The Federal High Court Abuja, relying on a preliminary objection by the legal team of the Federal Minister of Finance, Wale Edun, has rejected (struck out) a suit challenging the delayed construction of over 500 healthcare centers involving a previous N85 billion FEC contract.
The judgment, exclusively reported by Nairametrics, agrees with the Minister that a “third party” lacks the locus standi (legal right) to challenge a contract in court.
Nairametrics learnt that the Minister of Finance’s legal team had, on January 13, 2025, urged the court to dismiss or strike out the suit, citing the lack of locus standi of the plaintiffs to institute the action.
According to court documents (in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1797/2024), exclusively reviewed by Nairametrics, two lawyers, Onabe Wilfred Ewoh and Fayenengigha Israel Jacob, alleged that no healthcare centers had been constructed in several LGAs, including Cross River LGA, following an N85 billion contract for the construction of 774 healthcare centers across Local Government Areas.
Nairametrics previously reported that the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) recently accused the Nigeria Governors Forum, the plaintiffs and other “interlopers” of delaying the N85 billion contract approved by the Federal Executive Council in 2007 for the construction of 774 healthcare centers across Local Government Areas in Nigeria through their respective pending litigations.
Details of the Legal Dispute
The plaintiffs claimed to be indigenes of Boki Local Government Area of Cross River State and Brass Local Government Area of Bayelsa State.
According to court documents, in September 2024, the leadership of the Registered Trustees of the Association of Local Government of Nigeria (ALGON) (4th Defendant in the case) entered into a contract for the construction of a health center in each of the 774 Local Government Areas and Area Councils within the Federal Republic of Nigeria for the total sum of N85,744,539.66.
The plaintiffs allege that the elected chairpersons of the 774 Local Government Areas and Area Councils within the Federal Republic of Nigeria were not involved in the project and that no such healthcare centers had been constructed in their respective LGAs.
“An order of this Honourable Court restraining the 1st to 5th Defendants from further deducting the sum of N85,744,539.66, or any other sum to be paid to the 5th Defendant without the consent of the democratically elected chairpersons of the Local Government Areas and Area Councils,” their relief partly reads.
The plaintiffs claimed that the registered trustees of ALGON at the time lacked the authority to act on behalf of Boki Local Government Area and the other 773 Local Government Areas and Area Councils of the Federal Republic of Nigeria without the consent of the elected leadership of the Local Government Areas and Area Councils.
But in an affidavit deposed to by Nwabuko Catherine Omoh, a staff member of the Banking Services Department of the CBN, it was stated that before the contract was approved by the Federal Executive Council, each of the 774 Local Governments and Area Councils was consulted and gave their consent for the award of the contract for the construction of the healthcare centers in their respective local governments.
The official added that the plaintiffs are neither elected chairmen nor official representatives of any of the 774 Local Governments and Area Councils in Nigeria, nor are they parties to the contract which they seek to nullify by this suit.
The official explained in processes dated April 3, 2025, that “a total of 584 healthcare centers have so far been constructed out of the proposed 774, leaving a balance of just 190 healthcare centers outstanding.”
Court Proceedings
At the previous court session, Tunde Onamusi, who represented ALGON and Hon. Bello Lawal, alleged that the plaintiffs’ case is based on a non-existent factual premise, urging the court to dismiss the case.
“The Plaintiffs’ case is based on a non-existent factual premise; they want the Court to declare a contract illegal, and they said it was entered into by ALGON and Hon. Bello Lawal, yet there is no such contract between the two Defendants.
“Their own Exhibit shows the parties to the contract,” he added.
Counsel for Mathan Nigeria Limited (6th Defendant), Wale Balogun SAN, urged the court to decline jurisdiction and strike out and/or dismiss the suit.
Balogun stressed that the contracts being referred to are between the 774 Local Governments and his client (Mathan).
He urged the court to dismiss the suit with heavy costs to serve as a deterrent to other meddlesome interlopers, adding that the plaintiffs lack legal authority (locus standi) to legally challenge the contract.
The Minister of Finance’s lawyer, A. A. Shamaki, Esq., raised an objection to the suit.
In the Minister’s written address, the judge was asked to determine whether, having regard to the Plaintiffs’ Originating Summons and the depositions contained in the affidavit in support of the same, the Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit.
The lawyer argued that it is settled law that for a claimant to commence an action, such claimant must possess the locus or legal capacity to institute the action.
“The Court must be properly clothed with jurisdiction; otherwise, any proceeding conducted by the Court is a nullity no matter how well conducted,” the Minister’s legal team added.
Court’s Judgment
- Delivering the judgment on July 24, 2025, Justice Mohammed Umar agreed with the Minister that the plaintiffs are third parties to the said contract.
“While not going into the merit of the matter at this stage, but in view of the preliminary objection of the 1st (Minister of Finance) and 6th Defendants, I need to state this obvious fact as far as the locus standi of the Plaintiffs is concerned,” the judge said, stressing that it is elementary that only parties to a contract can sue on the same contract and not third parties.
- The judge held that while the law is clear regarding a contract such as this, the plaintiffs are third parties and lack the capacity to challenge it, as the parties to the contract are very much available and are in a position to challenge the said contract if breached.
- The judge held that “the Plaintiff cannot use the words ‘public interest litigation’ as a magic wand that automatically clothes them with locus standi to challenge the said contract.”
- The judge described the plaintiffs as busybodies as far as the subject matter of the suit is concerned.
- Relying on the minister’s objection, the judge struck out the case.
What This Means
- In law as referenced by Justice Umar, lack of locus standi ordinarily means a plaintiff has no legal right or authority to cross the threshold of the court for the purpose of litigation and should be sent home to mind their business.
- The Court’s judgment highlights that in contractual agreements, only a party to a contract can legally challenge the terms of the contract or the contract itself.
- While the trial court judgment is subsisting, parties have the legal option to test the decision at superior courts.
Backstory
- The legal dispute purportedly arose from a contract in 2007, approved by the Federal Executive Council (FEC) at the time, for the construction of comprehensive primary healthcare centers in each of the 774 Local Governments and Area Councils in Nigeria.
- The Federal Executive Council (FEC) in 2007 gave conditional approval for the construction of N35 billion comprehensive healthcare centres in the 774 Local Government Areas in the country, AllAfrica reports.
- Minister of Information and Communications, Mr. Frank Nweke (Jnr), disclosed this while briefing the media after the council meeting on January 24, 2007.
- He was quoted as saying the construction of the health centres was an initiative of the Association of Local Governments of Nigeria (ALGON) on behalf of the local governments under a Public-Private Partnership (PPP).
