A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has dismissed a suit challenging the appointment of certain members of the board of directors of MTN Nigeria Communications Plc.

In dismissing the suit,  the trial judge, Deinde Dipeolu, held that the suit filed by Osa Director against MTN Nigeria Communications Plc and some of its directors disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

In the suit, FHC/L/CS/1413/2024,  the plaintiff challenged the appointment of some of the directors on an allegation that the action contravened some principles of corporate governance among other relevant laws.

Director alleged that the appointments of the second to fifth defendants, who had previously worked for public corporations, as directors of MTN Nigeria, was in violation of some corporate governance principles and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, among other legislations.

In response, MTN Nigeria Communications Plc, through Prof. Fabian Ajogwu (SAN), filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit.

He argued that the plaintiff lacked the locus standi to institute and maintain the suit, and that the suit did not disclose any reasonable cause of action enforceable against the defendants.

In his judgment, Justice  Dipeolu held that the plaintiff lacked the locus standi to initiate the suit, having failed to show any injury or special damage suffered by him on account of the appointment of the second to the fifth defendants as directors of MTN Nigeria.

The court also held that the originating summons does not disclose any reasonable cause of action enforceable against the defendants and consequently dismissed the suit.

The judge, therefore, ruled that the suit lacked merit, citing insufficient legal foundation and the plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate harm.

Although MTN Nigeria has not yet made an official statement on the matter, legal experts emphasised that plaintiffs must establish clear breaches of statutory or constitutional duties, not merely corporate preference or dissatisfaction.

According to a legal expert, “the court’s dismissal of the suit underscores established legal principles in appointment challenges – plaintiffs bear the burden of proving substantive legal breaches and must often be proper parties to bring such claims. This outcome reinforces the expectation that corporate internal matters like board appointments will not be overturned lightly without clear, legally cognisable grounds.”