Ambassador Yusuf Hamman & Ors V. His Excellency Otunba Adeniyi Adebayo & Ors (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ZAINAB A. BULKACHUWA, J.C.A.

In the Federal High Court Abuja coram Edet ‘J’ the 1st – 16th Respondents as Plaintiffs initiated an action against the appellants as defendants in Writ of Summons filed on the 30th of May 2000. Their claim against the defendants is as per paragraph 13 of the Statement of Claim whereby they claim as follows;

(i) An order of this Honoruable Court restraining the Defendants, their servants, agents and privies from conducting any congress starting from ward scheduled for the 3rd of June, 2000, Local Government 14th of June 2000, State scheduled for 24th of June, 2000 and National Convention Scheduled for 1st July, 2000 as published in the Newspapers, or indeed on any other date thereafter.

(ii) An order of this court restraining the 1st to 4th Defendants, their agents, servants and privies from obstructing tampering or in any way interfering with the 1st to 16th Plaintiffs in the execution of their functions as members of the National Convention Committee democratically selected by the National Executive Committee of the 17th Plaintiff.

(iii) A declaration that the 1st to 16th Plaintiffs were properly and democratically selected by the National Convention Committee of the 17th Plaintiff and by virtue of that the only legal authority to conduct the National Convention of the 17th Plaintiff.

Pleadings were filed by the parties, before trial could commence however, the defendant as applicants filed a Motion on Notice on the 8th of June, 2000 in which they sought the following reliefs;

An order setting down the point of law raised.

In paragraph 17(1) to 17(v) of the Statement of Defence for determination by this Honourable Court, as shown hereunder before the hearing of evidence in this case:-

(i) That the National Convention Committee comprising the 1st to the 16th Plaintiffs being a mere ad – hoc committee which is unknown to the Constitution of the 17th Plaintiff, the committee has no power to dissolve the Protem National Executive Committee of the 17th Plaintiff.

(ii) That the Plaintiffs National Convention Committee not being a creature of the Constitution of the 17th Plaintiff, the committee is not a juristic person. Consequently, this action is incompetent having been constituted by the 1st – 16th Plaintiffs as ‘ALL MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL CONVENTION COMMITTEE OF THE ALLIANCE FOR DEMOCRACY’ and the Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the action.

(iii) The 1st to 16th Plaintiffs have no locus standi in law to institute this action as they have not shown any loss or injury or damage suffered either individually or collectively them as a result of the Defendant’s action.

(iv) That under the constitution of the 17th Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant as Protem National Chairman of the 17th Plaintiff, he is empowered to Summon the First National Convention of the Alliance for Democracy and not the 1st to 16th Plaintiffs.

(v) That this present action by the 1st – 16th Plaintiffs is a duplication of a similar suit instituted by the Alliance for Democracy (AD) against the 1st – 16th Plaintiffs now pending in Suit No FCT/HC/CV/359/2000 and therefore in abuse of Court process.

And take further notice that the 1st – 4th Defendants/Applicants will at the hearing of this application rely on the Statement of claim and statement of defence already filed in this case.