Dismissal

A dismissal of action in limine is the most punitive relief that a Court can grant a defendant against the plaintiff. Because of its Punitive nature, Courts of law are reluctant in granting such a request for the mere asking. There must be legal basis for the request and corresponding legal basis for granting it. See Inakoju v Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 427 at 574.

In determining whether a suit discloses a reasonable cause of action and whether the plaintiff has the locus standi to institute an action, the Court considers only the originating processes filed by the plaintiff. In the case of a suit commenced by writ of summons, the Court will consider the facts as stated in the statement of claim. Where the suit is commenced by way of originating summons or originating motion, the Court would consider the averments in the supporting affidavit. Whether or not the plaintiffs case would succeed is a different consideration altogether and not relevant at the stage of determining whether the facts disclose a reasonable cause of action or whether the plaintiff has the locus or standing to sue. Once the particulars of claim disclose some cause of action or some question fit to be decided by a judge or jury, the mere fact that the case is weak or unlikely to succeed is not a ground for striking out the suit. See: Thomas Vs Olufosoye (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 669;Henry Stephens Eng. Ltd. Vs S.A. Yakubu (Nig.) Ltd. (2009) LPELR-1363 (SC) @ 17 A -C; Dada Vs Ogunsanya(1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 232) 754.

The law is trite that whenever issue of reasonable cause of action is raised, it is the statement of claim or, as in this case the averments in the affidavit in support of an Originating Summons or Motion that ought to be considered. So long as the statement of claim or the affidavit in support of the Originating Motion discloses some cause of action, or raises some question which can be decided by a Judge, there is reasonable cause of action. The mere fact that the case is weak, and not likely to succeed, is no ground for striking it out or dismissing it. SeeYusuf & Ors v Akindipe & Ors (2000) 8 NWLR (pt. 669) 376.