LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Fundamental Rights Enforcement — Jurisdictional Competence — Test for Determining Proper Procedure
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The proper approach is to examine the reliefs sought, the grounds for such reliefs, and the facts relied upon; if they disclose that breach of fundamental right is the main plank, redress may be sought under the Fundamental Rights Rules; but if the breach is incidental or ancillary, it is incompetent.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in Sea Trucks Nigeria Ltd v. Anigboro (2001) NLC-1201995(SC) at p. 17; Paras C–D.
"The proper approach is to examine the reliefs sought by the applicant, the grounds for such reliefs and the facts relied upon. If they disclose that breach of fundamental right is the main plank, redress may be sought through the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979. But where the alleged breach of fundamental right is incidental or ancillary to the main complaint, it is incompetent to proceed under the rules."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
To determine whether fundamental rights procedure is proper, the court examines three things: the reliefs sought, the grounds for those reliefs, and the facts relied upon. If the breach of fundamental right is the main plank of the case—the central grievance—the procedure is available. If the breach is merely incidental or ancillary to another substantive claim, the procedure is incompetent. The test prevents litigants from characterising ordinary civil claims as fundamental rights violations to gain procedural advantages. The court looks at the substance, not the form. The principal claim determines the proper procedure. The rule ensures that fundamental rights procedure is reserved for genuine rights enforcement cases.
