Search summary:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LAGOS

ON TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 1970

LD/44/70

BETWEEN

LATEKOE ADEBOWALE TUAKLI .......................................... PLAINTIFF

AND

THE NIGERIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION LTD ........................................ DEFENDANTS

BEFORE: George J.

 

The plaintiff claimed against the defendant, an officer of the Nigerian Broadcasting Corporation, a declaration that the action of the defendants in interdicting him from duty was ultra vires void and of no effect. At the hearing, Counsel for the defendants raised a preliminary objection, to wit, that the Director General of the Nigerian Broadcasting Corporation was not a juristic person and therefore asked that the defendants be dismissed from the suit.

Counsel for the plaintiff in reply contended that since the post was created by statute, the defendant was a juristic person.

 

HELD:

The post of Director General of the Nigerian Broadcasting Corporation is a creation of statute and so is known to the law. By enacting section 16(1) of the Act, the Federal Government as it then was had created a legal or juristic person. The effect of a judgment against him was an entirely different matter. The preliminary objection was, therefore, over-ruled.

Preliminary Objection over-ruled.

 

Cases referred to:

Agbonmagbe Bank v. G.B. Ollivant (1961) A.N.L.R. 116

 

Acts referred to:

The Nigerian Broadcasting Corporation Act, Cap. 133, Sections 2, 5(c), 16(2), 16(1).

Lagos Town Planning Act, Section 50

 

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

Shyngle, for the Defendant.

Aka-Bashorun, for the Plaintiff.

 

George, J.:-In this case the plaintiff claims against the defendant an officer of the Nigerian Broadcasting Corporation a declaration that the action of the defendant in interdicting him from duty as a Senior Executive Engineer of the Nigerian Broadcasting Corporation and from the 23rd of July, 1970 is ultra vires void and of no effect.

This case was listed for the 27th of July, 1970, but upon the matter coming up for hearing, a Counsel for the plaintiff informed the court that there was a motion on notice for an order "restraining the defendant, etc., from preventing the applicant from carrying out his normal duties with full pay as a Senior Executive Engineer of the Nigerian Broadcasting Corporation."

Before the motion was heard Mr Shyngle for the defendant informed the court that he had a preliminary objection. He was allowed to raise this objection which was to the effect that the Director General of the Nigerian Broadcasting Corporation was not a juristic person. He, therefore, asked that the defendant be dismissed from the suit. He referred to sction 4 of the Nigerian Broadcasting Corporation Act. By this section, the Nigerian Broadcasting Corporation was established. Subsection 2 reads:-

"The Corporation shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal and shall have power to sue and be sued in its corporate name and to acquire, hold and dispose of movable and immovable property for the purpose of its function under this Act.

Section 5(c) of the Act states the constitution of the Corporation. The Corporation by this section consists, inter alia, of a Chairman, the Director General (a member without vote) and other enumerated persons in the section.

It is clear from the two sections referred to that the Director General of the Corporation is an officer under the Corporation. Section 16(2) states what powers may be delegated by the Corporation to the Director General. In short the Director General carries out administration and supervisory functions over the Acts and Servants of the Corporation in matters of executive administration, etc. Mr Shyngle cited the case of Agbonmagbe Bank v. G.B. Ollivant Limited 1961 A.N.L.R. 116, in support of his argument. In that case the plaintiff company sued the General Manager of the defendant company and a preliminary objection was taken that the General Manager of G.B. Ollivant Limited was not a juristic person and as such could not be sued. It appears from the judgment that his matter was litigated upon on a previous occasion before Bennet, J., who held that the defendant was not a juristic person. "It was a post and except there was a statute making it a legal person, it could not bring or defend an action." Dickson, J., considered all the authorities referred to and came to the same conclusion that the defendant was not a juristic person and so should be dismissed from the suit.

Mr Aka-Bashorun in the course of his reply said that the case of G.B. Ollivant rested on the fact that G.B. Ollivant was not created by law. But he continued that section 16 of the Nigerian Broadcasting Corporation Act Cap. 133 creates the post of Director General. He further contended that since the post was created by statute, the defendant was a juristic person. He drew inspiration from the fact that actions in the High Court are brought in the name of the Chairman of the Lagos Executive Development Board whenever the latter issues an originating summons asking the court to determine the quantum of compensation payable to persons whose properties have been acquired under the Lagos Town Planning Act.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the analogy of the Lagos Executive Development Board is not applicable to this case. The Chairman of the Lagos Executive Development Board, in instituting actions in the High Court by originating in his name, acts under the provisions of sections 50 of the Lagos Town Planning Act which says that "all matters shall be held and taken by the court upon originating summons in the form in the schedule taken out by the Chairman of the Board"

It is section 50 of the Act, which gives the Chairman of the Lagos Executive Development Board the power to sue in his name.

In the instant case, however, the post of Director General of the Nigerian Broadcasting Corporation is a creation of statute and so is known to the law. By enacting section 16(1) of the act, the Federal Government as it then was has created a legal person or juristic person. The effect of a judgment against him is an entirely different matter. The preliminary objection is therefore over-ruled. This ruling is decided purely on the ground that the post of Director General is created by statute.

Preliminary objection over-ruled