The Federal High Court (FHC) in Abuja on Monday struck out a suit filed against the FHC’s Chief Judge (CJ), Justice John Tsoho, and Justice Peter Lifu for want of diligent prosecution.
Nkemakolam Ukandu, the National Welfare Secretary of African Democratic Congress (ADC), had sued the National Judicial Council (NJC), the FHC CJ and Justice Lifu over alleged bias and disobedience to court order.
Justice Salim Ibrahim, in a ruling on an oral application made by J. U. K. Igwe, SAN, counsel for Justice Tsoho and Justice Lifu, awarded a fine of N50 million each, making a total of N100 million, in favour of Tosho and Lifu.
Justice Ibrahim also directed that the N100 million fine should be paid within 14 days of the order.
The News Agency of Nigeria reports that the plaintiff had sued the NJC, the FHC CJ and Justice Lifu as 1st to 3rd defendants respectively.
Ukandu, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1165/2026, sought an order compelling the NJC to investigate allegations of corruption, abuse of judicial powers and bias levelled against Tsoho and Lifu.
The suit stemmed from the ADC leadership crisis involving an aggrieved member, Nafiu-Bala Gombe, whose case is currently before Justice Lifu.
When the case was called on Monday, only Igwe, who appeared for 2nd and 3rd defendants, was in court.
However, no lawyer appeared for either the plaintiff or the 1st defendant (NJC).
Addressing the court, Igwe said all the parties were duly served with the hearing notices.
He said the order of the court on substituted service was effected on Ukandu via the address provided by the plaintiff in his court documents.
The lawyer also said that the NJC, the 1st defendant in the case, was duly served.
He said the NJC was not only served, a letter was written to them as ordered by the court and that he had an acknowledged copy of the letter.
“My lord, I will plead that this suit should be struck out on terms,” he said.
When the judge asked him what he meant by “on terms,” the lawyer said it appeared to him that “this is deliberate.”
“Under the specific rules of the court and the constitution, I am entitled to a cost for them (plaintiff) evading the consequences of this litigation,” he said.
Igwe said Order 19(1) of the court talks about non-appearance of parties in court and it gives the judge the power to strike out a matter.
He added that under Order 25(1d) of the court, his clients were also entitled to a cost.
He alleged that the plaintiff changed his address in the cause of the trial in order to evade the litigation.
He said there was no building on the address given by the plaintiff in his originating summons.
He, however, said that based on the court order, Ukandu was served at his last known address.
“They brought the case and they were aware and not in today’s proceedings.
“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 2nd and 3rd defendants,” he prayed.
According to the lawyer, “we can’t continue like this.”
Besides, the lawyer submitted that the 2nd and 3rd defendants are judicial officers, who are classified as public officers and are bound against joining issues with the plaintiff in public arena based on the service rules.
“If your lordship look at Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the plaintiff’s statement of claims, he agreed that he applied to join a suit pending before FHC.
“In Paragraph 5, he said he brought a motion to be joined and in Paragraph 6, he said the same joinder application is yet to be heard.
“And in a suit he has not joined, he wrote a letter to the chief judge not to assign the case to some judges.
“He said these particular judges are co- corrupt judges.