A Federal High Court in Abuja has struck out a suit filed by the National Welfare Secretary of the African Democratic Congress, Nkemakolam Ukandu, against the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, and Justice Peter Lifu over alleged judicial bias, ordering him to pay N100 million in costs.
Justice Salim Ibrahim dismissed the suit on Monday for lack of diligent prosecution after neither the plaintiff nor his counsel appeared in court despite being served with hearing notices.
The court ordered Ukandu to pay N50 million each to Justice Tsoho and Justice Lifu within 14 days.
Justice Ibrahim held that the decision was in line with Order 19(1) of the Federal High Court Rules, 2019.
“Based on the provision of Order 19(1) of the Rules of this honourable court 2019, the court hereby makes an order striking out this suit for lack of diligent prosecution.
“It is further ordered that the plaintiff is to pay the sum of N50 million each to the second and third defendants within 14 days from the date of this order,” the judge ruled.
Ukandu had sued the National Judicial Council, Justice Tsoho and Justice Lifu, seeking an order compelling the NJC to investigate allegations of corruption, abuse of judicial powers and judicial bias against the two judges.
The suit stemmed from the lingering leadership crisis within the ADC and was linked to a separate action instituted by an aggrieved party member, Nafiu-Bala Gombe, challenging the legitimacy of the David Mark-led interim leadership of the party.
At Monday’s proceedings, only counsel to Justice Tsoho and Justice Lifu, J.U.K. Igwe (SAN), appeared before the court.
Igwe informed the court that all parties had been duly served with hearing notices, adding that substituted service had been effected on Ukandu through the address provided in his court processes, while the NJC was also served in compliance with the court’s earlier directive.
He urged the court to strike out the suit with substantial costs, arguing that the plaintiff had deliberately abandoned the case after initiating it.
According to the senior advocate, Order 19(1) of the Federal High Court Rules empowers the court to strike out a matter where the plaintiff fails to appear, while Order 25(1)(d) entitles successful parties to costs.
Igwe further alleged that Ukandu changed his address during the proceedings to frustrate service of court processes.
“They brought the case and they were aware and not in today’s proceedings,” he said.
“I have obeyed your lordship’s order that they should be served at their last known address. Therefore, I want the case to be struck out with a cost of N50 million to each of the second and third defendants. We can’t continue like this.”
The senior advocate also argued that judicial officers, being public officers, could not publicly respond to allegations levelled against them.
He noted that Ukandu had sought to be joined in the substantive suit challenging the ADC leadership but had written to the Chief Judge requesting that the matter should not be assigned to certain judges whom he allegedly described as corrupt, even before becoming a party to the case.
Igwe told the court that after filing the suit and publicising it in the media, the plaintiff failed to prosecute it.
PLATFORM TIMES reports that neither Ukandu nor his counsel had appeared before Justice Ibrahim since the suit was instituted.
At the previous sitting on June 30, the judge had warned that the matter could be struck out if the plaintiff again failed to appear but adjourned the proceedings to ensure fresh hearing notices were served in the interest of fair hearing.