STANBIC IBTC BANK PLC V. L.G.C. LTD. (2025) 13 NWLR (PT. 2002) 361
ON MEANING OF LOCUS STANDI
The term locus standi means the legal capacity of a party to maintain or institute an action in a court of competent jurisdiction or a court of law or a tribunal.
A person is held to have locus standi when he is capable to adequately demonstrate to the court that his enshrined civil rights and obligations have been or are likely to be infringed.
This is guaranteed by section 6(6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). In other words, an aggrieved party must disclose a satisfactory legal interest in the subject-matter of an action in court. [President, F.R.N. v. Fawehinmi (2025) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1988) 1; Council of Legal Education v. Dange (2024) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1955) 307 referred to.]
(Pp. 391–392, paras. F–A)
STANBIC IBTC BANK PLC V. L.G.C. LTD. (2025) 13 NWLR (PT. 2002) 361
ON EFFECT ON JURISDICTION OF COURT WHERE PLAINTIFF LACKS LOCUS STANDI
The consequential effect of the failure to have or possess locus standi is that it renders the suit incompetent and robs the court of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain same.
A party in an action before a court who has no locus standi robs the court of jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate any claim/action therein. Locus standi and jurisdiction are interrelated and intersected such that where a party is dearth of legal capacity in an action before a court, the court by implication becomes bereft of the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate on any issue placed before it.
The only order a court can authoritatively make in the face of lack of locus standi is that of dismissal of the action. Locus standi being an issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage or level of the proceedings in a suit even on appeal at the Court of Appeal by any of the parties without leave of court or by the court itself suo motu.
The issue can be raised after the plaintiff has duly filed his pleadings by a motion and/or in a statement of defence. Locus standi to institute proceedings in a court is not dependent on the success or merits of a case. It is a condition precedent to the determination of a case on the merits.
[Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1310) 137 referred to.] (Pp. 391, para. H; 392, paras. A–F; 394, para. B)
STANBIC IBTC BANK PLC V. L.G.C. LTD. (2025) 13 NWLR (PT. 2002) 361
ON WHAT PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW TO ESTABLISH LOCUS STANDI
A party instituting an action in court must have the legal capacity to invoke the judicial powers of the court as enshrined in section 6(6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). Such party must show and prove on the merit that he or she has sufficient interest in a subject-matter and establish by reliable evidence that he has suffered a legal injury as a consequence of the defendant’s act, conduct or omission.
The duty upon the plaintiff is to establish by cogent facts the nexus between his action and the defendant’s conduct and the legal infraction suffered in the circumstances of the defendant’s conduct.
The tests for determining the locus standi of a plaintiff are:
the action must be justiciable;
there must be a dispute between the parties.
A person has locus standi to sue in an action if he is able to show to the satisfaction of the court that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed. The court must look through the claim of the plaintiff to see if he has sufficient interest in the subject-matter which is the nucleus of the litigation.
[A.-G., Fed. v. A.-G., Lagos State (2017) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1566) 20; Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1310) 137; B.B. Apugo & Sons Ltd. v. O.H.M.B. (2016) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1529) 206; Osagie v. P.D.P. (2023) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1877) 355 referred to.] (Pp. 393–394, paras. D–D)
Per ADAH, J.S.C. at page 394, paras. D–G:
“In the instant case, the 2nd to 4th respondents showed clearly in their claim before the trial court that they did not divest themselves of the 75,000,000 shares they got.
That they only gave the shares to the 1st respondent to manage the shares for them.
This position was not in any sense controverted by the appellant in this case.
Since the issue in the claim is about the said shares, there is nothing showing any deficiency in the capacity of the 2nd to 4th respondents to sue over the shares.
Since the two lower courts had concurrent findings of fact on this, and concluded that the 2nd to 4th respondents did not divest themselves of the shares, they are qualified to sue in this case. It is therefore, logically aligned with the fact that they have legal capacity and standing to sue in this case.”
MOHAMMED V. N.D.I.C. (2024) 14 NWLR (PT. 1957) 67
ON DENOTATION OF LOCUS STANDI AND EFFECT WHERE PLAINTIFF LACKS LOCUS STANDI
Locus standi denotes the legal capacity to institute or commence an action in a competent court of law or tribunal. The term entails the legal capacity of instituting or commencing an action in a competent court of law or tribunal without any inhibition, obstruction, or hindrance from any person or body whatsoever. The issue of locus standi is a condition precedent to the determination of a case on merit. Where a plaintiff has no locus standi to bring a suit, the suit becomes incompetent and the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain it. The only order the court can make in the circumstance is that of dismissal. [Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt.1310) 137 referred to.] (Pp. 98-99, paras. F-B).
MOHAMMED V. N.D.I.C. (2024) 14 NWLR (PT. 1957) 67
ON RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCUS STANDI AND JURISDICTION OF COURT
The concept of locus standi is germane to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction over an action. The implication being that in the absence of the requisite locus standi for the commencement of an action, the court is stripped of the jurisdiction to adjudicate over the action. (P. 99, paras. A-C).
UKEGBU V. N.B.C. (2025) 2 NWLR (PT. 1976) 283
ON NATURE OF LOCUS STANDI
The fundamental aspect or feature of locus standi is that it focuses on the party seeking to get his complaint laid before the court. [Ojukwu v. Ojukwu (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt.1119) 439 referred to.] (P. 319, paras. A-B).
UKEGBU V. N.B.C. (2025) 2 NWLR (PT. 1976) 283
ON WHEN A PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE LOCUS STANDI WHERE HE SEEKS TO ESTABLISH A PRIVATE RIGHT OR SPECIAL DAMAGE UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IN NON-CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION
Where a plaintiff seeks to establish a “private right” or “special damage”, either under the common law or administrative law, in non-constitutional litigation, by way of an application for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus or for a declaratory and injunctive relief, the plaintiff will have locus standi in the matter only if he has a special legal right or alternatively, if he has sufficient or special interest in the performance of the duty sought to been forced, or where his interest is adversely affected. What constitutes a legal right, sufficient or special interest, or interest adversely affected, will, of course, depend on the facts of each case. Whether an interest is worthy of protection is a matter of judicial discretion which may vary according to the remedy asked for. [Adesanya v. The President, F.R.N. (1981) 2 NCLR 358 referred to.] (P. 326, paras. A-D.
MAINSTREET BANK REG. LTD. V. OSHINUGA (2025) 5 NWLR (PT. 1984) 727
ON WHAT PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW TO HAVE LOCUS STANDI
For a person or party to have locus standi to initiate or institute a legal action in a court of law, he must show sufficient interest in the suit and the criterion is whether he would suffer injury or hardship from the facts giving rise to the action. This position primarily aims to prevent busybodies, professional litigants and meddlesome interlopers who have no real and genuine interest in engaging in legal actions from turning the courts into free for all markets and prevent abuse of judicial processes.
MAINSTREET BANK REG. LTD. V. OSHINUGA (2025) 5 NWLR (PT. 1984) 727
ON TESTS FOR DETERMINING LOCUS STANDI TO SUE IN AN ACTION
A person has locus standi to sue in an action if he is able to show to the satisfaction of the court that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed. There are two tests for determining if a person has locus standi. They are:
(a)the action must be justifiable; and
(b)there must be a dispute between the parties.
In applying the tests, a liberal attitude must be adopted. Adesanya v. President of Nigeria (1981) 2 NCLR 358 lays down the rule for locus standi in civil cases, while Fawehinmi v. Akilu (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt.67) 797 lays down the far more liberal rule for locus standi on criminal cases. To have standi the plaintiff’s statement of claim must disclose sufficient legal interest, and show how such interest arose in the subject matter of the action. [Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd. v. M.V. Dancing Sister (2012) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1289)189 referred to.] (P. 763, paras. D-H).