Nursing and Midwifery Council of Nigeria V. Esther Bose Adesina (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A. 

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court sitting at Asaba,?Coram Judice: Buba, J. in Suit No. FHC/ASB/CS/47/2009: MRS ESTHER BOSE ADESINA vs. NURSING & MIDWIFERY COUNCIL OF NIGERIA delivered on 5th day of August 2010. The facts of this case are simple and straightforward.

The Respondent herein, who was the Applicant at the Lower Court, is a Nurse and Midwife. She qualified as a Nurse in the name of KEHINDE YEKINI. She was duly licensed as a Nurse by the Appellant. Subsequently, the Respondent furthered her studies and qualified as a Midwife. At the time she qualified as a Midwife she now bore the names ESTHER BOSE ADESINA. The Appellant duly licensed her as a Midwife in the said name of ESTHER BOSE ADESINA. The change in the Respondent?s name was occasioned as a result of her marriage and having become a Christian. The Respondent duly gave the Appellant notice of the change of name and also paid the fees for change of name. Subsequently, the Appellant duly renewed the Respondent?s licence to practice as Nurse/Midwife in the name of ESTHER BOSE

1

ADESINA. Upon the expiration of the renewal of this licence, the Appellant refused to grant the Respondent a further licence in the said names but granted a renewal for the Respondent as a Nurse only in the name of KEHINDE ADESINA. The Respondent demanded for an explanation for the refusal to renew her licence as a Nurse/Midwife in the name of ESTHER BOSE ADESINA and in reply the Appellant,inter alia, stated that according to its policies on change of name, an individual can only change her maiden name but not the first or middles names since it does not change first or middle names in its records. Nonplussed by the reason advanced for the refusal to renew her licence as a Nurse/Midwife, the Respondent instituted proceedings at the Federal High Court for a review of the said decision wherein she claimed the following reliefs:
?1. An order declaring the decision of the Respondent by which it refused the Appellant a person who has satisfied the requirements for registration both as a nurse and mid-wife, and who had previously been registered, licence or renewal of licence to practise as both nurse/midwife as arbitrary, unfair and a violation of her

2

constitutional right to freedom from discrimination.
2. An order setting aside the decision of the Respondent made on the 13th day of March, 2008 whereby it decided that the Appellant cannot be licensed to practise as both nurse/mid-wife because she had effected change in both her first and middle names and that its policy does not allow such changes, on the ground that its reasons are extraneous and contrary to the purport and intendment of the statute establishing it.
3. An order directing the Respondent to license the Appellant to practise as both nurse and mid-wife having been registered as such and having not been shown to be of bad character forthwith.?
?
The action was contested on affidavit evidence filed by the parties and the written addresses filed and exchanged by counsel for the parties. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Lower Court entered judgment in favour of the Respondent. The said judgment is at pages 108-131 of the Records. The Appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment lodged an appeal against the same on 3rd November 2010. The notice of appeal is at pages 132-134 of the Records. The Records of Appeal having been

3

compiled and transmitted the parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument.

The Appellant?s Brief of Argument was filed on 20th December 2010, while the Respondent?s Brief was filed on 5th February 2013; pursuant to the order for extension of time to file the same granted by the Court on 23rd January 2013.

The Appellant distilled two issues as arising for determination, namely:
?1. Is the Appellant entitled under its enabling powers to issue guidelines for the registration of names of Nurses and Midwives and amendment of any portion thereof.
2. Has the fundamental human rights of the Appellant been breached by the mere refusal of the Appellant to effect a change in its own registers to accommodate her whimsical change of her entire names.?

The Respondent equally formulated two issues as arising for determination as follows:
?1. Whether the power granted to the Appellant to make rules or guidelines is such as could enable it make the kind of rules that would infringe on the constitutional rights of the Respondent.
2. Whether the fundamental right of the Appellant to freedom from discrimination

4

has been breached in the application of the Appellant?s policy in the instant case.?