Court Stops Estate Surveyors Institute from Expelling Aggrieved Members

Wale Igbintade

Justice Akintayo Aluko of the Federal High Court, Lagos, Monday stopped the Nigerian Institution of Estate Surveyors and Valuers (NIESV) and its president from interfering with the rights of four members of the institution to practise as licensed estate surveyors and valuers.

Justice Aluko also restrained the institute and its president, their privies, officers, agents or anyone howsoever described from publishing on any social media platform or forwarding to any newspaper agency for the purposes of publishing in any of the national/widely read dailies/newspapers, the findings/conclusions contained in the investigative report of the institute dated January 27, 2023 and the letters dated January 31, 2023, pending the hearing and final determination of the motion for interlocutory injunction brought against them by three members of the institute.

The court made the interim order while granting the motion filed and argued by Dr. Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), counsel to three members of the institute, in a suit marked FHC/L/CS/191/2023.

Four members of the institute, Mr. Richard Olodu, Mr. Oyedepo Olalekan, Mr. Afolabi Lewis Emmanuel and Mr. Abraham Akinropo, had dragged the NIESV to court following their motion exparte brought pursuant to Orders 26 and 28 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 and under the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

The four applicants in their affidavit deposed to by the first applicant, Olodu, said that he became an associate member of the first defendant in March 23, 2012, and that he is currently the assistant honorary national publicity secretary of the first defendant, whilst he knows for a fact that the second, third and fourth plaintiffs hold or have held positions as the current chairman of Kwara branch, past publicity secretary of the Lagos branch 2005/2007 and secretary, NIESV’s electoral committee 2011/2012 and past assistant secretary, NIESV’s electoral appeal committee 2016 respectively.

He stated that he knew for a fact and through his interactions with the defendants that since their admission into the first defendant as members, they have at all times demonstrated the highest uprightness expected of honourable members of the first defendant without any record of disobedience or infringement on the dictates of the constitution, rules and bye-laws or of any conduct likely to breach the common purpose of the association.

He stated that following the need to discuss certain issues relating to the upcoming elections of the first defendant, financial members of the first defendant forwarded a petition to the first defendant with a view to summoning an extra ordinary general meeting (EGM) of the first defendant.

He stated that in fulfillment of the requirements, the members of the first defendant who so desired to summon the extra-ordinary general meeting collated signatures of the financial professional members of the first defendant, however, for a plethora of reasons the meeting could not hold.

He added that upon becoming the president of the first defendant, the second defendant instigated the council of the first defendant to investigate the allegation of signature forgery in the cause of convocation of the EGM of the first defendant.

Based on the above, the deponent stated that on July 30, 2022, the council of the first defendant purportedly approved the constitution and appointment of members of an investigation panel all of whom were personally nominated by the second defendant in his inaugural speech against the council’s known norms at the floor of the council.

He stated that sequel to the constitution of the purported investigation panel, invitation letters were sent to the plaintiffs to appear before the purported investigation panel.

He added that following the purported deliberations by the investigation panel on January 27, 2023, the panel purportedly reached conclusions/findings expelling them as members of the first defendant.

The deponent stated that based on the defendants’ action, they instituted a suit, which commenced by originating summons to challenge their purported expulsion as members of the first defendant.

He stated that the purported constitution of the investigation panel and all the resolutions reached thereafter ought to be nullified, quashed, set aside and invalidated. 

He averred that the constitution of the purported investigation panel for the purpose of investigating the purported allegations of forgery against the plaintiffs is an attempt to usurp the powers of the Nigerian Police and the various High Courts to investigate and determine criminal matters.

He added that until the allegations of forgery have been investigated and determined by the police and the appropriate court of law, any investigation by the first defendant is premature and hasty.

The deponent stated that there is need for the court’s intervention and that unless the defendants are restrained, pending the hearing and determination of the motion for interlocutory injunction, the defendants would give effect to the panel reports and their suspension letter issued by the defendants.

He also stated that unless restrained, pending the hearing and determination of motion for interlocutory injunction, the defendants would proceed to publish the purported investigation report over several social and print media as discreet investigation by the plaintiffs revealed that the defendants have perfected plans to do so.

He further stated that: “If not urgently and expediently restrained pending the hearing and determination of motion for interlocutory injunction, the publication of the purported investigation panel in the national dailies and/or any social media platform will affect their economic opportunities as prospective /current clients may likely debrief them.”

Justice Aluko granted the order of interim injunction and adjourned the matter till February 23, for hearing of the applicants’ motion on notice.