The Niger State Parent Teacher Association (NIPTA), has dragged the Niger State Ministry of Basic Education, the Director General Schools and Education Reforms, Hajiya Maimuna Mohammed, Chairman Caretaker Committee Niger State Parent Teachers, Association Prof. Yakubu Auna to High Court . restraining the defendants from interfering into the affairs of the NIPTA.
In a motion on notice filed at the Minna High Court number two by the plaintiff applicants brought pursuance to order 93 (1) and (2) of the High Court Civil Procedures) Rules 2018 and under the inherent Jurisdiction of the Court.
The Plaintiff is praying the court for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the caretaker committee chairman and other members of the committee as constituted by the Director General, Education Schools Reforms in Niger State Hajiya Maimuna
Mohammed from taking any step or performing any such function that will insinuate or give the committee the status of caretaker of the plaintiff pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.
Also,the plaintiff applicant is praying for such further order as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.
The motion on notice backed by fifteen paragraph affidavits deposed by Mallam Yunusa Adamu the current Chairman of the Niger State Parent Teacher Association NIPTA argued that the association was a duly registered as a corporate entity with the Corporate Affairs Commission
Arguing that the plaintiff applicant haven operated as an association for so many years without proper registration and with several interference “and attempts by the first defendant respondents to take over the operation of the plaintiff applicant,a gesture which became a serious issue of concern to members of the plaintiff applicant which,prompted for the registration of the plaintiff by the Corporate Affairs Commission.
“After registering with the Corporate Affairs Commission, the plaintiff applicant vide a letter signed by myself, immediately notified the 1st Defendant of the plaintiff applicant’s incorporation.
“ The said notification letter dated 5th May, 2025 and addressed to the Honorable Commissioner of the 1st Defendant attached and annexed marked exhibit two” it stated.
The plaintiff applicant further averred that it continued its operation without any hindrance until the 7th of November,2025 when the 2nd defendant held a press conference at the Education Resources Centre, in Minna and arbitrarily pronounced the dissolution of the plaintiff applicant.
As a result of the arbitrary dissolution of the plaintiff applicant by the 2nd defendant the 2nd defendant hurriedly constituted a caretaker committee arbitrarily and illegally,chaired by the 3rd defendant with the mandate of piloting the affairs of the plaintiff applicant.
As a result of illegality and the arbitrarily dissolution of the plaintiff applicant as stated the plaintiff applicant was left with no option than to approach the court to determine the legality or otherwise of the arbitrary dissolution of the plaintiff applicant by the 2nd defendant.
The plaintiff applicant then approached the Court challenging the action of the defendant “ that the caretaker committee as constituted by the 2nd defendant was mandated to commence operation of the plaintiff applicant.
Requesting the court to restrain the caretaker committee chaired by the 3rd defendant pending the determination of the substantive suit
The plaintiff applicant, argued further that if the said caretaker committee is allowed to take certain decisions or actions on behalf of the plaintiff applicant and it succeeds,in the substantive suit, “ it will be difficult if not impossible for the plaintiff applicant to undo those decisions or actions taken by the caretaker committee and compensation will not be enough for the damages done to the plaintiff applicant”
The plaintiff applicant then prayed the court to restrain the caretaker committee chaired by the 3rd defendant from acting or taken any action pending the determination of the substantive suit
Raising some fundamental questions to be determined by the court, the plaintiff applicant,
“ Whether the 2nd defendant being the Director General of schools and education reforms, Niger State and acting under the authority of the 1st Defendant has the power to arbitrarily dissolve the plaintiff being a corporate entity duly registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission despite the clear provision of section 850(1) of the companies and Allied Matters Act,2020”
“ Whether the arbitrary dissolution of the plaintiff by the 2nd defendant pronounced on the 7th November,2025 which is being chaired by the 3rd defendant is not illegal?”
Meanwhile the hearing into the motion on notice has been slated for hearing to the 12th January, 2026 at the Minna High Court number two presided by Justice Mikhail Abdullahi.
