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)
SHARE ON
Two types of Estoppel by record are:- (a) Cause of Action Estoppel – which precludes a party to an action or his agents and privies from disputing as against the other party in any subsequent proceedings, matters which had been adjudicated upon previously by a court of competent jurisdiction between him and his adversary and involving same issue. (b) Issue Estoppel which precludes a party his servant, agent or privy from re-opening or relitigating as against the other party or his agents and privies in any subsequent proceedings, issues which were distinctly raised in a cause of action and appropriately resolved or determined in any suit between the parties in a court of competent jurisdiction.
– ADEKEYE, JCA. NOGA v. NICON (2007)
Para. 21: “A cause of action is a set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue. It must contain a clear and concise statement of the material facts upon which the pleader relies for his claim with sufficient particularity to enable the opposite party to reply thereto. The term “cause of action” was defined in McKenzie v Farmers’ Co-operative Meat Industries Ltd 1922 AD 16 at 23 as “…”every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. It does not comprise every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each 22 fact, but every fact which is necessary to be proved.” See also Mousa Leo Keita (2004-2009) CCJELR pg. 75 See also Afolayan V. Oba Ogunrinde & 3 ORS, (1990), 1 NWLR, (Pt. 127) 369 @ 371. SCNJ 62. Where Karibi-Whyte JSC stated that a cause of action means: ‘a) A cause of complaints; b) A civil right or obligation for the determination by a Court of law; c) A dispute in respect of which a Court of law is entitled to invoke its judicial powers to determine.’”
— Osaghae v Nigeria (2017) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/17
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)
As I had earlier stated, there is a difference in accrual of right from accrual of cause of action, even though it is a very thin line of demarcation between them. When a right accrues, it is the duty of the beneficiary of that right to make moves to claim his right. When the move is made without success or a favourable response from the other party, there is nothing more to infer than that that refusal to respond is tantamount to a denial. At this point, the cause of action has accrued and is now enforceable through the instrumentality of a judicial process.
– M. Peter-Odili, JSC. Oko v. Ebonyi State (2021)
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)
As to what constitutes a “Dispute”, Uwais, CJN, (Rtd) in his Ruling in the case of Attorney-General of the Federation v Attorney-General of Abia State & 35 others (supra), stated as follows:- “What constitutes a dispute under section 212 subsection (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979, which has exactly the same provisions as section 232 subsection (1) in question, had been considered by this Court in the cases of Attorney-General of Bendel State v Attorney-General of the Federation & 22 others (1981) 10 SC 1 and Attorney-General of the Federation v Attorney-General of Imo State & 2 others (1983) 4 NCLR 178. In Attorney-General of Bendel State’s case , Bello, JSC, (as he then was), stated as follows on pages 48 to 49 thereof:- ‘To invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court there must be a dispute as so qualified between the Federation and a State or between States. The issue of jurisdiction was contested on three grounds, firstly, that there is no dispute which affected the interest of the Federation and Bendel State between the plaintiff (Bendel State) and the Federation. Secondly, . . . I think the first point may be easily disposed of from the definition of the word “dispute”. The Oxford Universal Dictionary defines it as ‘the act of arguing against, controversy, debate, contention as to rights, claims and the like or on a matter of opinion . . .’
Ogbuagu JSC also held as follows on page 320 thereof:- “It is well established principle of the interpretation of constitution that the words of a constitution are not to be read with stultifying narrowness – United States v Classic 313 U.S 299 and Nafiu Rabiu v The State (1980) 8-11 SC 130. The word ‘dispute’ in section 212(1) should therefore be given such meaning that will effectuate rather than defeat the purpose of that section of the Constitution. Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary (2ed), provides that ‘dispute’ is synonymous with controversy, quarrel, argument, disagreement and contention”. (Relied on in AG Kano State v AG Federation (2007) – SC 26/2006)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry