Reported by: Ijeoma G | Edited by: Oravbiere Osayomore Promise.
The Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the National Welfare Secretary of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Nkemakolam Ukandu, to pay a total of N100 million in damages to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, and Justice Peter Lifu, after striking out his suit for lack of diligent prosecution. Justice Salim Ibrahim, who delivered the ruling on Monday, 6 July 2026, directed Ukandu to pay N50 million each to Justice Tsoho and Justice Lifu within 14 days. The order followed an oral application by counsel to the two judges, Mr J. U. K. Igwe, SAN.
Justice Ibrahim struck out Ukandu's suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1165/2026, after finding that the plaintiff had failed to diligently prosecute the matter. Ukandu had sued the National Judicial Council (NJC), Justice Tsoho and Justice Lifu over allegations of judicial bias, corruption, abuse of judicial powers and disobedience to court orders. He sought an order compelling the NJC to investigate the claims against the two judges. However, the plaintiff and his lawyer repeatedly failed to appear before Justice Ibrahim after the case was assigned to him. The judge had, on 30 June 2026, warned that the suit could be dismissed if neither Ukandu nor his counsel appeared at subsequent proceedings. Neither heeded the warning.
When the matter was called on Monday, only counsel for Justice Tsoho and Justice Lifu, J. U. K. Igwe (SAN), was in court. Igwe told the court that all parties had been duly served with hearing notices, adding that substituted service was effected on Ukandu through the address he provided in his court processes. He also said the NJC had been served in line with the court's order. Igwe argued that Order 19(1) of the Federal High Court Rules empowered the court to strike out the suit due to the plaintiff's absence, while Order 25(1)(d) entitled his clients to costs. He further alleged that Ukandu changed his address during the proceedings to evade service.
In his ruling, Justice Ibrahim stated: "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."
The case arose from the ongoing leadership crisis within the African Democratic Congress. An aggrieved party member, Nafiu-Bala Gombe, had filed a substantive suit before Justice Lifu seeking an order restraining the party leadership headed by former Senate President David Mark from presenting themselves as the legitimate leaders of the ADC. Ukandu, who was seeking to be joined in that case, accused Justice Tsoho and Justice Lifu of manifest bias and alleged that they were acting in the interest of certain individuals against the party. In his originating suit, Ukandu challenged the decision of the Chief Judge to reassign the leadership dispute from Justice Emeka Nwite to Justice Lifu, arguing that the reassignment violated both an earlier order of Justice Nwite and a decision of the Supreme Court.
In his argument before the court, Igwe, counsel to the judges, pointed out that Ukandu had already concluded that the judges were corrupt before the case was even heard. "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," Igwe stated. He further argued that judicial officers, as public officers, could not publicly respond to allegations made against them, making the suit an abuse of court process.
The ruling has sent shockwaves through political and legal circles, with many viewing the N100 million damages as a strong deterrent against frivolous litigation and the abuse of judicial processes. The court's decision underscores the judiciary's determination to protect its integrity and ensure that litigants do not use the courts to make unsubstantiated allegations against judicial officers while failing to prosecute their cases diligently.
Ukandu has not yet indicated whether he intends to appeal the ruling. However, the judgement stands as a significant precedent, particularly in an era of increasing political litigation where party loyalists often seek to use the courts to settle internal disputes. The ADC leadership crisis, which has been brewing for months, has already seen several court cases, and this latest judgement adds another layer of complexity to the party's internal struggles.
The N100 million damages, to be paid within 14 days, represent one of the largest costs awarded against an individual litigant in recent times. Legal observers have noted that the ruling may discourage similar attempts by political actors to file suits against judges without substantial evidence, while also reinforcing the principle that litigants must take their cases seriously and appear in court when required.
As the ADC continues to grapple with its leadership crisis, and as the 2027 general elections approach, the party's internal divisions are likely to intensify. The judgement against Ukandu serves as a cautionary tale for political actors who may be tempted to use litigation as a tool of political warfare, while also reaffirming the courts' commitment to protecting judicial officers from unfounded allegations.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments