Chinwo v. Owhonda (2008) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1074) 341 at P. 360. paras. D - E; P. 360, paras. F-H(CA)
ISSUE
JURISDICTION : Whether court has jurisdiction to set aside or change decision made by members of a voluntary association
PRINCIPLE
"A court of law has no jurisdiction to set aside or change the decision of a voluntary association made after its usual normal debate and approval. In the instant case, there was a debate on the bye-law before it was approved by the Port Harcourt branch of the Nigerian Bar Association. It was also debated again and approved by the National Executive Committee of the Association. In the circumstance, the trial court was right when it struck out the appellant's suit on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the suit because the appellant's complaint related to a decision by the members of a voluntary association, which was not justiciable. [Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244; Abdulkadir v. Mamman (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt. 839) 1]" "It is well settled in our judicial system that courts are restrained in relation to domestic matters of associations like the Nigerian Bar Associations, Nigerian Medical Associations, etc. etc. in the rule in Foss v. Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461. The appellant being a legal practitioner, should note that, the purported alleged infringement of his right as a member of the Nigerian Bar Association by virtue of his fundamental rights as a citizen of Nigeria, can only be resolved by a majority decision of its members. In other words, wrongs done to a voluntary association, or disputes arising from a debate, should he resolved by the majority decision of the voluntary club or association of which his view was in the minority." Per Thomas, JCA

muller101:
This thread should be closed

Mynd44:
CC Caseless Seunmsg

Y'all were saying?