LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Fundamental Rights Enforcement — Proper Procedure — Claim for Wrongful Dismissal Not Enforceable Under Fundamental Rights Procedure
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where the alleged breach of fundamental right is ancillary or incidental to the main grievance (such as wrongful dismissal), it is incompetent to proceed under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, as enforcement of the right per se cannot resolve the substantive claim.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Karibi-Whyte, JSC, in Sea Trucks Nigeria Ltd v. Anigboro (2001) NLC-1201995(SC) at p. 22; Paras A–B.
"Where the facts relied upon disclose a breach of the fundamental right of the applicant as the basis of the claim, there is here a redress through the enforcement of such rights through the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979. However, where the alleged breach of right is ancillary or incidental to the main grievance or complaint, it is incompetent to proceed under the rules. This is because the right, if any, violated, is not synonymous with the substantive claim which is the subject-matter of the action. Enforcement of the right per se cannot resolve the substantive claim which is in any case different."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Fundamental Rights enforcement procedure is for claims where the breach of fundamental right is the main plank of the action. Where the alleged breach is incidental or ancillary to another substantive claim (e.g., wrongful dismissal), the proper procedure is by writ of summons, not fundamental rights application. The court will not allow litigants to bypass ordinary civil procedure by characterising employment disputes as fundamental rights violations. The principal claim test determines the proper procedure. If the substantive claim cannot be resolved by merely enforcing the fundamental right, the procedure is incompetent. The rule prevents abuse of the fundamental rights procedure.
