His Lordship, Hon. Justice Sanusi Kado of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division on Monday 4th June 2018 in a ruling dismissed suit against Senate President, NHIS, NASS and others for lack of locus standi hold that the Claimant is not proper party to institute this suit more particularly when the right sought to be protected is peculiar to each of the employee of the National Health Insurance  Scheme (4^th Defendant).

The Claimant commenced this suit via a complaint dated 8/12/17 and filed on the same day, claiming against the Defendants jointly and severally among others: A declaration that the steps taking by the Honourable Minister of Health towards resolving labour agitations, establishment errors arising from the 2013 recruitment exercise in the 4^th Defendant including the setting up of Committee on Stagnation at National Health Insurance Scheme is in Consonance with the Public Service Rules and the duties of the Federal Ministry of Health as the supervisory Ministry for the 4^th Defendant. A declaration that the Resolution of the Senate Committee on Health as contained in the letter dated 29^th November, 2017 and implementation directed thereof is contrary to the provisions of Public Service Rules on Recruitment, promotions and discipline. An order setting aside the Resolution of the Senate Committee on Health as contained in the letter dated 29^th November, 2017 for being contrary to the provisions of the Public Service Rules on procedure for discipline, promotion and recruitment in the public service of the Federation.

Upon being served with the originating processes commencing this suit, the 5^th Defendant and 1^st and 2^ndDefendants separately filed notices of preliminary objection against this suit. There are also two applications filed by different set of parties seeking to be joined as parties in this suit. The two preliminary objections and the two applications for joinder were taken at the same time.

The 1^st and 2^ndDefendants/Applicants vide a notice of preliminary objection dated22/2/18 and filed on the same day are praying for an order of this Honourable Court dismissing or striking out this suit for want of jurisdiction. The notice of the preliminary objection was brought pursuant to section 6(6) (B) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the grounds that the Claimant lacks the legal capacity to institute this action, and the suit discloses no reasonable cause of action and Pre-action notice was not served on the 4^th Defendant

After reviewing the argument of the parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice Sanusi kado expressed thus;

“After a careful perusal of the notice of preliminary objection of the 5^th Defendants the affidavit in support, counter-affidavit and the further and better affidavit and the reply on points of law, as well as the notice of preliminary objection filed by the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ notice of preliminary objection dated 22/2/18.

However, this Court has held in numerous cases that the general rule has exception. That is to say where the reliefs borders on area in which IAP does not have power to grant this Court will assume jurisdiction so as not to leave litigants without remedy.

Looking at the reliefs of the Claimant which have been reproduced in the earlier part of this ruling, they are seeking for declaratory and injunctive reliefs, since IAP does not have power to determine injunctive and declaratory reliefs, this has made the reliefs to be within the purview of the jurisdiction of this Court as per sections 16, 18 and 19 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006.  In the circumstance it is my finding that this suit falls within the exception to the general rule. Therefore, this Court is clothe with requisite jurisdiction to entertain the reliefs as contained in the statement of facts. I so hold.

In view of the foregoing, the objection to this suit based on section 34(3) of the National Health Insurance Act is based on misconception of law. It is therefore not applicable in this case.

In the case at hand, it has not been established by the Claimant that the right to be protected by this action is that of the majority of its members. Rather the state of the facts before the Court shows that there are divisions amongst the members of the Claimant under the employment of the 4^th Defendants.

The two applications for joinder goes to establish the rift amongst the members of the Claimant under the employment of the 4^th Defendant. In view this finding to allow the Claimant to prosecute this suit will amount to allowing the Claimant protect only a segment of its members and disenfranchise the other segment whose interest could not taken care of by this suit.

The Claimant must be seen always to give equal treatment to its member and not be seen to take side. The right to promotion and recruitment which is a personal right of the individual members of the Claimant can best be pursued by the individual member affected. Since the present litigation is not for protection of collective interest of the members of the Claimant, the Claimant lacks locus standi to prosecute this matter.

In the circumstances I hold the Claimant is not proper party to institute this suit more particularly when the right sought to be protected is peculiar to each of the employee of the 4^th Defendant.

This suit is hereby struck out, accordingly.

For Full Judgment, Click Here