Cause of Action Anchors: Mobil v LASEPA & A.G. Lagos v A.G. Federation

Hello Class. Welcome to this special masterclass segment.

We are examining two highly significant judicial authorities: Mobil v. LASEPA (2003) 104 LRCN 240 at 268 and A.G. Lagos State v. A.G. Federation (2020) unreported suit No: SC/CV/260/2020.

When you see these two cases cited side-by-side in your civil litigation materials, they are serving as the absolute anchor authorities for understanding the fundamental concept of a "Cause of Action". Furthermore, individually, these cases establish several highly tested principles regarding parties, jurisdiction, and pre-action notices.

Here is your Extensive Breakdown of the legal principles established in these cases, drawn directly from our litigation materials.

SEGMENT 1: THE INTERSECTION (WHAT IS A CAUSE OF ACTION?)

• The Core Definition: Before a claimant can successfully approach a court for redress, they must have a valid cause of action. Both Mobil v. LASEPA and A.G. Lagos State v. A.G. Federation establish the strict legal definition of this concept.
• The courts held that a cause of action is an aggregate of material facts which, if established or proven, will entitle a claimant to relief in a court of law. Without these aggregates of facts being present, any suit filed is premature or incompetent and will be struck out.

SEGMENT 2: SPECIFIC PRINCIPLES FROM MOBIL v. LASEPA

Beyond defining a cause of action, Mobil v. LASEPA is a multi-dimensional case that examiners use to test you on three distinct procedural fronts:

1. The Definition of "Proper Parties": In litigation, you must properly categorize the parties. Mobil v. LASEPA defines "proper parties" as those who are directly involved in the cause of actionspecifically, the plaintiff who has suffered the damages and the defendant who has occasioned the damages. (Note: In modern practice, this definition is often preferred over the older definition established in Green v. Green).
2. The Rule on Pre-Action Notices: If a statute requires a claimant to serve a pre-action notice on a corporation before suing, Mobil v. LASEPA establishes the strict parameters for compliance:
   • Provisions prescribing pre-action notices are mandatory.
   • However, non-compliance is merely an irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction, which should not be equated with a total lack of jurisdiction.
   • Because it is a procedural irregularity, non-compliance can be waived by the defendant if they delay or fail to object timeously.
3. Striking Out Pleadings (Reasonable Cause of Action): If a defendant applies to strike out a statement of claim arguing that it discloses no reasonable cause of action, the court will rely on Mobil v. LASEPA. The Supreme Court established that the weakness of the plaintiff's case is not a relevant consideration at this stage. As long as the pleadings raise some real controversy or issues capable of being considered by the court, it cannot be struck out for lacking a reasonable cause of action.

SEGMENT 3: SPECIFIC PRINCIPLES FROM A.G. LAGOS STATE v. A.G. FEDERATION

Individually, this case is the anchor authority for the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Section 232(1) of the 1999 Constitution.

• The Rule Established: For the Supreme Court to sit as a court of first instance (original jurisdiction) in a dispute between the Federal Government and a State, the cause of action must affect the State in its sovereign or corporate capacity, not just as a matter affecting its citizens.
• The Factual Context: In this case, the Federal Government seized the revenue allocations of Lagos State because the state created new local government councils. Lagos State sued the Federal Government directly at the Supreme Court. The Court held that the seizure of revenue allocations was a cause of action that affected the state's sovereign capacity, and therefore the suit was properly instituted at the Supreme Court.

SEGMENT 4: THE FAWEHINMI LOCUS STANDI CASES

While discussing Cause of Action, we must also examine Locus Standi (the right to be heard). The anchor authorities for the Expansion of Locus Standi in Public Interest Litigation are Fawehinmi v. Akilu (1987) and Fawehinmi v. President FRN (2007).

Historically, Nigerian courts operated on a very strict application of the rule: a person had to be directly affected by the facts in issue to have standing. There should be no "professional litigants," and a busybody with no direct interest should be prevented from maintaining an action.

The Turning Point: Fawehinmi v. Akilu shattered this rigid barrier, establishing an "expansive view of interest." The Supreme Court held that Chief Gani Fawehinmias Dele Giwa's lawyer and a legal practitioner sworn to uphold the Constitutionhad sufficient interest in the life of his client to mandate the DPP to prosecute the murder suspects or grant him a fiat.

The Exam Trap: Even with this expansive view, if a court determines that a claimant lacks locus standi, the court must strike out the action for lack of jurisdiction without considering the merit of the case. Furthermore, an objection based on the absence of locus standi should be raised at the earliest possible time, but because it goes to the root of jurisdiction, it can be raised at any time, even on appeal.

SUMMARY CHECKLIST FOR EXAMS

• What connects Mobil v. LASEPA and A.G. Lagos v. A.G. Federation? Both cases define a "cause of action" as an aggregate of facts that entitle a claimant to relief.
• What does Mobil v. LASEPA say about Proper Parties? They are the parties directly involved in the cause of action (the one who suffered damage and the one who caused it).
• Is failure to serve a pre-action notice fatal to jurisdiction according to Mobil? No, it is a mandatory requirement, but non-compliance is a procedural irregularity that can be waived by the defendant.
• What does A.G. Lagos v. A.G. Federation establish regarding Supreme Court jurisdiction? It confirms the Supreme Court's exclusive original jurisdiction in disputes between the Federation and a State, provided the dispute affects the state in its sovereign or corporate capacity.
• What legal concept do the Fawehinmi cases establish? The expansion of Locus Standi in Nigeria, particularly in Public Interest Litigation.

Ready to test your knowledge?

Try this quick 3-question Joust taken straight from our past questions database.