All that I have been saying boils down to the fact that whenever the issue of there being no cause of action is raised, the jurisdiction of the Court is indirectly called to question and it has to be determined first before proceeding further.
AARTI STEEL NIGERIA LIMITED v. ALHAJI SABITU ADISA OTAPO & ORS LGC(18/10/2018)O
It is settled law, that there must be a cause of action before an intending litigant can initiate any legitimate proceedings. A suit is aimed at vindicating some legal right or claim and such legal right can only arise when certain material facts arise. It is only when facts establishing a civil right or obligation and facts establishing infraction or trespass on that right and obligation exist side by side that a cause of action is said to accrue
AARTI STEEL NIGERIA LIMITED v. ALHAJI SABITU ADISA OTAPO & ORS LGC(18/10/2018) M
It is settled law that there must be a cause of action before an intending litigant can initiate any legitimate proceedings.
AARTI STEEL NIGERIA LIMITED v. ALHAJI SABITU ADISA OTAPO & ORS LGC(18/10/2018) K
The cause of action discloses the facts from which it could be ascertained whether there is an infringement or violation of the civil rights or obligations of the Claimant which, if established before the Court, entitles him to the relief or remedy sought: FAWEHINMI v. AKILU & ANOR. (1987) 12 SC 136; (1987) 4 NWLR (pt. 67) 797 (SC); OLORIODE v. OYEBI (1984) 1 SCNLR 390; THOMAS v. OLUFOSOYE (1986) 1 NWLR (pt. 18) 669. PER EJEMBI EKO, J.S.C.
A cause of action has also been defined as: “Every fact which it 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 be proved.” See: S.P.D.C. Nig. Ltd. & Anor. vs X.M. Fed. Ltd and Anor. (2006) LPELR-3047 (SC) 11-14 E-F; (2006) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1004) 189.” See also: Lasisi Fadare & Ors Vs A.G. Oyo State (1982) 1 ALL NLR (Pt. 1) 4 @ 41: Rinco Construction Co. Ltd. Vs VeePee Industries Ltd. & Anor. (2005) LPELR-2949 (SC) @ 14 E-G.
PER KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C
It is therefore settled, that the statement of claim, and in our case, the affidavit evidence filed in support of the originating process, determines the cause of action between the parties. See Owuru & Anor vs. Adigwu (2017) LPELR – 42763 (SC). In Ibor vs. Usani & Ors (2015) LPELR – 24670 (CA), this Court per Otisi JCA, relying on AG of the Federation vs.
AG Abia State & Ors (2001) 11NWLR (pt. 725) 689, held the view that it is sufficient for a Court to hold that a cause of action is reasonable once the statement of claim in a case discloses some cause of action or some questions fit to be decided by a judge notwithstanding that the case is weak or not likely to succeed. Eko JSC, in the recent case of CIL.R & A.M. Ltd vs.
Ekiti State Government (2020) 12 NWLR (pt. 1738) 203 AT 247 shed more light on the issue having held that: “For so long as the statement of claim discloses the cause the plaintiff has to complain to the Court against the defendant for violation, infraction or imposition of undue burden on his legal rights or obligations, or raises some questions fit to be decided by the Court or the judge: a reasonable cause is disclosed thereby: Yusuf & Ors vs. Akindipe & Ors (2000)8 NWLR (pt. 669) 376 (SC).
In my view, a reasonable cause of action is disclosed once the statement of claim sets out the plaintiffs legal rights qua the defendants obligations towards him, and goes further to set out the facts constituting the infraction of the plaintiffs legal rights or failure of the defendant to fulfill his obligations towards the plaintiff. See Rinco Construction Co. Ltd. v Veepee Ind. Ltd. & Anor (2005) 9NWLR (Pt. 929)85.
Once the statement of claim discloses a reasonable chance that the plaintiff will succeed, if not traversed, on his allegations as pleaded; a reasonable cause of action will be said to have been disclosed. That is the substance in the English decision in Drummond-Jacokson v. British Medical Association (1970) 1 WLR 688; (1970) 1 ALL E.R 1094 (C.A) cited with approval in Thomas & Ors v. Olufosoye (supra). It is not material at this stage whether the case of the plaintiff is strong or weak.
The only thing important at this stage is whether the Court can decipher from the statement of claim if there is a prima facie triable case or issue or there is a reasonable chance of success if no defense were offered.” See also Rinco Construction Co vs. Veepee Ind. Ltd (supra) and Iliyasu vs. Rijau (2019) 16 NWLR (pt. 1697) 1 AT 22-23. PER BARKA, J.C.A.
In NWANKWO V. NWANKWO (2017) LPELR 42832 (CA) it was held that the law is that where the injury complained of is a continuing one, time does not begin to run for the purpose of application of Limitation Law, until the cessation of the event.
In paragraph 6 of the Statement of claim, filed on the 22nd of February, 2010, (pages 8–10 of the Record of Appeal), the Plaintiff had averred thus: Paragraph 6 – “Immediately after drilling the oil location the defendant complied with safety standards and terms of agreement thereafter neglected or resiled from and left the oil location unattended to which situation has lasted about ten years”. The implication of these facts is that as at the time of the suit, the subject matter of this appeal was instituted, the nuisance was continuing.
From the facts in the Statement of Defence, there is no specific denial of the facts stated in paragraph 6 of the Statement of Claim. The facts therein are therefore deemed admitted by the Respondent. Admittedly, Legal Principle are not always inflexible. Sometimes they admit to certain exceptions, thus, where there has been a continuance of the damage, a fresh cause of action arises from time to time as often as damages is caused. AREMO II V. ADEKANYE (2004) ALL FWLR (Part 2113) Page 2132. PER PEMU, J..CA.
The law is settled that cause of action refers to the facts or combination of facts which a plaintiff must adduce to be entitled to any relief, the action itself is the medium through which the plaintiff litigates his bundle of facts. In other words, a plaintiff’s right of action eventuates from the existence of a cause of action. SIFAX (NIG) LTD V MIGFO (NIG) LTD (2018) 9 NWLR (prt.1623) 138. The law is equally settled that the accrual of a cause of action is the event whereby a cause of action becomes complete so that the aggrieved party can begin to maintain his action.
Thus, time begins to run when the cause of action crystallizes or becomes complete. The right of action accrues when the person that sues becomes aware of the wrong done to him. See MULIMA V USMAN (2014) 16 NWLR (prt.1432) 160, and UBN PLC V. UMEODUAGU (2004) 13 NWLR (prt.890) 352. PER SHUAIBU, J.C.A.
The law is settled that it is the cause of action as endorsed on the originating process that determines the proper parties that should be before the Court. See AG FEDERATION V. AG OF ABIA STATE & ORS (2001) LPELR-631(SC) AT 95 (B-C), BAKARE & ORS V. AJOSE-ADEOGUN & ORS (2014) LPELR-25024(SC) AT 47 (A-B), (2014) ALL FWLR (PT.737) 611. It is fundamental to adjudicatory competence for a Court to first examine the basis of dispute, that is, what led to instituting the suit which is otherwise called ‘Cause of Action’. See NWORIKA V, ONONEZE & ORS (2019) LPELR-46521(SC) AT 15-20(B-E).
PER BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.
The law is settled that a cause of action arises as soon as the combination of facts giving the right to complain happens. In other words, a cause of action is said to have accrued when the entire factual situations which give a person the right to a judicial relief are present or have happened. That is, when all that is necessary to make the matter in litigation an enforceable right or an actionable wrong have occurred. See ZUBAIR V. KOLAWOLE (2019) LPELR-46928 (SC) AT 19(D-F), MAIGARI V. MALLE & ORS. (2019) LPELR-49374(SC) AT 15-22 (F-B).
It is the accrual of the cause of action that confers on the appellant the fight to institute an action to enforce the cause of action or right to a judicial relief. See HASSAN V. ALIYU & ORS. (2010) LPELR-1357(SC) AT 24- 25 (A-E). In order to determine the cause of action, when it accrued and when the action is filed, the Court will look at the claim of the plaintiff and the facts pleaded in the statement of claim . ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.
It is now indeed settled law that a cause of action is the entire factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from Court, a remedy against another person. It is this factual scenario that forms the basis of invoking the jurisdiction of Court in a suit. PER MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.
The phrase ‘cause of action’ has been variously defined in judicial decisions as the fact or combination of facts that gives rise to a right to sue, which consists of the wrongful act of the defendant which gives the plaintiff the right to complain and the damage consequent due to the wrongful act.
See EGBUE v ARAKA supra at 613, ECOBANK (NIG) PLC v GATEWAY HOTELS LTD [1999] 11 NWLR (PT 627) 397 at 418, EGBE v ADEFARASIN [1987] 1 NWLR (PT 47) 1 at 20, AFOLAYAN v OGUNRINDE [1990] 1 NWLR (PT 127) 369 at 373 and SAVAGE v UWECHIA (1972) 1 All NLR (PT 1) 251 at 257, (1972) 3 SC 214 at 221 to mention but a few. It is the factual basis or some factual situations a combination of which makes the matter in litigation an enforceable right or an actionable wrong.
See IBRAHIM v OSIM [1988] 1 NSCC 1184 at 1194, TUKUR v GOVT OF GONGOLA STATE [1989] 4 NWLR (PT. 117) 517 at 581 and EMIATOR v NIGERIAN ARMY [1999] 12 NWLR (PT 631) 262 at 369-370. Accrual of cause of action is the event whereby a cause of action becomes complete so that the aggrieved party can commence and maintain his action: OKECHUKWU ADIMORA v NNANYELUGO AJUFO & ORS [1988] 3 NWLR (PT. 80) 1.
A cause of action is time barred if legal proceedings can no longer be validly brought or maintained because the period laid down by applicable limitation law has lapsed. A claimant’s cause of action to seek redress for wrong allegedly suffered as a result of the defendant’s action is to be distinguished from a right of action, which is a remedial right: the warrant to enforce presently a cause of action. A statute of limitation however removes the right of action and leaves a claimant with a barren and empty cause of action which he cannot enforce. See EGBE v ADEFARASIN supra.
PER AFFEN, J.C.A.
Time begins to run when the cause of action accrues [see FADARE v AG, OYO supra]; but computation of time in a statute of limitation “may, at times, be tricky as it involves both the interpretation of the relevant statute and the construction of the document or documents that gave rise to the cause of action”. See OMOTAYO v NIGERIAN RAILWAY CORPORATION [1992] 7 NWLR (PT. 254) 471 at 480 (CA). From the authorities, it would seem that the yardstick for ascertaining the date of accrual of cause/right of action when considering an objection based on a plea of statute bar is threefold.
First, the general rule is that the Court is enjoined to look only at the writ of summons and statement of claim [or originating summons and supporting affidavit] to exhume the cause of action and when it arose, and placing it side by side with the date the action was commenced, which are the essential requirements for determining whether a suit falls within or without the applicable limitation period.
See MBONU v NIGERIAN MINING CORPORATION [2006] 13 NWLR (PT 998) 659, ADIGUN v AYINDE [1993] 8 NWLR (PT 313) 516, ELEBANJO v DAWODU supra, CORPORATE AFFAIRS COMMISSION v GOVERNING COUNCIL OF INDUSTRIAL TRAINING FUND [2015] 4 NWLR (PT 1439) 114 at 131, EREGBOWA & ORS v OBANOR & ORS (2010) LPELR-8964, ADEKOYA v FEDERAL HOUSING AUTHORITY [2008] 11 NWLR (PT 1099) 539 and OMOMEJI v KOLAWOLE [2008] 14 NWLR (PT 1106) 180. Second, where the cause of action cannot be properly located within the confines of the originating processes, recourse can be had to the statement of defence [or counter affidavit].
This is however subject to the qualification that the date of accrual of cause of action pleaded in the statement of defence is admitted by the claimant in a reply. In different words, the date pleaded by the claimant rather than the date pleaded in the statement of defence must be relied upon unless the latter is admitted by the claimant in his reply. See ADEYEMI v OPEYORI (1976) 9-10 SC 31, AREMO II v ADEKANYE [2004] 13 NWLR (PT. 891) 572, KASANDUBU & ANOR v ULTIMATE PETROLEUM LTD [2008] 7 NWLR (PT. 1086) 274 at 297 and IBRAHIM & ORS v YUSUF (2016) LPELR-40259(CA) 1 at 9-11.
Third, where the matter proceeds to trial and the evidence adduced indicates the date of accrual of the cause of action. Here, a Court is entitled to take cognisance of that date and apply the applicable limitation law. See CHIMZOBAM v PDP & ORS (2019) LPELR-48674 (CA) 1 at 14-16.
Generally, a cause of action accrues on the date on which the incident giving rise to the cause of action occurs: EBOIGBE v NNPC supra; it arises at the time or date when a breach or any act that would warrant the person who is adversely affected by the act of another to take action in Court: WOHEREM v EMEREUWA [2000] 3 NWLR (PT. 650) 529 at 538. But no prescription runs against a person who was hindered in bringing a Court action: ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTOR OF ESTATE OF ABACHA v EKE-SPIFF & ORS (2009) LPELR-3152(SC) 1 at 44-45 –per Aderemi JSC. PER AFFEN, J.C.A.
Literally, the noun ’cause’ simply means to bring about or effect. A ’cause of action’ invariably denotes a combination (group) of operative facts thereby resulting in one or more bases for suing. In a sense, a cause of action is a factual situation that entitles one person to a remedy in Court from another person. Jurists all over the common law world had found it difficult, if not impossible, to accord a proper definition to the most perplexing term – ’cause of action’. Cherishingly however, Edwin Bryant, over a century ago offered some respite.
According to the 19th century erudite jurist, a cause of action: [M]ay be defined generally to be a situation or state of facts thereby entitles a party to maintain an action in a judicial tribunal.
This state of facts may be - (a) a primary right of the plaintiff actually violated by the defendant; or (b) the threatened violation of such right, which violation the plaintiff is entitled to restrain or prevent, as in the case of actions or suits for injunction; or (c) it may be that there are doubts as to some apparent adverse right or claim which the plaintiff is entitled to have cleared up, that he may safely perform his duty, or enjoy his property. See Edwin E.
Bryant: THE LAW OF PLEADINGS UNDER THE CODES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (1899) 2nd edition @ 170; BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, I edition (2019) @ 275. Undoubtedly, it was this master piece definition of ’cause of action’, as enunciated by Edwin Bryant over a century ago, that was adopted by renown jurists all over the common law world. See LAGOS STATE BULK PURCHASE CORPORATION VS PURIFICATION TECHNIQUES NIGERIA LTD (2012) 521 NSCQR 274 @ 292; YARE VS NATIONAL SALARIES WAGES AND INCOME COMMISSION (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1367) 173 @ 186; et al. PER SAULAWA, J.C.A.