgewill JCA. Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc V. Longterm Global Capital Limited & Ors. (CA/L/427/2016, 9 Mar 2018)

Was this dictum helpful?

INTEREST IS THE MEASURING ROD FOR A CAUSE OF ACTION – (ECOWAS Court)

ODAFE OSERADA V. ECOWAS COUNCIL OF MINISTERS, ECOWAS PARLIAMENT & ECOWAS COMMISSION, ECW/CCJ/JUD/01/08 @ 27, the Court held that: “Generally, and from a legal standpoint, the necessity for an Applicant to provide justification of interest in a case is attested to by the adage that where there is no interest, there is no action, and also an interest is the measuring rod for an action. In other words, an application is admissible only when the applicant justifies that he brings a case before a Judge for the purposes of protecting an interest or defending an infringement of such. Such an interest must be direct, personal and certain.”

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?

DETERMINING THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A CAUSE OF ACTION

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

CAUSE OF ACTION IS SET OF FACTS WHICH JUSTIFIES PLAINTIFF TO SUE

Para. 21: “A cause of action is a set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue. It must contain a clear and concise statement of the material facts upon which the pleader relies for his claim with sufficient particularity to enable the opposite party to reply thereto. The term “cause of action” was defined in McKenzie v Farmers’ Co-operative Meat Industries Ltd 1922 AD 16 at 23 as “…”every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. It does not comprise every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each 22 fact, but every fact which is necessary to be proved.” See also Mousa Leo Keita (2004-2009) CCJELR pg. 75 See also Afolayan V. Oba Ogunrinde & 3 ORS, (1990), 1 NWLR, (Pt. 127) 369 @ 371. SCNJ 62. Where Karibi-Whyte JSC stated that a cause of action means: ‘a) A cause of complaints; b) A civil right or obligation for the determination by a Court of law; c) A dispute in respect of which a Court of law is entitled to invoke its judicial powers to determine.’”

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

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.