BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE O. Y. ANUWE

Dated: 13th October 2026                            

SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/355/2025

         

Between: 

 

Charles Akom Debt Recovery Services Ltd. -                           Claimant

(Suing as Trustees on Behalf of 216 former Staff

Of the defunct International Trust Bank Plc.

Now Ecobank Nig. Ltd)

 

And

 

Ecobank Nig. Ltd.                                                        -                              Defendant         

 

Representation:

B. T. Ojonugwa for the Claimant

Ugonna Afiadigwe with Nwoba E. Nwoba for the Defendant

 

    RULING/JUDGMENT

On 22nd January 2026, the defendant filed a notice of preliminary objection wherein it sought the following reliefs:

1.       An Order striking out the suit for lack of jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

2.     An Order striking out this suit for being an abuse of court process.

3.     An Order striking out the suit as the Claimant lacks Locus Standi.

4.     An Order striking out this suit for disclosing no reasonable cause of action against the Defendant.

5.     And for such further order(s) as the Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

 

The grounds upon which the NPO is brought are as follows:

i.                   The Claimant's suit is a gross abuse of the process of this Court, as the institution of the present suit is an attempt to re-litigate an issue already decided sometime in 2007, in suit FCT/HC/CV/203/2007 between Maitala Iliyasu (suing for themselves and representing 161 former staff of International Trust Bank Plc now dissolved) & 2 Ors V. Oceanic Bank International PLC, and in Suit No: NICN/ABJ/323/2013 between Charles Akon Investment Ltd V. Ecobank Nigeria Ltd on behalf of 207 alleged staff members of International Trust Bank Plc between the same parties, involving the same former staff of International Trust Bank Plc on the same subject matter and seeking substantially the same reliefs.

ii.                 The institution of the present suit amounts to multiplicity of actions, as the Claimant has initiated parallel proceedings in courts of coordinate jurisdiction in respect of the same cause of action, thereby subjecting the Defendant to needless harassment, embarrassment, and multiple litigations thereby constituting abuse of court process.

iii.              The Claimant lacks the requisite locus standi to institute and maintain this action, because there is no legal nexus between the Claimant and the 216 persons being purportedly represented by him.

iv.               The Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

v.                 The Claimant who brought this suit under the guise of a Trustee on behalf of the alleged 216 former Staff of the defunct International Trust Bank Plc (ITB), now Ecobank Nig. Ltd has no legal basis and cannot stand as there was no validly executed Power of Attorney donated and/or any other document from the purported 216 Staff collectively appointing Blessing I. Hephzibah and Oscar A. Ugbem as General co-ordinator and coordinators respectively of a non- existent organization, to institute this action for and on behalf of all of them.

vi.               From the Claimant's pleadings and from the documents/particulars adduced, only disclosed that the Claimant is acting as a Trustee of a non-existent organization.

vii.            This application was brought in the interest of justice.

 

The NPO was supported with an affidavit, deposed to by Dehinbo Francis, a Human Resources Business Partner in the employment of the defendant, and a written address. In opposing the NPO, the claimant filed a counter affidavit and written address on 20th April 2026. The Counter affidavit was deposed by Charles Ifeanyichukwu Akom, who said he is the Chief Executive Officer of the claimant.

 

I have examined the grounds of the NPO and I observe that from the totality of the grounds, only 3 grounds of objection have been raised, which are:

1.       That this suit is an abuse of Court process;

2.       That the Claimant lacks locus standi to institute and maintain this suit, and

3.       That the suit does not disclose reasonable cause of action against the defendant.

 

From these grounds of objection, it is my view that the ground that the claimant lacks locus standi to institute this suit comes foremost for consideration. This is because the claimant must have the requisite standing to institute the suit before the other issues as to whether the suit itself is an abuse of court process or whether the suit disclosed any reasonable cause of action can be considered. I will therefore first consider whether the claimant has locus standi to institute this suit.

 

In the affidavit in support of the NPO, it was deposed that the claimant filed this suit claiming to act as a Trustee for the 216 former staff of defunct ITB Plc and also claiming that Blessing Hephzibah and Oscar A. Ugbem were appointed as General Coordinator and Coordinator respectively. However, no Power of Attorney or any written authority from the said 216 persons was filed with the Claimant's processes. The claimant did not also file any document showing the existence of any organization for which the Claimant claims to act as Trustee, or showing that the Claimant was appointed as Trustee by such organization.

 

The arguments of the defendant on this ground of objection are contained in issue 2 of the written address in support of the NPO. Learned counsel for the defendant, Ugonna Afiadigwe Esq., submitted that the Claimant lacks the capacity in law or the locus standi to institute and maintain this action against the Defendant on behalf of the 216 staff members of International Trust Bank. Counsel cited Osagie & Ors V. Enoghama & Ors (2022) LPELR-58903(SC) where it was decided that before a party can maintain an action in any court of law or tribunal, such a person must have locus standi to maintain such an action. There is no fact in this case showing that Charles Akom Debt Recovery ]Services Ltd was a staff of the then International Trust Bank (ITB) or was ever in the employ of ITB before or after the merger and the appointment of Charles Akom Debt Recovery services Ltd and the Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer, Charles Ifeanyichukwu Akom as debt recovery agents and lawful attorneys to represent and use the company's financial resources to institute action on behalf of former staff of International Trust Bank (ITB) was not established by credible evidence.

 

It was further submitted that there is nothing before this court to show that the 216 permanent staff members of the International Trust Bank Plc are in any recognizable organization or that the said 216 members of the organization donated any power of Attorney to Blessing I. Hephziba as their General Coordinator and Oscar A. Ugbem, as Coordinator to give them the right to sub-donate or delegate such powers to the Claimant. Thus, the Power of Attorney relied on by the claimant did not show that the 216 staff of International Trust Bank Plc appointed the Claimant to institute the action on their behalf. Since the claimant lacks locus standi to institute or commence this action on behalf of the said 216 staff of the International Trust Bank Plc, this Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 

 

The explanation given in the claimant’s counter affidavit to establish its locus standi is contained in paragraph 5 [xxiii], [xxiv] and [xxv] of the counter affidavit. It was deposed in these paragraphs of the counter affidavit that the claimant pleaded in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the statement of facts that it instituted this suit in a representative capacity as Debt Recovery Agents and Lawful Attorneys on behalf of 216 persons who jointly and severally appointed the claimant by a duly executed Power of Attorney dated 25/10/2024 and vested their legal titles on the claimant to represent them in order to recover their deducted outstanding balance of N569,947,120.16.

 

The written address in support of the claimant’s counter affidavit was signed by Charles Ifeanyichukwu Akom. Charles Ifeanyichukwu Akom submitted 3 issues to the court for determination and proceeded to argue the issues. The fact that the written address of the claimant was signed by Charles Ifeanyichukwu Akom raises the issue of the competence of the written address. This observation arose from the fact that Charles Ifeanyichukwu Akom is not the claimant in this suit and he is also not a legal practitioner representing the claimant as he had not said it anywhere in the counter affidavit that he is a lawyer. I have also not seen any NBA stamp and seal in his name affixed to any of the processes signed by Charles Ifeanyichukwu Akom in this suit. The claimant in this suit is Charles Akom Debt Recovery Services Ltd, which is a juristic person. Charles Ifeanyichukwu Akom is only the CEO of the claimant. The implication of Charles Ifeanyichukwu Akom signing the written address filed before me is that Charles Ifeanyichukwu Akom is addressing this court in a suit in which he is not a party and not a legal practitioner representing the claimant. These facts made me to wonder where Charles Ifeanyichukwu Akom got the competence or authority to address this Court in this matter.

 

It is either a party in a suit before this court or his legal practitioner that can address this court personally. Charles Ifeanyichukwu Akom not being a party in this suit and not being the legal practitioner for the claimant lacks the competence to address the court in this suit. More so that there is nothing presented to the Court in the claimant’s counter affidavit to the NPO, or even in any of the processes filed by the claimant in this suit to show that the claimant authorized Charles Ifeanyichukwu Akom to sign processes on its behalf in this suit. Simply being the CEO of the claimant does not authorize Charles Ifeanyichukwu Akom to sign court processes for the claimant without a Board resolution to that effect.

 

What worries me the most is that on 14th July 2026 when the NPO was heard, B.T. Ojonugwa Esq, appeared for the claimant and adopted the written address prepared and signed by Charles Ifeanyichukwu Akom. That is an unfortunate development. Has the legal profession degenerated to the state where non-lawyers to prepare processes, file them in court and then engage lawyers to go to court to adopt such processes? I must say that it is an act of professional misconduct for lawyers who engage in such arrangement.

 

Without expending further energy on the competence of the written address in support of the claimant’s counter affidavit signed by Charles Ifeanyichukwu Akom, I hold that the written address is not competent and this court cannot give it any consideration. Accordingly, I will discountenance the written address. This decision however does not affect the counter affidavit to the NPO deposed by Charles Ifeanyichukwu Akom, which he could do in the capacity of a witness for the claimant in respect of the NPO.

 

The term “locus standi”, which is synonymous with “standing” or “title to sue”, means the right of a party to institute an action and to appear in court and be heard on the questions he brought before the court. The term is usually used in connection with a claimant who has instituted an action and the question usually is whether in law, he can commence or prosecute the suit he has commenced. The concept of locus standi is dependent on two main factors. They are the subject matter of the suit and sufficient interest to be shown by the claimant on the subject matter. The law requires that there must be a correlation between the interest of the claimant and the subject matter of the suit touching him as a party and thus giving him the right to complaint or the right to defend his civil right and obligations against another person, government or authority. In DOPAH V. REGISTERED TRUSTEES, UMCN (2019) 4 NWLR (Pt. 166) 520, it was held that:

Locus standi means the legal capacity or standing of a party to institute an action in a competent Court of law or tribunal. Therefore, the challenge of a person's 'locus standi' in a case raises a question of whether the person whose standing is in issue, is the proper person to seek the adjudication of the Court or tribunal upon the issues involved in or the subject matter of the case.”

 

See also EAST HORIZON GAS CO. LTD V. EFIOK (2012) ALL FWLR (PT. 605) 386 AT 395; ADETONA V. ZENITH INTERNATIONAL BANK PLC (2012) ALL FWLR (PT. 611) 1443 AT 1465; METILELU V. OLOWO-OPEJO (2006) ALL FWLR (PT 337) 418 AT 429.

 

Where a party does not have sufficient interest in the subject matter of a suit or in the outcome of the suit or if he has not suffered or does not stand to suffer any injury either by the enforcement, or threatened exercise of some power, authority or right which he complained about in the suit, he is said to lack locus standi in the suit.

 

As a general principle, the locus standi of a claimant in a suit he instituted is to be found in the endorsements in the writ of summons and the averments in the statement of claim or, if it is in respect of a suit commenced by originating summons, the originating summons and the affidavit in support. Thus, in deciding whether a claimant has locus standi, the originating process is to be examined to ascertain whether the claimant discloses a cause of action vested him. In FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC V. NERIKO ENTERPRISE LTD [2002] FWLR [PT. 95] 335 AT 344 it was held as follows:

“In an application to determine whether a plaintiff has locus standi or not, the judge is bound to confine himself within the four walls of the writ of summons and the statement of claim before him and no more, as the issue of locus standi is a matter of law. Even, if the statement of defence has been filed at the time the objection was made, the Judge would still be bound to confine himself to the statement of claim of the plaintiff to decide whether he has a locus standi”

 

See also METILELU V. OLOWO-OPEJO (SUPRA) AT 430; ADETONA V. ZENITH INTERNATIONAL BANK (SUPRA) at 1454.

 

In the Complaint, which was also signed by Charles Ifeanyichukwu Akom, the only named claimant is Charles Akom Debt Recovery Services Ltd and it was stated under its name as suing in a representative capacity as “Trustees on behalf of the 216 former staff of the defunct International Trust Bnak Plc [ITB] Now Ecobank Nig. Ltd”. The reliefs sought by the claimant in the suit are as follows:

1.      An Order directing the Defendant to pay to the claimants the liquidated outstanding balance of N569,947,120.16 only, shown in the Defendant's account of the claimants' final entitlements dated 19/2/2009, attached as Exhibit L being the amount of money deducted from the claimants' salaries and allowances, salary in lieu of notice, special redundancy payment, pension contributions and gratuity, when the business of the Bank was low.

2.     An Order directing the Defendant to pay to the claimants, 10% percent interest per annum on the deducted outstanding balance of N569,947,120.16 only, as damages, calculated at the rate of N56,994,712.02 only, multiplied by 16 years (from 1st April 2009 to 31st March, 2025), being the total sum of N911,915,392.32 only.

3.     An Order directing the Defendant to pay to the claimants 10% percent interest per annum on the entire judgment debt from the 1st of April 2025 until same is completely liquidated or satisfied.

4.     An Order directing the Defendant to pay the entire judgment sum to the claimants' Lawful Attorney, Charles Akom Debt Recovery Services Ltd, within the time allowed for appearance and upon such payment, the proceeding shall terminate.

5.     An Order directing the Defendant to pay to the claimants the total sum of N3,500,00.00 only, as cost of the suit.

6.     And for such order or further orders as this Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

 

The claimant pleaded as follows in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the statement of claim.

1.      The claimants aver that the Defendant (now Ecobank Nig. Ltd) owes the claimants the outstanding balance of N569,947,120.16 only.

2.     The named Claimant on record, Charles Akom Debt Recovery Services Ltd, is a Private Limited Liability Company, legally registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission, incorporated in Nigeria on the 12th of April 2024, under the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020 with Registration No. 7440216, carrying on the business of Debt Recovery using all legal avenues, with office situate at No. 3 Shop, Chief Palace Road, Jikwoyi, Phase 1, Abuja within the jurisdiction of the Honourable Court.

3.     That the 216 persons represented in the suit, jointly and severally appointed Charles Akom Debt Recovery Services Ltd and its Managing Director/CEO Charles Ifeanyichukwu Akom (the Claimants on record) as their Debt Recovery Agents and Lawful Attorneys (herein referred to as Trustees) and validly vested their legal titles on them, with the exclusive right to represent them and to use the Company's financial resources to initiate on their behalf, any measure that may be necessary or incidental including but not limited to Court action against the Defendant, now Ecobank Nig. Ltd, in order to recover their deducted outstanding balance of N569,947,120.16 only and to take absolute possession of and hold the money on trust and to disburse same to the beneficiaries according to the amount owed each person, after deducting the agreed commission.

4.     That the Claimants on record bring this action against the Defendant (now Ecobank Nig. Ltd) in a representative capacity as Debt Recovery Agents and Lawful Attorneys (herein referred to as Trustees) on behalf of all the 216 persons whose names and the amount owed each person are shown in the document marked "Appendix A" attached to a duly executed Power of Attorney dated 25/10/2024 donated to the Claimants on record.

5.     That the action is supported by the duly executed Power of Attorney dated 25/10/2024 donated to the Claimants on record. A copy of the Power of Attorney dated 25/10/2024 is pleaded.

6.     The Claimants aver that the 216 persons represented in this suit were permanent staff of the former International Trust Bank Plc (ITB), formerly known as Gamji Bank of Nig., later Oceanic Bank International Plc. and now Ecobank Nig. Ltd., the Defendant in the suit. A copy of the ITB staff list is pleaded.

 

The subject matter of the suit is the amount of money allegedly owed to the 216 former staff of the defendant as outstanding entitlements by virtue of their employment with the defendant. The people who were owed the outstanding entitlements the claimant claims in this suit are the 216 former staff of the defendant. That is to say the persons who have interest or are entitled to the money are the 216 former staff of the defendant. The 216 former staff of the defendant are therefore the proper persons to commence action in court to recover the outstanding entitlements owed to them by the defendant. However, none of the said 216 former staff is a named claimant in this suit. Rather, the named claimant claims to have instituted this suit in representative capacity on behalf of the said 216 former staff of the defendant and in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the statement of facts, the claimant relied on a Power of Attorney dated 25/10/2024 as being the instrument donating authority to it to institute this suit on behalf of the said 216 former staff of the defendant.

 

I have examined the Power of Attorney dated 25/10/2024, which the claimant frontloaded, to ascertain the claimant’s authority to institute this suit on behalf of the 216 former staff of the defendant. The Power of Attorney was signed by Blessing Hephzibah and Oscar A. Ugbem on behalf of the “donors” and Charles Ifeanyichukwu Akom for Charles Akom Debt Recovery Services Ltd, the Trustees. Of the 216 former staff of the defendant, only two of them, Blessing Hephzibah and Oscar A. Ugbem, signed the Power of Attorney, purportedly on behalf of the 216 former staff of the defendant. However, I cannot find any document in the documents frontloaded by the claimant where the remaining 214 staff appointed or authorized Blessing Hephzibah and Oscar A. Ugbem to be their representative or to sign the Power of Attorney on their behalf. Also, I cannot find any document signed by all the 216 former staff of the defendant appointing or authorizing the claimant as Trustee or to institute this suit on their behalf.

 

To have brought this suit on behalf of the 216 staff, the claimant has confirmed that all the 216 staff are alive. Why did the 216 staff not sue in their names? Even if they decided to sue through the claimant, why is there no letter of authority to the claimant signed by all of them? There is no averment in the statement of claim to answer these questions. In any case, from the averments of the claimant and the documents produced, particularly the Power of Attorney relied upon by the claimant, I do not find any valid authority donated to the claimant by the 216 former staff of the defendant it claims to represent in this suit.

 

The claimant is not a former staff of the defendant. The claimant does not also have, neither is he entitled to any part of the money owed to the former 216 staff of the defendant. The claimant has also not been authorized by all the 216 former staff of the defendant to institute this suit on their behalf. Consequently, the claimant lacks the locus standi to institute this suit in its name as the claimant. The effect of this finding is that the claimant is not the proper party to institute this suit in the first place.

 

The claimant’s capacity to institute and maintain this suit goes to the foundation of the suit. The claimant’s lack of locus standi and its lack of proper authority to institute this suit in representative capacity renders the suit incompetent and also affects the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit. Accordingly, the court cannot proceed further to determine the suit or consider any other issue/ground in the NPO. Consequently, I find merit in prayers 1 and 3 of the NPO.

 

Let me digress to comment on the competence of the Originating Complaint itself. Order 4 Rule 4[3] of the Rules of this Court provides that an originating process shall be signed by the Claimant or Counsel where the claimant sues through a Counsel. Order 6 Rule 1(2) specifically provides that each copy of originating process “shall be signed by the claimant suing in person or by the Counsel”. In this case, the claimant sued in person and not through a counsel but the Complaint was signed by Charles Ifeanyichukwu Akom who is not the claimant and not the counsel for the claimant. I understand that Charles Ifeanyichukwu Akom is the CEO of the claimant company. That position, without a Board resolution enabling him in that behalf, does not authorize him to issue the Complaint. I hold the view that the Complaint is not a validly issued originating process of this suit and thus liable to be set aside. That is by the way.

 

The result of the conclusion reached on the NPO is that prayers 1 and 3 of the NPO are granted. This suit is hereby struck out.

 

No order as to cost.

 

Ruling is entered accordingly.

 

 

Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe

Judge