The motion on notice should then be taken to decide the competence or otherwise of the representative action.
![remo gagi remo gagi](https://alchetron.com/cdn/anthony-spilotro-c621b659-81b4-498e-897a-7fd263089a6-resize-750.jpeg)
THE POSITION OF THE LAW ON A PARTY INTENDING TO CHALLENGE THE PROPRIETY OF A REPRESENTATIVE ACTIONĪlso, a party intending to challenge the propriety of a representative action is required to do so on motion on notice in the court of first instance. It is only when it is shown that there has been a substantial opposition to representation by members of the group that the plaintiff may be denied representation.” PER. Nnaji (1961) ALL NLR 441 and 449 that disgruntled elements dissenting from a general authorization of a group ought not to be permitted to frustrate the common interest of the group. I would respectfully adopt the view expressed by Idigbe J., as he then was in Nsima v. The mere fact that some factional members of the Muslim community sympathetic to the cause of the appellants were not in support of the representative action by the respondents would not have defeated the representative action, save the appellants had shown those in opposition were in the majority – See Melifonwu & Ors v, Egbuji and Ors (1982) N.S.C.C, 341 at page 348 thus- “However, because of incompatibility of human nature, it has been appreciated that the plaintiff needs not have the authority of the entire interested groups Sogunle v. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE:WHETHER THE DISSENT FROM A GENERAL AUTHORIZATION OF A GROUP CAN FRUSTRATE THE COMMON INTEREST OF THE GROUP