Home Law Report Whether a Class Action in Alleged Breach Of Fundamental Rights is Feasible:...

Whether a Class Action in Alleged Breach Of Fundamental Rights is Feasible: An Analysis of Abuja Electricity Distribution Company Plc & Ors v. Akaliro & Ors

31

By Ikeazor ‘Kizor’ Akaraiwe, SAN

“No amount of availability of the decisions of other divisions will make any difference to a justice who does not like reading. This oxymoronic expression about Justices who do not like reading seems like an aberration which indeed it is but for the current realities of Nigeria. But this is a call to the appointing authorities to remove such aberration, otherwise, no amount of technological provisions of decisions made available within 24 hours will make any difference.” – Akaraiwe, SAN

1.1 FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER ANALYSIS

The Appellants as Applicants at the High Court of Nasarawa State instituted an action against the Respondents for the enforcement of their Fundamental Human Rights allegedly breached by the Respondents. The Appellants claimed that the Nigerian Army formation at 177 Guards Battalion incurred outstanding electricity bills to the sum of N604,701,853.60 (Six hundred and four million, seven hundred and one thousand, eight hundred and fifty-three naira, sixty kobo). They contended that despite several demand letters, the Respondents refused/neglected to pay their outstanding electricity bills. The Appellants finally issued a disconnection notice to the Respondents and eventually disconnected the Nigerian Army formation at 177 Guards battalion, Keffi, Nasarawa State from electricity supply when they still refused/neglected to pay the outstanding electricity bills.

Subsequently, military personnel from 177 Guards Brigade Battalion invaded and raided the 1st Appellant’s office, infringed on the fundamental rights of the Appellants, and thereafter forced the Appellants to reconnect electricity supply to the Barracks. The Respondents filed counter-affidavits denying the allegations of the Appellants and also challenged the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the Appellants’ suit. The trial court heard the objections together with the substantive application, over-ruled the objections of the Respondents, and dismissed the Appellants’ application for enforcement of their fundamental rights.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellants appealed. On appeal, the Court of Appeal raised a preliminary issue on jurisdiction based on the competence of the joint application filed by the Appellants at the trial court.

1.2 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION RAISED BY THE COURT:

Whether a joint application can be filed by more than one person (in the same application) to enforce a right under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules?

1.3 DECISION:

On the preliminary issue, the court held that the joint application filed by the Appellants was incompetent and liable to be struck out. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the suit struck out for gross incompetence.

The substantive appeal was held to lack merit and accordingly dismissed by the Court of Appeal, Makurdi Division, the ruling of the trial court being thereby affirmed.

In arriving at that decision, the Court of Appeal per Igwe Ignatius Agube JCA and Nimpar JCA respectively reasoned as follows:

Per Agube JCA,

 “…I am however not unmindful of the preamble to the extant Rules which encourages and welcome public interest litigations in the human rights field which in effect provides that no human rights case may be dismissed or struck out for want of locus standi. The contention here is not on the rights of the applicants to institute the action but rather on the propriety of bringing joint action.”

Per Nimpar JCA,

“… Section 46 of the 1999 Constitution, specifically states that any person who alleges that his fundamental right has been or is likely to be breached can approach a High Court in that State for redress. The right can be enforced on individual basis and not by collective action. It is faulty for the appellants to file a single affidavit, the alleged breach was not equally or evenly violated…”

2.1 Basis for disagreeing with the decision:

Firstly, in establishing the basis for the author’s respectful disagreement with this decision the following questions are hereby set out;

One. What is the philosophical premise for fundamental rights enforcement? Is it not that the rights of citizens should not be derogated from?

Two. How then can the court refuse to enforce citizens’ rights based on the definition of the phrase “any person” as used in S. 46 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, because more than one citizen brought a joint application?

Three. Could the honourable court not have, in the interest of substantial justice, ordered the applications separated (if at all necessary) and then proceed to deliver substantial justice on the merits?

Four. Should Substantial Justice be sacrificed on the altar of Technicality, especially in matters to do with Enforcement of the Basic Rights of Citizens as covered by Chapter 4 of the Constitution?

Five. Should a court of law and justice decline from enforcing citizens’ Fundamental Rights for the principal reason that the application pursuant thereto was joint and not several applications by individual applicants, pursuant to the phrase “any person” as used in Section 46(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which the court held as implying singularity and not plurality?

2.2 “Any Person”-A decision from the Court of Appeal, Kaduna   Division

In disagreeing with the decision under analysis, I adopt as mine in entirety, the reasoning of the Court of Appeal Kaduna Division per Affen JCA[2] which held a diametrically opposing view with respect to the phrase “ANY PERSON” as used in Section 46(1) of the 1999 Constitution on the subject. And for clarity, I have used numbered paragraphs to reproduce the court’s reasoning:

A. “Bearing in mind that the word ‘any’ in its ordinary sense does not always import the singular, I reckon that the phrase “any person” (as employed in s. 46(1) CFRN and the Order 2 Rule 1 of the FREP Rules) is not antithetical to the filing of a joint action for enforcement of fundamental rights.

B. “The Constitution provides in s. 318(4) that the “Interpretation Act shall apply for the purpose of interpreting the provisions of this Constitution”; and s. 14(b) of the Interpretation Act, Cap. I23 Laws of the Federation 2004 makes it clear beyond peradventure that “words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular”.

C. “Thus, s. 46(1) CFRN can conveniently be interpreted as — ‘Any persons who allege that any of the provisions of this Chapter has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any State in relation to them may apply to a High Court in that State for redress’ — without doing violence to the intendment of the Constitution.

LEGAL POLICY SEEKS TO DISCOURAGE MULTIPLICITY OF ACTIONS, AND A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT ENFORCEMENT ACTION OUGHT NOT TO BE DEFEATED SOLELY ON THE BASIS THAT TWO OR MORE APPLICANTS JOINED FORCES TO INITIATE THE ACTION JOINTLY. Notably, Order XV Rule 4 of the FREP Rules provide that

“[w]here in the course of any Human Rights proceedings, any situation arises for which there is or appears to be no adequate provision in these Rules, the Civil Procedure Rules of the Court for the time being in force shall apply”.

D. “Thus, what should engage the court’s attention are the normal considerations that render it expedient to file a joint action, such as

(i) whether the right to relief is in respect of or arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions; and

(ii) a common question of law or fact would arise if separate actions were brought by such persons.” (Caps added for emphasis).

2.3 A decision from the Court of Appeal Enugu Division

Interestingly, the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division per Ita Mbaba JCA reasoned along the same lines as the Kaduna Division thus:

GOVT. OF ENUGU STATE OF NIG. & ORS v. ONYIA & ORS[3]

On whether a joint application can be filed by more than one person to enforce a right under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules

“…I also think Appellants were in error, to say that the 34 Applicants were wrong to bring this suit, together, alleging misjoinder of parties. Parties are rather always encouraged to come together, either as individuals or as a group and/or in representative capacity, when they have a common interest or grievance, seeking redress in Court. It would even amount to multiplicity of actions and abuse of the Court process, in my view, if the parties (like the 34 Applicants) who have identified their common interest and grievance in the suit, were to have filed separate actions – 34 Applications, in the same Court, seeking the same reliefs, thereby overwhelming and overburdening the Court, and increasing the cost of litigation and the judicial cost/time!…” Per Ita George Mbaba, JCA[4]

E. A decision from the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division

Also, the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal per Anthony Ugochukwu Ogakwu JCA specifically compares and contrasts the judgments of Makurdi division (under analysis) and Enugu division just cited above, and comes to the following unimpeachable conclusion in INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF DIGITAL RIGHTS LAWYERS INITIATIVE & ORS v. NIMC[5]:

“… There has been a good number of conflicting decisions of this Court on the point, the most recent decisions which I was able to find being GOVERNMENT OF ENUGU STATE v. ONYA [6] delivered by the Enugu Division on 28th January 2021, which held that joint applicants can bring an application to enforce fundamental rights. Au contraire, in AEDC (ABUJA ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY) v. AKALIRO [7] which was delivered by the Makurdi Division on 31st March 2021, it was held that an application by joint applicants was incompetent. The right to seek redress for evisceration of fundamental rights is by Section 46 (1) of the 1999 Constitution vested in any person. The said stipulation reads: “Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this chapter has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any State in relation to him may apply to a High Court in that State for redress.” See also Order 2 Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, which is similarly worded for any person to seek redress.

The critical question is whether the phrase any person as used in the provision 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. Let me hasten to state that even if the phrase any person denotes singular, by Section 14 of the Interpretation Act, in construing enactments, words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular. See COKER v. ADETAYO[8], UDEH v. THE STATE[9] and APGA v. OHAZULUIKE.[10] Per Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu, JCA[11]

FURTHER SUBMISSIONS

On the preponderance of authorities cited above, in particular the reasoning of Affen, Mbaba, and Ogakwu, JJCA, it is crystal clear that the decision in ABUJA ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY PLC & ORS v. AKALIRO & ORS[12] in particular, the construing of the phrase “Any Person” as occurring in s.46 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as being capable only of singular and NOT plural application was, with the greatest respect, delivered per incuriam, in the light, especially of the constitutional provision in s. 318 (4)[13] that the “Interpretation Act shall apply for the purpose of interpreting the provisions of this Constitution”; and s. 14(b) of the Interpretation Act[14] which makes it clear beyond peradventure that

“words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular.”

Besides, as noted by the Court of Appeal, Kaduna division per Affen JCA[15],

 “Thus, what should engage the court’s attention are the normal considerations that render it expedient to file a joint action, such as;

(i)whether the right to relief is in respect of or arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions; and

(ii) a common question of law or fact would arise if separate actions were brought by such persons.”

CONCLUSION

4.1 The Larger Question – Conflicting Decisions of the Court of Appeal

As already noted by the Court of Appeal, Lagos division per Ogakwu JCA

“There has been a good number of conflicting decisions of this Court on the point,…”

Not just on this point, my lord.

Conflicting decisions tend to demystify the honourable court. By the way, those who are clamoring for the constitution of the Supreme Court of Nigeria to be increased from the present 20 to 40 Justices should take note of this point. But the solution to the problem of conflicting decisions is not rocket science.

4.3 The solution is a functional website with immediate uploading of all decisions of each of the 20 divisions of the Court of Appeal within 24 hours of delivery, so that justices, legal practitioners, and indeed, the general public will have immediate access to what the divisions have said on this or that subject. You can actually read online on their websites, the decisions of equivalent courts in the United Kingdom within 24 hours of delivery.

4.4 But while holding unto technology with one hand, a second and equally important solution is the appointment of qualified personnel to man the courts, starting with the learned justices. No amount of availability of the decisions of other divisions will make any difference to a justice who does not like reading. This oxymoronic expression about Justices who do not like reading seems like an aberration which indeed it is but for the current realities of Nigeria. But this is a call to the appointing authorities to remove such aberration, otherwise, no amount of technological provisions of decisions made available within 24 hours will make any difference.

4.5 Perhaps, this is a good place to also remind the Court of Appeal in Nigeria of express guidelines for disagreeing with judgments of its concurrent divisions.

The rule in USMAN v UMARU [16] (also known as The Rule in Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd [17] is this:

“It is now well settled that under the doctrine of stare decisis, the court below as an intermediate Court of Appeal between it and the Supreme Court is bound by its own decisions except in circumstances specified in Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd[18], that is:

(a) the Court of Appeal is entitled to decide which of two conflicting decisions of its own it will follow;

(b) it will refuse to follow its own decision which, though not expressly overruled, cannot stand with a decision of this Court, and

(c) it is not bound to follow a decision of its own if it is satisfied that the decision was given per incuriam.

See OSUMANU V AMADU[19]; DAVIS V. JOHNSON[20].

4.6 And as stated by Prof. RACE Achara[21] in an academic discussion online:

“My worry with well-intentioned disregard of established precedent is its unintended capacity to cause chaos in the long run. If a judge wishes to change existing case law or principle, can that court not clearly follow the law to do so? The law since I think Young v. Bristol Aeroplane is that the CA is bound by her previous judgment and is not permitted to depart from it without expressly considering that past decision and holding it to be per incuriam, contrary to a (House of Lords) Supreme Court decision, etc.”

4.7 It is unfortunate that the law has become so uncertain on account of the conflicting decisions of the main appellate courts in Nigeria, and this brings us to the question asked by the Roman poet, Decimus Junius Juvenalis who in one of his poems of satires asked, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?”[22]

Ikeazor Akaraiwe, is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, and in law practice in Nigeria since 1985. He is also inter alia an author and editor of several law books and law reports. He once served as 1stVice-President of the Nigerian Bar Association and Chairman of its Human Rights Institute (2008-2010).


[1] (2021) LPELR-54212(CA)

[2] CA/K/601/2018

[3] (2021) LPELR-52688 (CA)

[4] (Pp 33 – 38 Paras E – D)

[5] 2021) LPELR-55623(CA)

[6] 2021) LPELR – 52688 (CA)

[7] (2021) LPELR – 54212 (CA)

[8] (1996) 6 NWLR (PT 454) 258 at 266

[9] 1999) LPELR (3292) 1 at 16-17

[10] (2011) LPELR (9175) 1 at 24-25

[11] (Pp 67 – 70 Paras E – D)

[12] (2021) LPELR-54212 (CA)

[13] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (1999)(as amended)

[14]Cap. I23 Laws of the Federation 2004

[15] CA/K/601/2018

[16] [1992] NWLR (PT 254) 377, (1992) 2 LPELR-3432 (SC) 1 at 21

[17] (1944) 2 ALL E.R. 293 @ 300

[18] Supra

[19] (1949) 12 WACA 437

[20] (1978) 1 All E.R. 1132

[21] Online academic discussions

[22] who will guard the guards themselves?

31 COMMENTS

  1. I must thank you for the efforts you’ve put
    in penning this blog. I really hope to check out the same high-grade content by you later on as well.
    In truth, your creative writing abilities has encouraged me to get my own site now 😉

    my web blog: cong thuc mon an

  2. What’s Taking place i am new to this, I stumbled
    upon this I have discovered It positively useful and it has aided me out
    loads. I’m hoping to contribute & help other users like its aided me.
    Great job.

    Stop by my blog post custom military patches velcro

  3. Thanks for a marvelous posting! I quite enjoyed reading it, you’re
    a great author. I will be sure to bookmark your blog and will eventually come back in the
    future. I want to encourage you to continue your great work, have a nice evening!

    Look at my page; mySQL (http://www.google.com.hk)

  4. Juѕt want to say your article is as amazing.
    The clearness in your post is just nice ɑnd i can assume you’re an expert on this suЬject.
    Well with yⲟur permissіon aⅼlow me to grab your feed tⲟ keep updated with
    forthcoming post. Thanks a milliοn and please keep up
    the enjoyable work.

    Also visit my site … air conditioning

  5. I was recommended this web site by my cousin. I’m no longer positive
    whether this submit is written by him as no one
    else recognize such specific about my difficulty. You’re amazing!
    Thanks!

    My blog post; aplikasi adzan android

  6. Hi there! I just wanted to ask if you ever have any
    trouble with hackers? My last blog (wordpress) was hacked and I ended
    up losing months of hard work due to no back up. Do you have any methods to stop
    hackers?

    my page; Essayhelp usa

  7. of course like your web site but you have to take a look at the spelling on several of your posts.

    A number of them are rife with spelling issues and I in finding it very
    troublesome to tell the truth however I will definitely come back again.

    Here is my web-site – fafaslot.biz

  8. I like the article by Ikeazor Akaraiwe, SAN. It rightly expresses concern over the conflicting decisions of the Court of Appeal on the issue of whether application for the enforcement of human rights can be single or joint. As things are now, it seems that only the intervention of the Supreme Court can resolve this needless conflict. My humble view is that an application for human rights enforcement must NEVER be struck out only on the ground of the number of parties. Whether single or joint, the Court is DUTY BOUND to enforce human rights applications. The justices who are saying otherwise should please be guided accordingly. If the courts abdicate their sacred duty of enforcing human rights of groups, then what is the hope for the masses of this country? I agree totally with Akaraiwe’s conclusion. This matter should be taken to the Supreme Court urgently before more damage is done.

  9. I just like the helpful information you supply to your
    articles. I will bookmark your weblog and take a look at again right here frequently.
    I am fairly sure I’ll learn lots of new stuff right here!
    Best of luck for the following!

    My blog post: danypatches

  10. We stumbled over here different website and thought I might check things out.

    I like what I see so now i’m following you. Look forward to exploring your web page repeatedly.

    Also visit my website mpo slot

  11. Thanks for finally talking about > Whether a Class Action in Alleged Breach Of Fundamental Rights is Feasible: An Analysis of Abuja Electricity Distribution Company
    Plc & Ors v. Akaliro & Ors – Law and Society Magazine.

    رژیم لاغری سریع

  12. Attractive component to content. I simply stumbled upon your
    web site and in accession capital to say that I get in fact loved account
    your blog posts. Any way I will be subscribing in your feeds and even I success you get
    right of entry to constantly quickly.

    Review my site :: رژیم لاغری سریع

  13. Greetings from Florida! I’m bored at work so I decided to browse your site on my
    iphone during lunch break. I love the info you present here and
    can’t wait to take a look when I get home. I’m amazed at how quick your blog loaded on my cell phone ..

    I’m not even using WIFI, just 3G .. Anyways, good blog!

    Also visit my website … apk

  14. I blog frequently aand I genuinely thank you for your content.
    This great article has truly peaked my interest. I aam goiing to
    book mark yoour blog and keep checking for new
    information about once a week. I subscribed to your
    Feed as well.
    website

  15. slotbigjack
    รวมเว็บ บาคาร่า, สล็อต ทุกค่าย
    เจ้าใหญ่ การเงินเเน่น เติมไว จ่ายไว ลองเข้ามาเยี่ยมชมก่อน
    สมัครวันนี้ ได้เลย
    superslot เล่นผ่านเว็บ

  16. When I initially commented I clicked the “Notify me when new comments are added” checkbox and now each time a comment is added I get four emails
    with the same comment. Is there any way you can remove people from that service?
    Bless you!

    Feel free to visit my site – Download Joker123

  17. Yoou reɑlly mɑke іt seem really easy aⅼong ѡith your presentation һowever Ι tto fіnd thіs topic tօ be actually one thіng that I feel I’ɗ neveг understand.
    It kind of feels toⲟ complex аnd very broad for me.
    I’m taking a l᧐ok forward in yօur next publish, I willl attempt t᧐
    get the grasp of it!

    Μy web blog bahis

  18. Wonderful blog you have here but I was curious about if you knew of any community forums that cover the same
    topics discussed here? I’d really like to be a part of community where I can get suggestions from other experienced individuals
    that share the same interest. If you have any suggestions, please
    let me know. Many thanks!

    My web blog – bus

  19. With havin so much written content do you ever run into any
    problems of plagorism or copyright violation? My blog has a lot of unique content
    I’ve either created myself or outsourced but it looks like a
    lot of it is popping it up all over the internet without my
    authorization. Do you know any solutions to help prevent content from being stolen?
    I’d truly appreciate it.

    my page; رژیم کتوژنیک

  20. Have you ever thought about writing an ebook or guest authoring on other websites?
    I have a blog based on the same ideas you discuss and would love
    to have you share some stories/information. I know
    my viewers would enjoy your work. If you are even remotely interested, feel free to send me an email.

    Also visit my website :: buat surat gugatan

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Exit mobile version