NBA-SPIDEL Officials Cannot Sue In Official Capacity Without Incorporated Trustees, Court Rules
The Federal High Court in Abuja on March 21, 2024, dismissed a lawsuit filed by officials of the Nigerian Bar Association’s Section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL) against the Minister of Art, Culture, and Creative Economy, Hannatu Musawa and two others. The case, registered as FHC/ABJ/CS/90/2024, met an abrupt end due to the plaintiffs’ lack of legal standing, commonly referred to as locus standi.
The plaintiffs, John Aikpokpo Martins, the Chairman of NBA-SPIDEL, and Funmi Adeogun, the Secretary, had initiated the legal action in their official capacities. However, the court ruled that even if the suit were brought in their personal capacities, they would still lack the competence to pursue the case before the court.
As the proceedings unfolded, the plaintiffs’ counsel conceded to not having filed additional authority but assured the court of possessing it. Consequently, the Court directed the counsel to produce and serve copies of the additional authority to all relevant parties, leading to a brief adjournment of the case.
Upon reconvening for the ruling, the presiding judge made notable pronouncements regarding the plaintiffs’ capacity to sue. The court emphasized that while the plaintiffs initiated the action in their official capacities as NBA-SPIDEL officials, even if the suit were instituted in their personal capacities, they would still lack the standing or competence to bring the case.
Clarifying the distinction between actions in personal and official capacities, the judge drew an analogy with the Attorney General and Minister of Justice of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The court stressed that for the plaintiffs to be deemed competent, NBA-SPIDEL must be shown to have the legal capacity to sue. However, NBA-SPIDEL, as a creation of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) constitution, is an artificial entity not recognized by law.
The court noted that NBA-SPIDEL owes its existence to the NBA or the Incorporated Trustees of the NBA, as per Section 17(1) of the NBA Constitution. The sixth schedule of the constitution mentions NBA-SPIDEL as one of the sections under the NBA. The court held that NBA-SPIDEL, being a mere section under the NBA and an unincorporated body, cannot independently file an action without the involvement of the Incorporated Trustees of the NBA, as per Section 17(4) of the NBA Constitution.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the suit, stating that the plaintiffs acted contrary to Section 17(4) of the NBA Constitution by holding themselves out as representatives of the NBA without the involvement of the Incorporated Trustees.
TheNigerialawyer recalls that during the hearing on March 19, 2024, the Federal High Court in Abuja sought to determine whether SPIDEL, as an unregistered association, had the legal capacity to file a suit against Mrs. Hannatu Musawa and others.
Representing the NBA President, Senior Advocate of Nigeria Olusegun Jolaawo drew the court’s attention to a written address filed on March 18, 2024, on behalf of the incorporated Trustees of the NBA. Jolaawo emphasized the gravity of the situation, arguing that SPIDEL’s actions undermined the authority of the NBA President and violated the association’s constitution. He further submitted that NBA-SPIDEL could not maintain the action in its current form and urged the court to dismiss the case with costs.
The court’s order provided the NBA with an opportunity to be heard, noting the frequent mention of the association in the legal processes. Prior to this hearing, the NBA had suspended the activities of NBA-SPIDEL’s leadership, citing allegations of misconduct and breach of association rules pending an investigation.
Counsel for the NYSC and the Ministry of Justice also adopted their written addresses during the proceedings, which were attended by Godspower Eroga, Esq. for the Plaintiffs; Douglas Moru, Esq. for the 1st Defendant; J. E. Okpe, Esq. with M. Augie, Esq. for the 3rd Defendant; and A. O. Rufai for the 4th Defendant.
The plaintiffs’ counsel informed the court that they had filed and served the 1st, 3rd, and 4th defendants their written address on the juristic capacity of the plaintiffs and whether SPIDEL was a juristic personality that could institute the action, as ordered at the last adjourned date. Counsel for the 1st, 3rd, and 4th defendants confirmed filing their respective processes.
Expressing its desire for the NBA President to be made aware of the present suit, the court ordered that the NBA President be served with the processes and respond accordingly, considering SPIDEL’s status as a section of the NBA. A motion for substituted service on the 2nd defendant was also moved and granted.
