I wish to make some preliminary remarks about the competency of the recently instituted legal action by the Lagos State Government against the alleged promoters of the proposed nationwide protest against “Hunger and Bad Governance.”
After reviewing the competency of the action in light of well-established legal principles, I have concluded that the suit is incompetent for the following reasons:
The law is settled that it is only a person known to law who can sue and be sued. For a suit to be duly constituted, the parties involved must be known to law. The law is that only natural persons—human beings—and juristic or artificial persons like bodies corporate are competent to be Claimants and Defendants. See Fawehinmi vs. NBA (1989) 2 NWLR (pt 105) 558.
In the case of Andy Igbokwe vs. Person Unknown (2008) BLR (Pt 1) 395, 402, Abiru J (as he then was) considered extensively whether an action against an Unknown Person is competent. His answers are considered here:
- “The question that arises is—whether the person named in this suit ‘Person Unknown’ is a person known to law. And the simple answer is No. As a general position, it does not identify any individual, person, or body corporate. It is very nebulous and cannot be tied down to any particular entity. A defendant referred to as Person Unknown has no legal status or capacity to sue or be sued as a general rule.”
In the case of Chief Kunle Oyero vs. Chief Isola Balogun & 2 Others (1978) 7 CCHCJ, where the claimant sought to join ‘Person Unknown’ as co-defendants, Desalu J (of blessed memory) refused the application on the ground that the party sought to be substituted has no legal status and capacity.
The court presided over by Abiru J further held that the only exception to the general position is provided under Order 59 of the High Court Rules. This Order is in respect of summary proceedings for possession of land, and its provisions are similar to the provisions of Order 113 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of England.
I also wish to commend us to the case of Daily Times v. Emezuom (1990) 2 NWLR (pt 132) 340, where the Court of Appeal held per Olatawura J.C.A (as he then was) that “Court of law is not the proper forum where a judge should watch a shadow boxing. Both the plaintiff and the defendant must exist in fact and in law.”
In the case of Ndoma-Egba v. Government of Cross Rivers State (1991) 4 NWLR (pt 188) 773 at 787, Niki Tobi J.C.A (as he then was) reiterated that only a natural or juristic person can be joined as a party. In C.O.P Ondo State v. Obolo (1989) 5 NWLR (pt 120) 130, Salami J.C.A (as he then was) stated that it is only a legal person that can sue and be sued. See Agbonmagbe v. GM G.B Olivant and Anor. (1961) All NLR 116.
I also observed other flaws in the process filed by the Lagos State Government in light of the reliefs sought and obtained, especially the propriety of granting an injunctive relief to compel the defendants (including the named ones) to stage their protest (that is, if they must protest at all) at Ojota Gardens. This issue is better addressed by the parties so named in the originating process in light of the Constitutional provisions that guarantee freedom of movement as well as the right to freedom of expression.
I have confined myself here to the nebulous description of a party as being Persons Unknown in an action of this nature.
The article was written by Taiwo Adedeji Esq. B.A, LL.B, LL.M
Seunmanuel Faleye is a brand and communications strategist. He is a covert writer and an overt creative head. He publishes Apple’s Bite International Magazine.