Ogheneovo & Anor V. Governor Of Delta State & Anor (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C. 

The present appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Benin Judicial Division, delivered on December 13th, 2015 in appeal No. CA/B/01/2015. By the judgment in question, the Court below dismissed the Appellant’s appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial High Court of Delta State holden at Effurun.

BACKGROUND FACTS

The instant appeal has its genesis traced to the year 2013. That’s when the Delta State House of Assembly in the exercise of its constitutional powers passed into law a Bill popularly known as THE STATE ANTI-KIDNAPPING AND ANTI-TERRORISM BILL. However, the 1st Respondent as the Governor of the State deemed it expedient to decline to assent to the Bill, which ultimately had to be returned to the House of Assembly. Not unexpectedly, by a majority of constitutionally required votes, the House passed the Bill into law.

​Not unnaturally, the passing of the said bill into law had generated so much controversy, thereby warranting the Appellants herein to institute an action vide an originating summons on 15/11/2013 in the trial Court. By the said originating summons thereof, the Appellants sought against the Respondents the following declaratory reliefs:

1. A Declaration that Sections 11 (1) and 16(3) of the Delta State Anti-Kidnapping and Anti-Terrorism Law, 2013 are in conflict with the provisions of Sections 35, 36 and 42 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended and therefore null and void.
2. AN ORDER striking out Section 11(1) and 16(3) of the Delta State Anti-Kidnapping and Anti-Terrorism Law, 2013 on the ground of inconsistency with Section 35, 36 and 42 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended.

The originating summons was supported by an 18 paragraphed Affidavit deposed to personally by the 1st Appellant, a verifying Affidavit and exhibits A&B attached thereto, respectively.

The matter proceeded to trial, at the end of which, the trial Court delivered judgment on 08/10/2014 to the conclusive effect:

The applicants are not a civil Liberties organization with a track record of diligently prosecuting cases with a clear public interest in such matters that might sway this Court to regard them as having sufficient interest… This brings me to conclude that the applicants have not demonstrated that they satisfy S.46 of the Constitution aforesaid. An applicant who does not have sufficient legal interest in a cause, or ventures to institute an action which has no bearing on him, cannot competently seek or be entitled to redress in a Court of law… There must be a nexus between the applicant and the disclosed cause of action concerning his right or obligation…

I must praise the action of the applicants in this case who are legal practitioners in this state and have brought this action to beam some light on the law in question. That is one of the roles legal practitioners should play; as watchdogs for society. But the Courts must follow the Constitution and precedence.

The application is struck out.

By the notice of appeal thereof, dated 27/10/2014, the Appellants appealed to the Court below, thereby urging upon the Court to set aside the judgment of the trial Court and determine the originating summons on merits, in view of the failure of the trial Court to do so.

​On 13/12/2016, consequent upon the hearing of the appeal, the Court below delivered the vexed judgment to the conclusive effect:

Consequent upon the foregoing, I am of the view that where a Court holds that a plaintiff has no locus standi to maintain an action, it implies that the Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as locus standi is a forerunner to jurisdiction. And where it is proved that a plaintiff like the Appellant in this case the Court will decline jurisdiction. A Court cannot manufacture locus standi: for a party or arrogate jurisdiction to itself. Once a Court lacks jurisdiction to determine a matter, the proper order to make is to strike out the case…

With the resolution of the two issues for determination in this appeal against the Appellants, it is my view that this appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed.