It is also trite that in order to ascertain the time when the cause of action accrued, for the purpose of the limitation law, the courts only looks at the writ of summons and the statement of claim which ordinarily ought to contain averments of facts as to when the wrong committed by the Defendant took place and compare it with the date when the writ of Summons was filed.
– Oseji, JCA. SIFAX v. MIGFO (2015)
SHARE ON
That accrual of rights is not the same thing as accrual of cause of action or accrual of right of action. The implication is that an unviolated right does not confer on the holder of right, any rights of action because there is no cause of action. In my humble view therefore, right of action and cause of action can be coterminous but accrual of right per se stands alone. It follows that accrual of right under the Constitution entitles the holder of the right to call in aid the judicial powers of the Court under our statutes. It is the infringement of that right which is the cause of action and gives the holder the right of action to activate the judicial powers of the Court under Section 6 (6) (a) & (b) of the CFRN 1999 as amended.
– M. Peter-Odili, JSC. Oko v. Ebonyi State (2021)
The injury complained of by the Claimant occurred on 14th July 2012. This means that the cause of action arose on that said date. By OBIUWEUBI V. CBN [2011] 7 NWLR (PT. 1247) 465 the law for determining a case is the law as at the time the cause of action arose. This means that the law for determining the instant case is the Employee’s Compensation Act 2010 which replaced the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
— E.N. Agbakoba, J. Igenoza v Unknown Defendant (2019) – NICN/ABJ/294/2014
In determining the existence or non-existence of a cause of action in a suit, the Court is to consider the Writ of Summons and the statement of claim. And what distinguishes a claim which discloses cause of action from the one that does not is that where a statement of claim discloses some reasonable cause of action on the facts alleged in it, it is where the claim has some chances of success and once it raises some issues of law or fact calling for determination by the Court. Put differently, it is irrelevant to consider the weakness of the plaintiff’s claim but whether it raise some questions fit to be decided by a Court. And for a statement of claim to be said to disclose no cause of action it must be such as nobody can understand what claim he is required to meet.
– Shuaibu JCA. Diamond Bank v. Mocok (2019)
What then is a “cause of action ? Admittedly, the term “cause of action” defies a single precise definition. However, it has been variously defined or described as a bundle or aggregate of facts which the law recognizes as giving a Plaintiff a right to claim a relief or remedy against a defendant. It is thus, a factual situation which gives a person a right to judicial remedy. It is the operative fact or factual situation which gives rise to a right of action which itself is a remedial right EGBE Vs. ADEFARASIN (1987) 1 SC at 34 36. Cause of action may be defined as; (i) a cause of complaint; (ii) a civil right or obligation by a Court of Law; (iii) a dispute in respect of which a Court of Law is entitled to invoke its judicial powers to determine; (iv) consequent damages; See A. G. F. VS ABUBAKAR (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt1047) 1 SC MOBIL OIL PLC VS DENR (2004) 1 NWLR (Pt 853) 142. Thus, the words “cause of action” comprises every fact which would be necessary for the Plaintiff to prove, if traversed to support his right to the Judgment of the Court READ VS. BROWN (1882) 22 4 BD. it is all those things necessary to give a right of action whether they are to be done by the Plaintiff or a 3rd party. per Agbaje JSC in E. O. Amodu vs. Dr J, O, Amode & 4 Ors ( 1 990) 9 SCNJ 1, at 9 . It has also been defined simply as “a factual situation” the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the Court a remedy against another THOMAS vs OLUFOSOYE (1996) 1 NWLR (pt 18) 6691 per Obaseki JSC.
— A.A. Wambai, JCA. Skye Bank v. Haruna & Ors. (CA/K/264/2011, 17th December, 2014)
Authorities have also defined cause of action as a factual situation which a Plaintiff relies upon to support his claim, recognized by law as giving rise to a substantive right capable of being enforced against a Defendant. See Agbanelo v. Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd (2002) 4 SC (Pt. 7) 243; Adesokan v. Adegoloru (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt. 493) 61; Emiator v. Nigerian Army (1999) 12 NWLR (Pt. 631) 362; Akande v. Adisa (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 236) 413.
– Oseji, JCA. SIFAX v. MIGFO (2015)
In Langston vs. Hughes (1813) 1 M&S 593 or 12 Digest 270 at 2214, Ellenborough, C.J., held that: “What is done in contravention of the provisions of an Act of Parliament cannot be made the subject-matter of an action” cited in Bostel Bros. Ltd. vs. Hurlock (1948) 2 All E.R. 312 at 313.
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry