The Federal High Court in Abuja has again adjourned indefinitely a suit filed by an African Democratic Congress (ADC) chieftain, Nafiu Bala Gombe, following a request by the plaintiff seeking the transfer of the case to another judge.
Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the matter sine die on Friday after parties clashed over a letter written by the plaintiff to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court requesting the reassignment of the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025.
The suit, which has triggered intense legal disputes within the ADC, had earlier been stalled after the second defendant, David Mark, filed an interlocutory appeal that eventually reached the Supreme Court.
At Friday’s proceedings, counsel for the plaintiff, Luka Musa Haruna, informed the court that the Supreme Court had delivered judgment on the interlocutory appeal on April 30.
According to him, the apex court dismissed the appeal for lacking merit and also set aside the Court of Appeal’s order staying proceedings in the substantive suit.
“The interlocutory appeal of the 2nd defendant has travelled to the Supreme Court. My Lord, we are glad to inform this honourable court that on the 30th day of April 2026, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on the interlocutory appeal dismissing the said appeal for lacking in merit,” Haruna said.
The lawyer further disclosed that the plaintiff had written a letter dated May 4, 2026, to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court requesting that the matter be transferred to another judge.
Haruna told the court that the letter had already been forwarded to the 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,” he said.
The request, however, drew stiff opposition from defence counsel, who 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, Realwan Okpanachi, who represented S.E. Aruwa, argued that the plaintiff had misrepresented the Supreme Court judgment.
According to him, the apex court partially allowed the appeal and specifically upheld the appellate court’s order for accelerated hearing of the case.
Okpanachi also faulted the plaintiff for allegedly ambushing the defence 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 further argued that the move appeared designed to frustrate the accelerated hearing ordered by the appellate courts.
Counsel for the second defendant, Sulaiman Usman, also condemned the application, describing it as “forum shopping and judge shopping.”
Usman stated that the Supreme Court had earlier commended Justice Nwite 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, and counsel for the fifth defendant, P.I. Oyewole, also opposed the move, insisting that substantive applications could not be pursued through ordinary correspondence.
Oyewole described the request as “strange” and accused the plaintiff of attempting to invite the Chief Judge “to indulge in judicial rascality.”
Responding, Haruna insisted that the plaintiff stood by the application and faulted the defence for criticising a letter they had not seen.
In his ruling, Justice Nwite held that the court could not take any decision on the letter without first hearing all parties involved.
“Taking a decision or any action in such a letter without hearing from the defendants will amount to breach of their fundamental right in this suit,” the judge ruled.
Justice Nwite added that because the letter was addressed to the Chief Judge, the trial court could not make any pronouncement on it.
“This matter is best adjourned sine die to afford the parties properly file a Certified True Copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the interlocutory appeal in the suit, to serve the defendants with the letter addressed to the Honourable Chief Judge, and finally to await further or any directive from the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court,” he said.
The matter was subsequently adjourned indefinitely.
