LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Locus Standi – Constitutional Provision – Section 6(6)(b) of the 1979 Constitution – Whether Prescribes Standing
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
From the extracts of their Lordship's judgments one can clearly see that there was no majority of the Court in favour of Bello JSC's interpretation of Section 6 subsection (6)(b) of the Constitution. It will, therefore, not be correct to say that this Court decided in the Adesanya's case that the subsection prescribes the locus standi of a person wanting to invoke the judicial powers of the court. They all seem to agree however, that the sub-section prescribes the extent of the judicial powers of the courts. The Adesanya's case which is in the realm of public law, seems to lay it down that to invoke the judicial power of the court, a litigant must show sufficient interest or threat of injury he will suffer.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in Owodunni v. Registered Trustees of Celestial Church of Christ (2000) NLC-1261995(SC) at p. 17; Paras C–E.
"From the extracts of their Lordship's judgments one can clearly see that there was no majority of the Court in favour of Bello JSC's interpretation of Section 6 subsection (6)(b) of the Constitution. It will, therefore, not be correct to say that this Court decided in the Adesanya's case that the subsection prescribes the locus standi of a person wanting to invoke the judicial powers of the court. They all seem to agree however, that the sub-section prescribes the extent of the judicial powers of the courts. The Adesanya's case which is in the realm of public law, seems to lay it down that to invoke the judicial power of the court, a litigant must show sufficient interest or threat of injury he will suffer."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Section 6(6)(b) of the 1979 Constitution prescribes the extent of judicial power, not a statutory standing test. While Adesanya’s case established that litigants must show sufficient interest or threatened injury to invoke judicial power, this was not a majority interpretation that the subsection itself defines standing. The case remains authority in public law for the interest/injury test. Courts should not treat Section 6(6)(b) as a rigid standing code but apply the common law test of sufficient interest derived from the circumstances of each case.