Architects council moves to vacate court order on qualifying exams

The Architects Registration Council of Nigeria (ARCON) has initiated a process challenging a court order that barred it from conducting any qualifying examination for Nigerian architects pending a determination of a suit.

Justice Muawiyah Baba Idris of the FCT High Court, Abuja, had recently given the order in a suit initiated by 13 persons that sat and passed the qualifying examination conducted by the Nigeria Institute of Architects (NIA).

They sued ARCON, NIA, President of ARCON, Arc. (Sir) Dipo Ajayi, and President of NIA, Arc. Njoku Adibe.

Following a motion ex parte by the plaintiffs filed on May 30, 2019, and moved July 30, 2019, Justice Idris, a vacation judge, after hearing plaintiffs’ counsel, ordered an “interlocutory injunction restraining ARCON from conducting and/or purporting to conduct any qualifying professional examination by whatever name or form for the registration of architects in Nigeria; whether by themselves, agents, servants, and/or privies, whatsoever and howsoever from purportedly conducting such examination pending the hearing and determination of the originating summons.”

The matter was then adjourned to August 8, 2019. But for some reasons, it was learnt that the matter could not go on as planned. Thursday, August 22, is now fixed for the hearing.

Days after the order, ARCON filed a preliminary objection challenging the order.

Specifically, ARCON; the architecture profession’s regulator in Nigeria, said two requests had been placed before the court. One: an order of the court dismissing or striking out the whole matter for want of justice and, secondly; an order discharging and or setting aside the court’s interlocutory order dated July 30, 2019.

The Federal Government’s agency is also asking the court for such further or other orders it may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

Justifying its reasons for the objection, ARCON said the court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter ab initio since the Federal High Court had the exclusive jurisdiction.

ARCON also argued that the plaintiffs/respondents lacked the locus standi to institute the action.