The maxim refers to a party`s right to appear in court and be heard or to file a claim or action in court. For example, a person cannot file a complaint against the constitutionality of a law unless he can prove that he or she has been wronged or weakened by the law. Conversely, the court would conclude that the plaintiff had “no right to bring an action” to file the complaint and dismiss the action without even considering the validity of the unconstitutionality provision he was invoking. Figure – A polling booth forbade a person from voting. Now the person`s legal right is violated and he has the right to appeal to the court. The literal meaning of “public interest litigation” itself is public interest litigation. In Janata Dal v. Chaudhary defined the term “public interest litigation” in 1992. According to the court, PIL means taking legal action on behalf of people whose rights have been violated and who cannot go to court because of their economic or social disadvantage. The full facts relevant to this case are as follows. The applicant, although not a party to the claims, is aggrieved because, in his view, this decision of the previous court affects his rights to 75 per cent of the undivided share of the land with House No.
45, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi, without giving him an opportunity to be heard. In our judicial system, any party who is harmed as a result of the act of an individual or the state can go to court. In this process, it is important to prove that the person appealing to the court must have suffered harm or that his or her right has been violated. In other words, there must be a sufficient connection between the harm caused and the person bringing an action before the court. This doctrine is known as “locus santi” and ensures that only bona fide parties go to court. Recently, however, the rule of standing to prosecute has been relaxed, allowing even a common citizen to appeal to the court on behalf of the poor and oppressed. Standing is one of the thresholds for bringing an action. This is one of the pillars for taking legal action in Nigerian courts. Standing affects the jurisdiction of the General Court and may therefore be invoked at any time in proceedings or appeals. If a plaintiff does not have standing, the court would not have jurisdiction to hear the action. In A.G. FED V.
A.G. LAGOS STATE (2017) 8 NWLR (PT 1566) 20-55 PARA D, the Supreme Court held that the question of whether a plaintiff has standing to bring an action raises a question of jurisdiction. See also LIBA v. KOKO (2017) 11 NWLR (PT. 1576) 335 AT 355-356) PARAS H-C, in which the court stated that if a plaintiff was found to have no standing, the question arises as to whether other issues had been properly decided in the case. The Court of First Instance did not have jurisdiction to rule on the application. The correct legal position is therefore that, if an applicant does not have standing to maintain his action, the finding falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance and denies it jurisdiction to hear the action. The seed of the first POA was born in this case, in which the Honourable Justice Iyyer granted a written application under section 32 concerning the inhumane situation of the workers. It was submitted by a workers` association which has no direct relationship with the workers concerned. However, the court granted the request and gave the necessary instructions. From a legal perspective, locus standi essentially refers to an attempt by a plaintiff to demonstrate to the court that there is a sufficient connection or correlation or cause of action for the claimant.
In other words, it applies to a person`s ability to bring a case before the courts or to testify in a court of law. That it is insignificant that, where it has been established that an applicant does not have locus standi or has standing, as in the present case, the question arises as to whether other issues have been properly decided in the case. The correct legal position is therefore that, if a claimant does not have standing to uphold his action, the finding falls within the jurisdiction of the court and denies it jurisdiction to hear the action. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark decision by John I. Okoro (JSC) with his brothers Suleiman Galadima Olukayode Ariwoola, K.M.O. Kekere-Ekun and Amiru Sanusi (JJSC), who dismissed the appeal. The parties were represented on behalf of the appellant by G.S. Paul (SAN) and Obi Maduabuchi Esq. Bello L. Ibrahim Esq, Kenechukwu Maduka Esq, V.M.G. Pwul Esq, A.A. Nyam Esq, Adewale Odeleye Esq, Oluwatosin Odeleke Esq and P.E.
Okoye Esq. P. I. N. Ikwueto (SAN), with C. I. Mbaneri Esq, Isaiah Bozimo Esq, C. Ogbuefi Esq and N. Odumegwu for the 1st and 2nd respondents. Rahimatu Aminu for the 6th respondent. JUDGMENT It was also argued that the 1st applicant had standing because he claimed to be the genuine national president of the APGA, which he claimed.
The case is Bakare v. Ajose-Adeogun (2014) 1 S.C. (Pt.II) 1. He argued that in this case, the oral argument was an affidavit, since the matter had been initiated by the filing of a subpoena. With respect to certain paragraphs of the affidavit in support of the original summons, it was argued that the complainant had a sufficient interest in bringing the action. When making a written request, the applicant must clearly indicate his or her standing in that particular case. In the absence of a violated right of petitioners, those applicants would not be aggrieved persons. In this case, they will not be able to submit a written request in their personal or individual capacity under article 226 of the Constitution. A county bank, composed of Judge BV Nagarathna and NS Justice Sanjay Gowda, considered the circumstances in which a written application may be made to decide the issue in Syndicate Bank v. M/S Manyatha Residents Association [WRIT APPEAL No.2872/2013 (BDA)].
In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed, the Bombay High Court dismissed the application on the ground that no right to which the appellant is entitled has been violated, harmed or harmed as a direct result of the order challenged by him and that as such he is not an aggrieved party with standing to bring an action in this case. A person`s right to take legal action derives from the constitution, statutes, customary law or voluntary agreement within an organization. Standing cannot be determined by foreign affairs. In the case of DIAMOND PET. INT`L LTD V. GOV. C.B.N.
(2015) 14 NWLRb (PT. 1478) 179 TO 199 PARA A, the tribunal held that foreign cases are not helpful in the question of standing in Nigeria, given the huge leap or progress in the development of jurisprudence in these foreign jurisdictions with their peculiarities.” In M/S Northern Plastics Ltd v. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg.Co. Ltd. The Supreme Court has observed that the broader notion of standing in public interest disputes heard by this court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which is itself a fundamental right, or Section 226 before the High Courts, which also provides for a constitutional review, cannot be used to determine the right of appeal under the statutory provisions of the Customs Act. In Sh. Ved Prakash v. S.H.O., the plaintiff filed an injunction claiming ownership of 1/6 of the family.
After conducting the proper investigation, the Court concluded that the applicant lacked standing in the present case, as no cause of action had arisen. This was the first formal case of public interest litigation and concerned the unfavourable conditions of remand prisoners. A lawyer addressed the court on the basis of a column published on Indian Express highlighting the serious condition of the detainees. The court allowed this appeal and 40,000 prisoners were released from prison thanks to this LIP. The Court interpreted the right to prompt justice as a fundamental right of a prisoner. This case laid the groundwork for public interest litigation in India. If the judgment of the Court of Appeal in application No. CA/E/84/2013 Umeh v.
Ejike ruled on something other than the decision that the plaintiff in this application lacked standing to bring the action, and whether none of the issues before the Court and the Court of Appeal in this application were decided in this appeal by the Enugu Division of the Court of Appeal (reasons 10 and 12). Whether the Court of Appeal properly assessed the parties` case as submitted to it prior to its decision, reasons 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15 and 16. A foreign government that has not been recognized by the Government of India does not have standing to bring an action in the Indian courts. In this case, an NGO appealed to the court against sexual harassment of female employees in the workplace. In its landmark decision, the Court issued a large number of guidelines on women`s safety in the workplace. In 2013, these guidelines were codified by the Sexual Harassment of Women in the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Remedy) Act 2013. In India, the concept of locus standi is mentioned in Ordinance 7, Rule 11, of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908. To bring an action, the plaintiff or appellant must first prove that he or she has standing to bring an action, and the proceedings begin thereafter.
The General Court may dismiss the action in its entirety, irrespective of whether it is well founded, if the requirement of locus standi is not satisfied. In the case of M/S Boc India Ltd v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., an application was filed with the High Court of Jharkhand in Ranchi, which was dismissed on the basis of the impugned judgment because BOC lacked standing as TISCO had to pay taxes.