The Yoruba Party in the UK (YPUK), political voice of the UK Yoruba community, seeks judicial review on the grounds that the Yoruba had the legitimate expectation that the agreement that the British concluded with them in 1888 forever entrenched Yorubaland as an independent sovereign country in its relations with Britain, and barred Britain from ever appropriating Yoruba territory, but Britain did acts to frustrate the legitimate expectation.

Section 31(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 provides that: ‘No application for judicial review shall be made…unless…the applicant has a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates.’ 

YPUK meets these criteria. First, any Yoruba-speaking person had an inherent ‘sufficient interest’ by the fact of being Yoruba-speaking since ‘Yoruba-speaking peoples’ were the subject of the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty. In R v Independent Broadcasting Authority ex parte Whitehouse (1984) Times 14 April, for example, the fact that Mrs Whitehouse was a member of the TV license holders’ group was ‘sufficient interest’ to enable her successfully to claim legal standing. All current members of YPUK are Yoruba-speaking.

Second, YPUK, registered with the UK Electoral Commission on 13 February 2024, had ‘sufficient interest’ by the fact of being a Yoruba ethnic-based political party. In bringing the claim, YPUK was acting on a matter that directly affected its own interests as heir to the Yoruba legacy, and was therefore entitled to act as if it was an individual (R v Liverpool Corporation ex parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators’ Association [1972] 2 QB 299). 

Third, YPUK has standing by the fact of Individual members, time and time again, at meetings and in social media, expressing personal interests in the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty, and instructing YPUK to protect those interests by legal means.

Fourth, YPUK has standing by virtue of being able to mount an arguable case. YPUK could successfully argue that the 1888 treaty exists as a distinct and separate entity. YPUK could successfully argue that, just like the 1373 Anglo-Portuguese Treaty, the 1888 treaty still is in effect today in 2025. YPUK could further successfully argue that the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty passed legal tests established by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2002, where it used the terms of the 1913 Anglo-German Treaty to transfer the Bakassi Peninsula from Nigeria to Cameroon.

Finally, YPUK has standing on account of the fact that the British government was wholly responsible for the matter coming to judicial review in the first place. A claim might not have been brought if the British government had engaged in dialogue with YPUK to resolve outstanding questions raised by the 1888 Treaty. A claim also might not have been brought if the British government had invoked the arbitration provision in the 1888 treaty as YPUK had requested. It would be equitable, fair and just for the British government to pay the costs incurred by both sides in the proceedings since it was the British government’s own lack of engagement that prompted the claim to be brought.

NB: YPUK is relying entirely on voluntary subscriptions, grants and donations to realise this collective dream of an independent sovereign Yorubaland. You may donate to this cause via our website: www.yorubapartyuk.org or through our UK Lloyds Bank Account No. 32655960; Sort code: 30-54-66. Thank you.