The Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association, Owerri Branch, Prof. Mazi Udegbulem, has instituted a fresh action before the Federal High Court, Owerri Judicial Division, challenging the legality of an Extraordinary General Meeting and the five-man committee constituted amid the controversy surrounding the Imo State Government’s ₦100 million grant to the Branch.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-IDRI-Masterclass.png")
The fresh originating summons, marked FHC/OW/CS/120/2026, is dated October 20, 2026, and bears the Federal High Court cashier’s stamp of the same date.
The suit was filed on the same day that the High Court of Imo State sitting at Aboh Mbaise, presided over by Justice Mike Onyekachi, declined an application made without notice by Udegbulem against the same committee.
Rather than grant the application without hearing the other side, the Imo State High Court directed that the respondents be put on notice and adjourned the matter to October 28, 2026.
In the fresh Federal High Court action, Udegbulem, suing in his capacity as Chairman of the NBA Owerri Branch, joined the Registered Trustees of the Nigerian Bar Association as first defendant.
Also joined are Chidi B. Nworka, described in the originating process as Leader of the Requisitionists and Chairman of the committee, and Victoria Chioma Joshua Monye, described as a requisitionist and Secretary of the committee.
Nworka and Monye are sued for themselves and as members of what Udegbulem described in the court process as an “illegal 5-man committee constituted on 15/10/2026.”
The defendants are required by the originating summons to enter an appearance within 30 days of service.
At the centre of Udegbulem’s case is his contention that the Constitution of the Nigerian Bar Association and the Uniform Bye-Laws for Branches govern the internal affairs of NBA branches and are binding on members and organs of the association.
He is asking the Federal High Court to determine whether, having regard to the NBA’s status as an incorporated trustee registered under the Companies and Allied Matters Act, actions taken by a branch or its members contrary to the NBA Constitution and Uniform Bye-Laws are ultra vires, illegal, null and void.
The second major issue before the court concerns the power to convene an Extraordinary General Meeting of an NBA branch.
Udegbulem is asking the court to interpret Article 11(4) and (5) of the Uniform Bye-Laws for Branches contained in the Third Schedule to the NBA Constitution.
His case is that requisitionists do not possess the legal power to unilaterally fix the date, time and venue of an Extraordinary General Meeting in their initial requisition or subsequently alter the date of such a meeting without following the procedure prescribed by the Uniform Bye-Laws.
Specifically, he challenges the alleged unilateral movement of the meeting from October 10 to October 15, 2026.
He contends that the authority to fix the date, time and venue of an Extraordinary General Meeting following a requisition resides with the Branch Chairman or Executive Committee acting through the Branch Secretary.
On that basis, Udegbulem wants the Federal High Court to declare that the meeting allegedly held on October 15 was improperly convened and that all decisions, resolutions and steps arising from it are invalid.
A third issue raised in the suit concerns the existence of two separate committees dealing with the controversy.
Udegbulem told the court that the national body of the NBA had already intervened in the dispute and constituted an official three-man Fact-Finding/Investigating Committee to examine the allegations against him.
He is therefore asking the court to determine whether branch members could lawfully constitute another five-man committee to investigate the same issues while the committee established by the Registered Trustees of the NBA remained actively seised of the matter.
According to his originating summons, the constitution of the parallel five-man committee was ultra vires, unconstitutional and disruptive of the NBA national body’s intervention.
Udegbulem is consequently seeking a declaration that the five-man committee, headed by Nworka with Monye as Secretary, is illegal, ultra vires, null and void.
The fourth question placed before the Federal High Court raises the principles of natural justice and likelihood of bias.
Udegbulem alleges that persons who signed the requisition or petition leading to the controversy were subsequently made members of the five-man committee charged with investigating the matter.
He further alleges that the Secretary of the committee is facing disciplinary proceedings.
The NBA Owerri Chairman is asking the court to determine whether that composition violates the principles of natural justice encapsulated in the Latin maxims nemo judex in causa sua — that no person should be a judge in his own cause — and audi alteram partem, requiring that the other side be heard.
He argues that the circumstances create what he described as a real likelihood of bias and procedural impropriety capable of invalidating the proceedings and any findings of the committee.
Udegbulem is seeking seven substantive reliefs from the Federal High Court.
First, he wants a declaration that the NBA, being a body corporate incorporated under Nigerian law, is governed by its Constitution and Uniform Bye-Laws for Branches and that actions taken by branch members contrary to those instruments are null and void.
Second, he is asking for a declaration that Article 11(4) and (5) of the Uniform Bye-Laws vest the power to fix the date, time and venue of a requisitioned Extraordinary General Meeting in the Chairman or Executive acting through the Branch Secretary.
He consequently wants the court to declare the alleged unilateral fixing and subsequent shifting of the meeting from October 10 to October 15 illegal, ultra vires and a nullity.
Third, Udegbulem seeks a declaration setting aside all decisions, resolutions and steps taken at the purported Extraordinary General Meeting of October 15 as illegal, null and void.
Fourth, he wants the court to declare the constitution of the parallel five-man committee unlawful while the official three-man committee constituted by the national NBA is investigating the same controversy.
In the originating summons, he describes the parallel committee as “illegal, contemptuous, ultra vires, null and void.”
Fifth, the plaintiff is asking the court to declare that the composition of the five-man committee, which he says includes persons who signed the requisition and a Secretary facing disciplinary proceedings, “offends the principles of natural justice and is infected with a real likelihood of bias, malice, and procedural impropriety.”
Udegbulem is also seeking an order of perpetual injunction restraining Nworka and Monye, whether acting personally or through agents, proxies or privies, from sitting as members of the five-man committee, conducting any investigation, issuing any report or acting upon any report generated by the committee against him.
Finally, he wants the Federal High Court to set aside in its entirety the requisition notice, proceedings of the October 15 meeting and every action taken by the five-man committee.
The originating summons, dated October 20, 2026, was signed by Godson Emeka Nwachukwu, Esq., counsel to Udegbulem, of G. Killiwe-Nwachukwu & Co., Owerri.
Addresses for service were listed for the Registered Trustees of the NBA at NBA House, Muhammadu Buhari Way, Central Business District, Abuja, while Nworka and Monye are to be served through the NBA Owerri Branch Bar Centre at the Magistrates’ Court premises in Owerri.
The fresh Federal High Court action introduces another legal front into the dispute over the ₦100 million grant and the internal governance of the NBA Owerri Branch.
Importantly, the reliefs contained in the originating summons remain requests by Udegbulem for judicial determination. The Federal High Court has not, on the facts presently available, declared the October 15 meeting or the five-man committee illegal, nor has it determined the allegations of bias and procedural impropriety.
Similarly, the Imo State High Court’s decision on October 20 to direct that the respondents be put on notice was not a determination of the substantive dispute. The matter before that court was adjourned to October 28, 2026.
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________ “Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
