OGHENEGUEKE & ORS v. IGP & ORS, (2023) LPELR-60233(CA)
Issue
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT(S) –
Position of the law on whether multiple applicants can jointly commence one action for the enforcement of their fundamental rights
Principle
“Herein, the application was brought by 12 Applicants. The exigent question is whether the phrase any person as used in Section 46 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) can be construed to include more than one person or whether it is limited to only one person. Where it is wide enough to include more than one person, then it necessarily follows that joint Applicants can bring an application; but where it cannot be so construed, then an application by the joint Applicants will be incompetent.
By virtue of Section 14 of the Interpretation Act, even though the phrase “any person” denotes singular, in construing enactments, words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular. See: EFCC & ORS V. AFOLABI & ORS (2022) LPELR-(CA); Section 14 of the Interpretation Act. ?Additionally, the adjective employed in the provisions of Section 46 (1) of the 1999 Constitution and Order 2 Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 is “any”. It qualifies the noun, “person”. The word “any” has been defined as an adjective which could be one or more, an undetermined number and when used as a pronoun, the word any can be singular or plural in construction. See: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Consequently, the word ‘any’ and the phrase ‘any person’ cannot be interpreted as restricted to an individual. Also, there are no express provisions in the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 barring persons who have common or the same cause of action like the instant Respondents from bringing a joint application. See: OKAFOR & ORS V. NWORA & ANOR (2022) LPELR- (CA); EFCC & ORS V. AFOLABI & ORS (2022) LPELR (CA). I shall reiterate Order XV Rule 4 of the said Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009; which provides: “where in the course of any Human Right proceeding, any situation arises for which there appears to be no adequate provision in the said Rules, the civil procedure rules of the Court for the time being in force still apply”.
The Rules of the Court in the instant case is the High Court of Delta State Civil Procedure Rules which permits a joint suit where the cause of action is the same. In the instant case, the cause of action is the same, to wit, that the 1st – 12th Appellants were jointly intimidated, harassed, humiliated, and threatened to be arrested and detained by the Respondents over the purely civil matter of the administration and leadership of Out-Jeremi Community of Ughelli South Local Government Area of Delta State. The essence of joinder of parties is majorly to avoid duplicity of actions, which leads to conflicting judgments and unnecessary waste of scarce judicial time; thus, whenever different persons have the same cause of action against a particular person or group of persons, as in the instant case, they may jointly institute a single action against that person or group of persons.
Moreover, Section 1 of the Interpretation Act allows several persons to bring an action to enforce fundamental rights in a representative capacity. Flowing from the above, it is my view that so long as the Applicants have a common complaint and the same interest, and it is on the same actual situation that the alleged breach of their fundamental rights is grounded, they can bring a joint application for redress. This position has been strategically firmed by the Supreme Court in the cases of DIAMOND BANK PLC V. OPARA (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1617) 92 (SC); FIRST BANK OF NIG. PLC V. A-G FEDERATION (2018) 7 NWLR (PT 1617) 121 (SC); wherein they were joint Applicants. Although the competence of joint application for enforcement of fundamental rights was never a live issue in the appeal before the Supreme Court and thus it never made any pronouncement on that point of law; yet the Apex Court did not frown at joint and/or class action in matters of enforcement of fundamental rights in the above-referred cases.
I am of the firm view that since the question whether joint Applicants can maintain an action for the enforcement of their fundamental rights, is a question which goes to the competence of the action and a fortiori, the competence of the Court to entertain the action, being a question of initiation of an action without due process of law; consequently, if joint application of this nature was wrong in law, the Supreme Court would have made a pronouncement on the competence of the joint application instead of proceeding to award compensation in favour of the joint Applicants as it did in the said cases. In fact, the Rules do not only allow joint application, it also encourages public interest litigations in the human rights field. See: Ogheneovo V. Gov., Delta State (2023) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1868) 275 (SC); Rule 3 of the Preamble to the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009.
In conclusion, there is absolutely nothing legally wrong in filing a joint application for the enforcement of fundamental human rights actions. There is nothing abhorrent procedurally in several persons filing and maintaining a Fundamental Human Rights action as has been done by the Appellants herein at the Court below. I therefore hold that the Appellants rightly filed a joint action for the enforcement of their fundamental rights.”
Per UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, JCA (Pp 24 – 28 Paras A – D)
✍ C.K. ANYANWU ESQ
(Lawyer of Promise)
C.C. ELELE & ASSOCIATES.
3c Pound Road Extension, Aba,
Abia State.
08039298435.
