The appellants brought an action in the Magistrates' Court "for themselves and on behalf of" a named Association, against the respondent, a former member of the Association. At the trial, the minutes book of the Association was produced to prove that the appellants were authorised to act on behalf of the Association. The magistrate, however, held that without a proper of attorney from the Association the appellants had no authority to sue. He dismissed the suit, whereupon the appellants appealed to the High Court under Order V, rule 6 of the Magistrates Court (Civil Procedure) Rules.

HELD:

(1)     It is clear from Order V, rule 6, Magistrates' Court (Civil Procedure) Rules that where there are numerous persons having the same interest in an action, one or more of them may sue as a matter of course on behalf of all persons so interested. Authority to represent the others is a matter of proof and it seems that the best proof in the circumstances of this case is by the production of the minutes of the meeting conferring the authority. It follows that the appellants were entitled to sue as they did and that the magistrate erred in dismissing the suit.

OBITER:

Where action is to be brought by chosen members of an association, in the name of the association, it is better for the plaintiffs to be described in the title of the Suit as suing "for themselves and on behalf of the members of the" Association.

Appeal allowed: Decision set aside: Trial to be continued and completed.

Opene, for the Appellants.

Respondent absent.

De Lestang, C.J. of Lagos:-This appeal arises in the following circumstances:-

The appellants, who are two persons, sued the respondent in the Magistrate's Court, Lagos, "for themselves and on behalf of" a named Association, excluding the respondent who apparently was also a member of the association.

At the trial one of the two named plaintiffs produced the Association's minute book which authorized them to act on behalf of the Association. The learned Magistrate appears to to have ruled that without a proper power of attorney from the Association the plaintiffs had no authority to sue. He dismissed the Suit with costs. The plaintiffs appeal.

It is clear from Order V, rule 6, Magistrates' Court (Civil Procedure) Rules that where there are numerous persons having the same interest in an action, one or more of them may sue as a matter of course on behalf of all persons so interested. Authority to represent the others is a matter of proof and it seems to me that the best proof in the circumstances of this case was by the production of the minutes of the meeting of the Association conferring the authority. It follows that the appellants were entitled to sue as they did and that the learned Magistrate erred in dismissing the suit. It would have been better, however, for the plaintiffs to be described in the title of the Suit as suing "for themselves and on behalf of the members of the" Association. It is clear, however, that this was what was meant.

The appeal is allowed and the decision of the court below is set aside together with the order for costs. The case will go back to the court below for the trial to be continued and completed. The appellants will have the costs of this appeal assessed at twelve guineas inclusive of disbursements.