Navigating litigation in Nigeria often requires a clear understanding of three key procedural concepts: cause of action, interlocutory applications, and jurisdiction. Recent decisions from the Nigerian Court of Appeal provide helpful clarification on these points. Below is a digest of key principles from these cases.
1. Cause of Action
A cause of action refers to the set of facts or circumstances giving rise to a legal right to sue.
INEC v. ADP (2023) LPELR-59689(CA)
The Court restated that:
“A cause of action arises the moment a wrong is done to the Plaintiff by the Defendant. The wrong represents a factual situation that entitles the Plaintiff to seek a remedy in Court by way of enforcement. To determine when a cause of action arose, the Court looks at the Plaintiff’s claim and the reliefs sought.”
Authority Cited:
Adekoya v. FHA (2008) LPELR – 105 (SC)
AYIH & ORS v. JATAU & ORS (2024) LPELR-61775(CA)
The Court further explained:
“A cause of action arises from circumstances containing facts that give rise to a claim capable of enforcement. There must be a wrongful act by the Defendant that injures or gives the Plaintiff reason to complain. To determine this, the Court considers the Statement of Claim alone.”
Authority Cited:
Capital Bancorp Ltd v. Shelter Savings and Loans Ltd & Anor (2006) SC (Pt. II) 1 at 2
2. Interlocutory Applications
An interlocutory application deals with procedural issues before the final determination of a case. The Court of Appeal has consistently cautioned trial courts against making pronouncements that touch on the substantive merits of the case at this stage.
BROWN v. BROWN & ORS (2024) LPELR-73302(CA)
The Court emphasized:
“Trial Courts must avoid delving into substantive matters when ruling on interlocutory applications to prevent prejudicing the pending claims. Determination must be limited strictly to the interlocutory issue before the Court.”
Authorities Cited:
A.G Kwara State & Anor v. Lawal & Ors (2017) LPELR-42347(SC)
Ehindero v. FRN & Anor (2017) LPELR-43458(SC)
Ojukwu v. Governor of Lagos State (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 26) 39
ADEBESIN & ANOR v. AJIBOLA & ORS (2024) LPELR-62388(CA)
Reiterating the principle, the Court held:
“In an interlocutory application, courts must avoid making findings that may prejudice the substantive case. Findings at this stage must stay within procedural limits.”
Authority Cited:
Aboseldehyde Laboratories Plc v. Union Merchant Bank Ltd & Anor (2013) LPELR-20180(SC)
3. Jurisdiction
The question of a court’s jurisdiction is critical and must be determined based on the Plaintiff’s claim and the enabling law.
OYEDIRAN & ANOR v. MOJEED & ORS (2025) LPELR-80519(CA)
The Court explained:
“Jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the Plaintiff’s claim in relation to the Constitutional or statutory provisions establishing the Court. Courts must examine the reliefs sought and the statement of claim to determine jurisdiction.”
Authorities Cited:
First Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Government of Ondo State (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt 1312) 502
Dikko Yussuf v. Obasanjo (2006) EPR Vol. 2 Page 31
ADJOTO & ORS v. ADAMS & ORS (2023) LPELR-60040(CA)
The Court further stressed:
“It is settled law that jurisdiction is determined by the Plaintiff’s claim as endorsed on the writ or originating process or the statement of claim. The Defendant’s defence does not affect this determination.”
Authorities Cited:
Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517
Orthopaedic Hospital Management Board v. Garba (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt. 788) 538
Conclusion
These Court of Appeal decisions reaffirm important procedural safeguards in Nigerian litigation:
Cause of Action: Arises immediately when a wrongful act injures the Plaintiff.
Interlocutory Applications: Courts must not touch the merits of the substantive case at this stage.
Jurisdiction: Determined solely by the Plaintiff’s claim, as endorsed in the originating process and pleadings.
Understanding these principles helps lawyers and litigants better frame their cases and avoid procedural pitfalls.