LOCUS STANDI: Court Dismisses NBA-SPIDEL’s Suit Against Hannatu Musa & 2 Ors
In a pivotal turn of events at Court No. 8 of the Federal High Court, Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/90/2024, between John Aikpokpo Martins (Chairman, NBA-SPIDEL) and Funmi Adeogun (Secretary, NBA-SPIDEL) against Mrs. Hannatu Musawa and 2 others, a significant legal ruling transpired today, March 21, 2024.
As proceedings commenced, the plaintiffs’ counsel admitted to not having filed additional authority but assured the court that they possessed it on hand. In response, the Court directed the Plaintiffs’ counsel to produce copies of the additional authority and serve them to all relevant parties, prompting a brief stand down of the case.
Upon reconvening for ruling, and after the plaintiffs counsel had served the parties and court his additional authorities; the presiding judge in the course of delivering the well considered ruling noted that parties were given opportunity to file written addresses, raise issue, and did canvass the issue raised and which the court considered, including the originating process before the court. The court thereafter proceeded with the ruling and made some notable pronouncements thus;
“The plaintiff in this suit has initiated this action not in their personal capacity as natural persons, but in their official capacity. However, even if it were instituted in their personal capacity, they still lack the standing or competence to bring this suit.”
To elucidate the distinction between actions in personal versus official capacity, the judge provided an analogy: “Currently, Chief Lateef Fagbemi, SAN is the Attorney General and Minister of Justice of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. If he brings an action on behalf of the Federal Government in his personal name, as Chief Lateef Fagbemi, such suit is likely to be struck out for lack of capacity. However the reverse is true if he brings the action in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the Federation. Thus, for the plaintiff to be deemed competent plaintiff, the NBA-SPIDEL from which they apparently drew their capacity to sue must be shown to be clothed with the legal capacity to sue. There is no doubt that NBA-SPIDEL is not a natural person but an artificial person not known to law. NBA-SPIDEL from the addresses of counsel, and as far as this court knows is a creation of the constitution of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), according to Section 17(1) of the NBA Constitution”
Noting how the sections of the Nigerian Bar Association came into existence, the court stated, “The sixth schedule of the constitution of the NBA mentioned the sections as follows: the NBA Section of Business law, the NBA Section on Legal Practice and the NBA Section on Public Interest and Development Law (SPIDEL)
“A look at the above presumes that NBA SPIDEL owes its existence to the NBA or the Incorporated Trustees of the NBA. The question now is whether SPIDEL can independently file an action without the Incorporated Trustees of the NBA. The answer is a resounding NO in the light of S. 17(4) of the Constitution of the NBA which provides thus Section 17(4) of the NBA Constitution provides: No Section, Section Committee or any of their officers or other representatives, shall represent the Association or hold themselves out as representing the Association in any respect, or take any action in the name of the Association except as authorized by the National Executive Council or the Bye-Law.”
It can be seen that the crux of the matter lies in the legal capacity of the NBA SPIDEL, from which the plaintiffs purportedly derive their authority to sue. However, the court highlighted that SPIDEL, as a mere section under the NBA, lacks juristic personality and can only sue under the name of the Incorporated Trustees of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA).
“NBA SPIDEL is a mere section under the NBA and an unincorporated body. It derives its existence from the Incorporated Trustees of the NBA which is a juristic person and thus can only sue under that name. This explains why the proper party to sue or be sued in matters involving federal ministries is the Attorney General of the Federation as such ministries lack juristic personality. The plaintiffs acted contrary to S. 17(4) of the constitution of the NBA by holding themselves out as representatives of the NBA”, the court held.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the suit for failure of locus standi on the part of NBA-SPIDEL, as well as the Chairman and Secretary personally.
As the court pleases!!!
It is obvious that this landmark decision may have an impact on the other NBA-SPIDEL matters commenced in like manner as Chairman and Secretary of NBA-SPIDEL for themselves and on behalf of the members of NBA SPIDEL, to wit:
a. Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1285/2023 – John Aikpokpo-Martins Esq & 2 Ors v. Federal Government of Nigeria & 2 Ors
b. Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/246/2024 – John Aikpokpo-Martins & Anor v. The Inspector General of Police & 3 Ors.
c. Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/247/2024 – John Aikpokpo-Martins, Esq & Anor v. The Inspector General of Police & Anor
d. Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/248/2024 – John Aikpokpo-Martins, Esq & Anor v. The Inspector General of Police & Anor.
Sharing his opinion withThe Metro Lawyer (TML) a lawyer who has been following the unfolding events, opined that the capacity of NBA-SPIDEL to maintain the above listed matters as constituted, in view of the decision of his lordship J. K Omotosho, has been put to rest; and as it is today, NBA-SPIDEL lacks the capacity until the decision is reviewed and set aside by an appellate Court.
The lawyer added that he read in a WhatsApp platform where one of the Plaintiffs said he was going to appeal in his personal capacity; stating that he wonders what loss the plaintiff suffered over and above other members of the Bar, to have the requisite locus but he however wished him luck.
