CAIFAL, had in the suit filed in June this year, accused NYSC of charging a mandatory N3000 call-up letter fee from prospective youth corps members, contrary to its enabling law. According to the group, NYSC officials in connivance with a private company, Sidmach Technologies Limited, charged N3000 fee to prospective corps members to print out their call-up letters before they are mobilised for the mandatory national youth service in clear contravention of its enabling laws. Joined as respondents in the legal action are: The Director General of NYSC, Sidmach technologies Ltd, Minister for Youths and Sports, and the Attorney General of the Federation. At the resumed hearing of the matter on Friday, counsel representing the third respondent (Sidmach) Emeka Ngige (SAN) informed the court of a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction, and an order dismissing the suit. While canvassed eight grounds in support of a six paragraphs affidavit attached to the suit, Ngige urged the court to discountenance the plaintiff’s suit. The lawyer submitted that the plaintiff had not showed any cause of action, or that it had suffered any hardship in the mobilisation process for the NYSC scheme. He also insisted that the plaintiff was unknown to law as it was not properly so-called with its incorporated name recognised by the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA). Ngige further submitted that the plaintiff failed to comply with the provisions of section 20 of the NYSC Act, which requires such complaint to be forwarded in writing to the president, before a resort to litigation. He, therefore, urged the court to strike out the suit as it failed to disclose sufficient cause of action. The position of the learned silk was also adopted by other respondent counsels, who also prayed the court to strike out the suit. But in his opposition to the preliminary objection, counsel to CAIFAL, Chief Dania Abdulahi, prayed the court to dismiss the respondents preliminary objection to the suit, arguing that the plaintiff had sufficient cause of action. Abdullahi argued that the provision of section 254 of the constitution gives constitutional validity to the federal high court, adding that the federal high court rules was a child of the constitution. On the issue of suing in its name, Abdulahi referred the court to the provisions of sections 516 of the CAMA Act 1990, and stressed that the Act, did not specifically require the use of the words “incorporated trustees” in filing a court action. Responding to jurisdictional issues raised by counsel from the office of the Attorney General, Mrs J.C Akah, Abdullahi argued that such objection was unwholesome. According to him, as a law officer, the A-G must be concerned with such major issues especially as it exposes unfair practices in the NYSC scheme. He, therefore, urged the court to dismiss all objections to the suit, award exemplary damages against the respondents, and to grant the reliefs sought by the plaintiff. After listening to argument of counsels, the trial judge, Justice Jude Dagat adjourned the case to February 6 for ruling. In the suit number FHC/L/CS/840/16, CAIFAL is seeking a declaration, that by virtue of the provisions of the NYSC Act, the first to third respondents have no statutory rights, to demand a pre-mobilisation fee from prospective corps members.]]>