Connect with us

Breaking News

The Federal High Court Hears Applications To Deregister ADC, Accord, Others

Published

on

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday heard fresh arguments in the suit seeking the deregistration of the African Democratic Congress, ADC, and other political parties, with defendants asking the court to stay proceedings pending the determination of an appeal before the Court of Appeal.

Justice Peter Lifu subsequently adjourned the matter to May 18, 2026, after hearing applications for stay of proceedings and joinder.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, was instituted by the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators against the Independent National Electoral Commission and several political parties.

At the proceedings, counsel for the sixth defendant (Accord), Musibau Adetunbi SAN, urged the court to suspend further hearing in the matter, arguing that an application relating to the proceedings had already been filed before the Court of Appeal.

Adetunbi, who cited Supreme Court authorities, argued that a lower court could not continue to entertain arguments on issues already pending before a higher court.

Counsel for the third defendant, the African Democratic Congress, Shuaib Enejo Aruwa SAN, counsel for the fourth defendant (Action Alliance), Peter Abang; counsel for the fifth defendant (Action Peoples Party); and counsel for the seventh defendant (Zenith Labour Party), all aligned with the submissions seeking a stay of proceedings.

The defence lawyers collectively argued that it was settled law that the trial court should await the outcome of proceedings at the appellate court before taking further steps in the matter.

They maintained that proceeding with the suit while an appeal was pending could prejudice the issues already submitted before the Court of Appeal.

Counsel for the APP further informed the court that an affidavit of facts had already been filed before the appellate court on May 7, 2026, and served on parties, adding that no counter-affidavit had been filed against the processes.

Abang, however, raised an additional argument on jurisdiction, contending that the fourth defendant had earlier challenged the competence of the suit and that the court should not proceed in a manner capable of pre-empting the appellate court’s decision on the issue.

Aruwa (ADC) also argued that the Court of Appeal was active and could determine the appeal within a week.

Opposing the applications, counsel for the plaintiff, Yakubu Abdullahi Ruba, argued that the appeal before the appellate court was interlocutory and did not automatically deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to continue hearing the matter.

Ruba relied on a 1989 Supreme Court decision, insisting that there was no subsisting order from either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal directing Justice Lifu to stay proceedings.

Counsel for the first defendant (INEC), Haliru Mohammed, told the court that he would align himself with the position of the law, while noting that the electoral body had already filed a counter-affidavit to the substantive suit.

Counsel for the AGF, O.A. Abdulraheem, did not take any position on the issue.

The court also entertained several applications for joinder filed by politicians seeking to be made defendants in the suit.

Counsel for an applicant seeking to be joined as the eighth defendant, M.E. Sherriff, urged the court to grant the application filed on behalf of a serving member of the House of Representatives, Hon. Sani Yakubu Noma.

Sherriff argued that his client, being a member of the ADC, would be directly affected if the party was deregistered.

Another applicant seeking to be joined as the ninth defendant, Abayomi Oluwafemi, told the court through his counsel, that he intended to contest the Ogun State governorship election on the platform of the ADC, and would therefore be adversely affected if the party was deregistered.

The sixth defendant also moved separate applications seeking the joinder of two governorship candidates of the Accord Party in Osun and Ekiti states, as the 10th and 11th defendants.

Responding, counsel for the plaintiff opposed all the joinder applications, arguing that the applicants were not necessary parties since no reliefs were being sought against them.

The plaintiff further contended that one of the applicants had admitted in his affidavit that he belonged to the Labour Party, which was not a defendant in the suit.

He urged the court to dismiss the applications and award N50 million costs.

Counsel for the applicants, however, argued that parties likely to be adversely affected by the outcome of a suit were entitled to be joined under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.

The judge thereafter adjourned the matter to May 18, 2026, for ruling and adoption of all processes for final determination.

Read The Full Story / Watch The Full Video

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Breaking News

BUNKERING: Troops Uncover Suspected Illegal Refinery In Rivers, Recover Crude Oil Processing Equipment

Published

on

Troops have uncovered suspected illegal crude oil refining equipment during a patrol operation in the Orashi National Forest, Ahoada West Local Government Area of Rivers State.

The development was disclosed in a report by Zagazola Makama, a counter-insurgency and security expert covering the Lake Chad region.

According to the report, the discovery was made at about 12:00pm on Saturday by troops of the 16 Brigade Garrison at Abissa in collaboration with personnel of the 5 Battalion while carrying out anti-crude oil theft operations.

Makama reported that the troops discovered equipment believed to have been used for suspected illegal crude oil refining activities during the patrol.

Items recovered from the site included one large oven drum, one large coolant, two small oven drums, one small coolant, one long galvanised pipe and two sacks containing crude oil.

Makama said the recovered items were handled in line with the operational procedures guiding the ongoing anti-crude oil theft operations.

“The operation forms part of sustained efforts by security forces to dismantle illegal refining camps, curb crude oil theft and protect critical national assets in the Niger Delta region,” the report stated. …For more, Complete your reading.
You may like

Read The Full Story / Watch The Full Video

Continue Reading

Breaking News

US-Based Nigerian Seek Court To Set Aside Judgment

Published

on

A Nigerian-American engineer, Anthony Ehiedu Ugbebor, has asked the Court of Appeal to overturn the judgment of the Lagos High Court which declared that his property purchase agreement with a developer, Mr Olukayode Olusanya and Oak Homes Multinational Services Limited had been extinguished by the doctrine of novation.

The Lagos High Court had in the judgment ordered the refund of the N152 million Ugbebor paid for two luxury apartments in Victoria Island, Lagos.

In a Notice of Appeal filed by his counsel, Barrister Nasir Salau of Nasir Salau & Co., challenging the June 15, 2026 judgment delivered by Justice Akingbola George, Ugbebor argued that the trial judge misapplied settled principles of contract law, ignored material evidence, wrongly dismissed his counterclaim, and erroneously refused his claim for specific performance of the property sale agreement.

The appeal arose from Suit No. LD/4471LM/2023, instituted by property developer Olukayode Olusanya and Oak Homes against Ugbebor and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, over alleged trespass on two second-floor three-bedroom apartments located at 14A Musa Yar’Adua Street, Victoria Island, Lagos.

Although the Lagos High Court dismissed most of the developer’s claims, it held that the parties’ conduct had effectively terminated their original agreement through novation.

The court also ordered Olukayode and Oak Homes to refund the N152 million previously paid by Ugbebor, while dismissing the engineer’s counterclaim seeking completion and delivery of the apartments or, alternatively, damages.

Dissatisfied with those findings, Ugbebor asked the Court of Appeal to overturn the judgment, restore the validity of the original contract and compel Oak Homes to honour its obligations under the agreement

Ugbebor also urged the appellate court to set aside the judgment in its entirety, arguing that the Lagos High Court’s findings were contrary to the evidence and established legal principles governing contracts.

He maintained that the original agreement remained valid and enforceable and asked the Court of Appeal to compel Oak Homes to honour its contractual obligations.

One of his principal complaints is that the trial judge wrongly placed the burden of proving payment on him instead of the claimant.

According to the Notice of Appeal, the judge erred in holding that he failed to make payments within contractual timelines despite evidence that the payment structure under the agreement was tied to construction milestones rather than fixed dates.

The appellant argued that under the payment schedule contained in Exhibit CW1, 35 percent of the purchase price became payable upon completion of the roofing stage, while the final 20 per cent became payable only upon completion of the apartments.

He maintained that the agreement never required payment on fixed calendar dates and that he had already paid about 80 per cent of the agreed purchase price even though the developer allegedly failed to attain the contractual milestones.

According to him, the trial judge misconstrued the payment clauses and ignored the unchallenged testimony of the defence witness that substantial payments had been made despite the developer’s inability to complete the project as agreed.

He further argued that under the Evidence Act, the burden of proving non-payment rested on Oak Homes, which alleged breach of contract, and not on him.

A major plank of the appeal is the trial court’s reliance on the doctrine of novation.

Justice George had held that the conduct of both parties created a new contractual relationship which effectively extinguished the original agreement.

However, Ugbebor argued that the finding was contrary to established principles of Nigerian contract law.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Heritage Bank Ltd v. Ajugwo, he contended that novation cannot be presumed merely from the conduct of parties.

According to him, for novation to arise there must be a clear agreement by all parties to substitute the original contract with a new one, coupled with an intention to extinguish the previous contractual obligations.

He argued that no witness testified that such a new agreement existed and no documentary evidence established one.

Rather, he maintained that the conduct relied upon by the trial court was consistent only with issues of delayed performance and alleged breach, not the creation of an entirely new contract.

He therefore urged the Court of Appeal to hold that the original agreement remained valid and binding. …For more, Complete your reading.
You may like

Read The Full Story / Watch The Full Video

Continue Reading

Trending