Court dismisses ADC official's case, orders N100m payment

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday dismissed a case brought by Nkemakolam Ukandu, the National Welfare Secretary of the African Democratic Congress. He filed the suit against Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, and Justice Peter Lifu, claiming judicial bias. The court also ordered him to pay N100 million in costs.

Justice Salim Ibrahim threw out the suit due to lack of diligent prosecution. Neither Ukandu nor his lawyer showed up in court, even after they received hearing notices.

The judge ordered Ukandu to pay N50 million each to Justice Tsoho and Justice Lifu within 14 days.

“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 fifty (50) million naira each to the 2nd and 3rd defendants within 14 days from the date of this order,” said Justice Ibrahim.

Ukandu had sued the National Judicial Council, Justice Tsoho, and Justice Lifu, asking the NJC to investigate claims of corruption, abuse of judicial powers, and bias against the two judges.

The suit was connected to a leadership crisis within the ADC. It was linked to another case by a party member, Nafiu-Bala Gombe, who is challenging the interim leadership of David Mark.

When the case was called on Monday, only the lawyer for Justice Tsoho and Justice Lifu, J. U. K. Igwe (SAN), was present in court. Igwe informed the court that all parties had received their hearing notices. He mentioned that Ukandu was served through the address he provided in his court documents. He also confirmed that the NJC had been served as per the court’s order.

“My lord, I will plead that this suit should be struck out on terms,” Igwe said. When the judge asked what he meant by “on terms,” the senior advocate replied, “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 explained. Igwe stated that Order 19(1) of the Federal High Court Rules allowed the court to dismiss the suit due to the plaintiff’s absence. He added that Order 25(1)(d) entitled his clients to costs.

Igwe also claimed that Ukandu changed his address during the case to avoid being served. He stated, “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. We can’t continue like this.”

Igwe argued that judicial officers, as public servants, cannot respond publicly to allegations against them.

“If your lordship looks 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.

“My lord, the plaintiff has already concluded that the chief judge is corrupt,” he said.

Igwe added that Ukandu filed the suit, made it public, and then failed to follow through with it.

“I will ask that the 2nd and 3rd defendants be given N50 million each and be paid within 14 or 30 days,” he said.

Reports indicate that neither Ukandu nor his lawyer showed up before Justice Ibrahim since the suit was filed. At a previous sitting on June 30, the judge warned that the case could be dismissed if the plaintiff failed to appear again. The case was then adjourned to allow for new hearing notices to be served.

Ukandu is looking to join Gombe’s suit that challenges the ADC leadership. He accused Justice Tsoho of wrongly moving the case from Justice Emeka Nwite to Justice Lifu, claiming the reassignment broke Supreme Court orders and showed judicial bias.