Justice Akintayo Aluko of the Federal High Court, Lagos has dismissed a N15 billion lawsuit filed by an unregistered architect, James Onyemenam and 14 others against the Architects Registration Council of Nigeria (ARCON) and three others, ruling that the case lacked merit.
In a judgment delivered in the suit marked FHC/L/CS/925/2017, the court also awarded N200, 000 in costs against all the unregistered architects in favour of ARCON and the Attorney-General of the Federation.
Other unregistered architects alongside James Onyemenam are: Mr. Ayo Akinmade, Mr. Anthony Nwobbi; Mr. Ajayi E. Adeniyi; Mr. Adeleke Iwakun; Mr. Ugochukwu Uwadi; Miss. Sandra Ifeachor; Mr. Opemipo Sotiloye; Mr. Dominic Ibeh; Mr Adesojl Oyenusi; Mr. Nojuno Ogbechie; Mr Olumide Oshikoya; Mr. Olalekan Akinyemi; Mrs. Abosede Akindele and Dr. (Mrs) Aduwo Egidairo.
They had dragged ARCON before the court over alleged refusal to recognise the September 2016 Professional Practice Competence Examination (PPCE) conducted by the Nigerian Institute of Architects (NIA), seeking full registration as architects.
They also demanded N15 billion as general damages.
They had argued that ARCON’s refusal was unlawful and contrary to the Architects (Registration, etc.) Act, Cap A19, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. Their suit, marked , named ARCON, the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Minister of Works and Housing, and the Trustees of the NIA as defendants.
But ARCON, through its counsel, C. E. Amadi, urged the court to dismiss the suit, maintaining that under Section 2(1) of the Act, it holds the statutory authority to register or refuse to register architects and determine the validity of qualifying examinations.
Amadi likened ARCON’s discretion to an employer’s right to hire or reject a candidate, asserting that registration is contingent not only on passing an approved examination but also on meeting character requirements.
Justice Aluko in a judgment delivered on March 6, 2025, upheld ARCON’s argument, stating that the 2016 PPCE was invalid as it was conducted without ARCON’s mandatory approval, in violation of Sections 7(1) and 9(1) of the Act.
The court ruled that ARCON was right to reject the examination and deny registration.
The judge concluded: “The main and consequential reliefs sought by the plaintiffs lack merit and substance. The suit is accordingly dismissed.”
Notably, the names of the 14th and 15th plaintiffs were struck out during the proceedings, and the Attorney-General’s defence was disregarded after its counsel declined to present any witness.
The other two defendants did not file any response to the suit.
