05/10/2024
*TOTAL EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION (NIG) LTD v. OKWU & ORS (2024) LPELR-62623(SC)*
Principle:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT(S) - Whether a joint application can be filed by more than one person to enforce a right under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules
"... it is not correct law that two or more persons cannot jointly file one application for the enforcement of their respective fundamental rights alleged to have been breached or violated by a common act of one or more respondents. It is true that Section 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and Order II Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure Rules) 2009 say that "any person" who alleges that any of the Fundamental Rights provided for in the Constitution to which he is entitled has been, is being or likely to be infringed, may apply to Court for redress. It is also correct that the word 'person' is in the singular. However, it is an elementary universal rule of statutory construction that where the singular is used in a statute it includes the plural and vice-versa except it is expressly stated otherwise. Thus, in the case of Public Citizen, Inc. Vs Mineta 340 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2003) where a statute provided for the provision of warning systems that indicate "when a tire is significantly under inflated", the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, held that the Act's "a tire" plainly meant one tire, two tires, three tires, or all four tires, under the elementary rule of statutory construction that the singular ("a tire") includes the plural ("tires"). This principle is captured in Section 14(b) of the Interpretation Act, 1964 which reads that "in an enactment, words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular." By Section 315 of the 1999 Constitution, the Interpretation Act is an Act of the National Assembly which has been incorporated by reference into the Constitution and Section 318(4) of Constitution provides explicitly that the "Interpretation Act shall apply for the purpose of interpreting the provisions of this Constitution." (underlining for emphasis) These positions were confirmed by this Court in the case of Saraki Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt 1500) 5371. What these translate to is that the word "person" used in Section 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Order II Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure Rules) 2009 admits the plural and can be interpreted as referring to more than one person. Additionally, in the case of Texaco Panama Incorporation (Owners of the Vessel M.V. Star Tulsa) Vs Shell Petroleum Development Corporation of Nigeria (2002) 5 NWLR (Pt 759) 209, this Court held that the word 'any' when used in a statute has a diversity of meaning and may be employed to indicate 'all' or 'every' as well as 'some' or 'one' and its meaning in a given statute depends upon the context and the subject-matter of the statute. In other words, the word 'any' may mean 'some', 'out of many', or 'an indefinite number' or 'one'. Thus, the phrase "any person" used in Section 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Order II Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure Rules) 2009 can be interpreted to mean multiple persons." Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, JSC (Pp 33 - 36 Paras F - E)
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - RULES OF INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTION - Rules governing the interpretation of Constitutional provisions
"The law is settled that in interpreting the Constitution, mere technical rules on the interpretation of statutes are, to some extent, inadmissible in order to avoid defeating the principles of government enshrined in the Constitution. Accordingly, where the question is whether the Constitution has used an expression in the wider or in the narrower sense, the Court should, whenever possible, and in response to the demands of justice, lean to the broader interpretation unless there is something in the text or in the rest of the Constitution to indicate that the narrower interpretation will best carry out the objects and purpose of the Constitution - Rabiu Vs State (1980) 8-11 SC 130, Skye Bank Plc Vs Iwu (2017) 16 NWLR (Pt 1590) 24, Abubakar Vs Independent National Electoral Commission (2020) 12 NWLR (Pt 1737) 37 National Unity Party Vs Independent National Electoral Commission (2021) 17 NWLR (Pt 1805) 305. In All Progressives Congress Vs Enugu State Independent Electoral Commission (2021) 16 NWLR (Pt 1801) 1 at 67-68H-D, the Supreme Court put the point thus: "The Supreme Court's approach to construction and interpretation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is one of liberalism. This is so because anything contrary thereto would be tantamount to defeating the very end which the Constitution was enacted. It is the duty of the Supreme Court which has the ultimate responsibility of declaring and interpreting provisions of the Constitution always to bear in mind that the Constitution itself is a mechanism under which laws are to be made by the legislature and not merely an Act which declares what the law is. Accordingly, where the question is whether the Constitution has used an expression in the wider or in the narrower sense, the Court should always lean where the justice of the case so demands to the broader interpretation unless there is something in the context or in the rest of the Constitution to indicate that the narrower interpretation will best carry out its object and purpose." In other words, the Court should always adopt a broad and liberal approach in interpreting the provisions of the Constitution. Thus, where an expression used in the Constitution is capable of a wider or narrow interpretation, the broader interpretation is to be preferred - In Re Maduike (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt 1671) 255, Central Bank of Nigeria Vs Rahamaniyya Global Resources Ltd (2020) 8 NWLR (Pt 1726) 314, Crestar Integrated Natural Resources Ltd Vs Shell Petroleum Development Co Ltd (2021) 16 NWLR (Pt 1800) 453." Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, JSC (Pp 36 - 39 Paras E - F
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT(S) - Whether an application can be filed by more than one person to enforce a right under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules
"It follows therefore that the phrase "any person" used in Section 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Order II Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure Rules) 2009 cannot, and should not, be given a constricted, narrow and limiting interpretation that it refers to only one person. It should be given the wider interpretation to include more than one person or individual. This approach to the interpretation of the phrase "any person" used in Section 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Order II Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure Rules) 2009 accords with the overriding objectives of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure Rules) 2009 as provided in its preamble. The Preamble to the Rules enjoins the Court to constantly and conscientiously seek to give effect to the overriding objectives of the Rules at every stage of human rights action, especially whenever it exercises any power given it by the Rules or any other law and whenever it applies or interprets any rule. And the first overriding objective says that Constitution as well as the African Charter shall be expansively and purposely interpreted and applied, with a view to advancing and realizing the rights and freedom contained in them and affording the protection intended by them. (underlining for emphasis) These statements enjoin the Courts not to allow a conservative approach to interpretation of the Constitution and of the Rules and peripheral technical rules to defeat and/or impede a person seeking the enforcement of his fundamental rights - Federal Republic of Nigeria Vs Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt 842) 113, Enukeme Vs Mazi (2014) LPELR-23540(CA). The truth and reality is that there is no express provision in the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 that forbids two applicants from filing a joint petition for enforcement of their fundamental rights. Now, Order XV Rule 4 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 provides that where in the course of any Fundamental Rights proceedings, any situation arises for which there is or appears to be no adequate provision in the Rules, the Civil Procedure Rules of the Court for the time being in force shall apply. The applicable High Court Rules of the trial Court at the time the action was commenced, the High Court of Rivers State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2010, contains a provision in its Order 14 Rule 4 that says that claims by claimants jointly may be joined with claims by any of them separately against the same defendant. The Courts have interpreted this provision as permitting persons who have rights arising from one common cause to file a joint action as co-claimants to ventilate the rights, notwithstanding some of the reliefs sought may be different - Hyson (Nigeria) Limited Vs Ijeoma (2008) 11 NWLR (Pt 1097) 18, Fode Drilling (Nig) Ltd Vs Fabby (2017) LPELR 42822(CA), AbdulRaheem Vs Oduleye (2019) LPELR 48892(SC). The above underscores the wisdom in the reasoning and decisions of the Court of Appeal in the cases of Uzoukwu Vs Ezeonu Il (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt 200) 708 at 761, Ihejiobi Vs Ihejiobi (2013) LPELR 21957(CA), Ubochi Vs Ekpo (2014) LPELR 23523(CA), Orkater Vs Ekpo (2014) LPELR 23525(CA), Maitangaran Vs Dankoli (2020) LPELR-52025(CA), Government of Enugu State Vs Onya (2021) LPELR-52688(CA), Incorporated Trustees of Digital Rights Lawyers Initiative & Ors Vs National Identity Management Commission (2021) LPELR 55623(CA), National Security Adviser Vs Tabe (2022) LPELR 57209(CA), Ejeh Vs Ali (2022) LPELR 57593(CA), Enakarhere Vs Oduduru (2022) LPELR 58310(CA), Oghenegueke Vs Inspector General of Police (2023) LPELR 60233(CA) and Nuwawan & Ors Vs Inspector General of Police (2023) LPELR 61580(CA) and others which held that the law and the rules governing enforcement of fundamental rights do allow for the filing of a joint application by two or more applicants where their complaints flow from the same cause of action and that such a joint application is competent. The decisions in the cases of Udo Vs Robson (2018) LPELR 45183(CA), Kporhahor Vs Yedi (2017) LPELR 42418(CA), Finamedia Global Services Ltd Vs Onwero Nigeria Limited (2020) LPELR 51149(CA), Chief of Naval Staff & Ors Vs Archibong & Ors (2020) LPELR 51845(CA) and Abuja Electricity Distribution Company Plc & Ors Vs Akaliro & Ors (2021) LPELR 54212(CA) relied upon by Counsel to the Appellant and others like them, and which hold otherwise, do not represent good law. The joint application filed by the first to the sixth Respondents before the trial Court was thus proper." Per *HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU,* JSC (Pp 39 - 43 Paras A - A)
