"The law is settled on the ambit of an application for enforcement of fundamental right under the Fundamental Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rules of 2009. In F.R.N. & AMOR v. IFEGWU (2003) 15 NWLR PT. 842 p. 113, Uwaifo JSC explained the position of the law thus:
"...for a claim to qualify as falling under Fundamental Rights it must be clear that the principal relief is for the enforcement of a fundamental right and not, from the nature of the claim, to redress a grievance that is ancillary to the principal relief which itself is not ipso facto a claim of a fundamental right. In other words where the alleged breach of a fundamental right is ancillary or incidental to the substantive claim of the ordinary civil or common law nature, it is incompetent to constitute the claim as are for the enforcement of a fundamental right. See TUKUR V GOVERNMENT OF TARABA STATE (1997) 6 NWLR (PT. 510) 549, SEA TRUCKS (NIG.) LTD V ANIGBORO (2001) 2 NWLR (PT. 696) 159 (2001) 1 S.C. (PT. 1) 45."
In a later case, AKINTAN J.S.C in W.A.E.C. V ADEYANJU (2008) 9 NWLR (PT. 1092) 270, put the position of the law this way: "The position of the law is that the procedure for instituting an action based on the infringement of a fundamental right, under the Constitution is prescribed by the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1979. Only a breach of any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in the Constitution can be enforced under the procedure.
Thus an action for wrongful dismissal from employment cannot be brought under the Rules since it belongs to a different class of action from action on contravention or threatened contravention of a Fundamental Right. See EGBUONU V B.R.T.C. (1997) 12 NWLR (PT. 531) 29; TUKUR V GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (PT. 117) 517 and TUKUR V GOVERNMENT OF TARABA STATE (1997) 6 NWLR (PT. 510) 549, Where therefore an application is brought under the rules a condition precedent to the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction is that the enforcement of Fundamental Right or the securing of the enforcement thereof should be the main claim and not an accessory claim. See TUKUR V GOVERNMENT OF TARABA STATE (Supra) and B.R.T.C. V EGBUONU (Supra)."
Again, TABAI JSC in W.A.E.C. V AKINKUNMI (2008) 9 NWLR (PT. 1091) 151 had this to say: "The settled principle is that in ascertaining the justice ability or competence of a suit commenced by way of an application under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1979 the Court must ensure that the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights is the main claim and not the ancillary claim. Where the main or principal claim is not the enforcement of a fundamental right the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be said to be properly invoked and the action will be liable to struck out for incompetence."
Per AWOTOYE, J.C.A. IN NWANMUO v. KELECHI & ORS CITATION: (2018) LPELR-45018(CA)
