The Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday again adjourned indefinitely the suit filed by a chieftain of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Nafiu Bala Gombe, challenging the Senator David Mark-led leadership of the ADC.
Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the suit pending the presentation of the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment of the Supreme Court as well as the decision of the FHC Chief Judge (CJ), Justice John Tsoho, on the letter of the plaintiff seeking the transfer of the case to another judge.
Yesterday adjournment is the second time the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/ CS/1819/2025, would be adjourned indefinitely. The first last month was in deference to the apex court’s decision in an interlocutory appeal filed by the second defendant, David Mark.
Recall that a five-member panel of the Supreme Court had last week ordered the return of the suit to the trial court after dismissing the interlocutory appeal by Mark, as well as vacating the maintenance of status quo ante bellum order by Court of Appeal.
When the matter came up on Friday, Gombe’s lawyer, Luka Musa Haruna, who briefed Justice Nwite on what transpired at the apex court disclosed his client had, through a letter dated May 4, 2026, applied to the CJ of the court for the transfer of the case to another judge.
He said the letter had already been transmitted to the court registrar and urged Justice Nwite to await the administrative decision of the Chief Judge. “At this juncture, we must humbly pray to your Lordship, to wait for the administrative decision of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court,” Haruna said.
Surprised and angry with what they perceived as an ambush, the defendants accused the plaintiff of attempting to frustrate the accelerated hearing earlier ordered by the Court of Appeal and upheld by the Supreme Court. Counsel for the first defendant, Rilwan Okpanachi, who held brief for Shuaibu Aruwa, SAN, argued that the plaintiff had misrepresented the outcome of the Supreme Court judgment.
He submitted that the apex court partially allowed the appeal and specifically upheld the appellate court’s order directing accelerated hearing of the case. Okpanachi further faulted the plaintiff for allegedly ambushing the defendants with the transfer request.
“We have not received any communication regarding that application. My Lord, so as it is, we don’t know the form or the content of that application. Therefore, we take the approach of the plaintiff as an ambush,” he said. He added, “We also consider it as an attempt to frustrate the order of accelerated hearing granted by the Court of Appeal and upheld by the Supreme Court.”
Okpanachi maintained that litigants were not permitted to choose courts or judges to determine their cases, adding that the court should maintain the earlier order adjourning the matter sine die, pending the filing of the CTC of the Supreme Court judgment. Similarly, second defendant’s lawyer, Sulaiman Usman, also condemned the plaintiff’s move, describing it as “forum shopping and judge shopping.”
Usman told the court that the Supreme Court had commended Justice Nwite “in glowing terms” over his handling of the proceedings. “So my Lord, for the plaintiffs to come back to this court, and to inform us today that they have written a private correspondence to the
Honourable Chief Judge, and to hinge that to make a request for this court to await the outcome of that private correspondence, is not only unfortunate My Lord, but a dangerous trend which must not be allowed to stand,” he said.
Counsel for the third defendant, M.E. Sherriff, aligned himself with the submissions of the first and second defendants, arguing that substantive prayers could not be sought through ordinary letters.
Similarly, counsel for the fifth defendant, P.I. Oyewole, described the application as “strange” and accused the plaintiff of inviting the Chief Judge “to indulge in judicial rascality.” “My Lord, asking the Chief Judge to transfer that kind of case is worse than forum shopping,” Oyewole argued.
