Locus stand denotes the right standing of a person to sue over a wrong allegedly done to him. It is the totality of the right conferred on a person who approaches a court to seek remedy to have the right standing to seek a particular remedy.
See *Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc. v. L.G.C.Ltd. (2018) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1626) 96 C.A at pg. 141, paras. F-H.*

It should be rightly noted that a person without the requisite locus standi, no matter the colossal nature of the injury or damages allegedly done or suffered, cannot sue or have the right standing in a court of law to seek redress over such an alleged injury or damages done in which he has no or cannot show his locus standi to sue. Such a person can simply or safely be described as a meddlesome interloper. *(Owodunni v. Registered Trustees, Celestial Church of Christ (200) 10 NWLR (Pt. 675) 315.*

In essence, locus standi is the legal capacity of a person, be it natural or artificial to commence and sustain proceedings in a court of law.

*Fundamental feature of locus standi*

The fundamental feature of locus standi is that it focuses on the party seeking to have his complaint heard by the court and not the substance of the complaint itself even though two are intricately interwoven. See the case of *Resque Construction Company Ltd. v. Adesola (2013) LPELR 22142, Emechebe v. Ceto Int’l (Nig.) Ltd. (2018) 11 NWLR Pg. 537-538 (paras. H-A.)*

By implication, the party must be competent in law to be heard about his complaint.

In *Nnoli v. Noli (2013) LPELR-20633,17-18, FA, this court, per Tsammani, JCA* held as follows:

*_” a person is said to have an interest in a thing when he has rights, advantages, duties, liabilities, losses, et al. connected with the thing. Whether present or future, ascertained or potential, provided that in the case of right and duties, the possibility is not too remote…”_*

This solves the puzzle of a party having a right to heard in court.

*Test in determining the locus standi of a party.*

There are basically two tests in determining the locus standi of a person. The tests are as follows;

The action must be justiciable; and
There must be a dispute between the parties.
See *AG, Kaduna State v. Hassan (1985) 2NWLR (pt. 8) 483. , Jegede v. Oleshin (2016) 1W.R.N. 140 CA.*
In applying the test, a liberal attitude must be adopted. To have locus standi, the plaintiff’s statement of claim must disclose sufficient legal interest, and show how much interest arose in the subject matter of the action.

We have laid down a rule for locus standi in civil cases, this was established in the case of *Senator Adesanya v. The President of Nigeria (2002) 44 WRN 80.* While the cases of *Fawehinmi v. Akilu 1987 12 S.C 99* lays down the far more liberal rule for locus standi in criminal cases.

*When can a locus standi be raised in proceedings?*

*Rhodes-Vivour, JSC (p. 65) lines 15-20 in the case of B.B. Apugo & Sons Ltd v. O.H.M.B (2016) 30 W.R.N*, rightly pointed out that *_”locus standi is a threshold issue which can be raised at any time in proceedings or on appeal. A party instituting proceedings must have locus standi”._*

*Effect of lack of locus standi*

This is a very important aspect, for it boils down to the jurisdiction of the court.

Where a plaintiff lacks locus stand to commence an action in court, the action so commenced becomes incompetent because it is incapable of activating the jurisdiction of court. Therefore, the action will be incompetent and be struck out accordingly. See the case of *Ayoola v. Baruwa (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt. 628) 595; Waziri v. Danboyi (1999) 4 NWLR (pt. 589) 239.*

More discussion /research work: [email protected]