The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has asked the Court of Appeal to stay proceedings in the suit by its former presidential candidate, Dumebi Kachukwu, challenging the party’s current leadership.
In a motion on notice brought under Order 6 Rule 1, Order 25 Rule 2 and 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, filed by the party’s lawyer, Kalu Kalu Agu before Court of Appeal, the Appellant/Applicant, Nkemakolam Ukandu, urged the court to stay proceedings in the suit No. FHC/ABJ/1331/2025; Hon. Dumebi Kachukwu & 4 ords v the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) & 4 ords, currently pending at Federal High Court, Abuja pending the determination of the substantive appeal.
Kachukwu told the court that he has vested interest, which has arisen from the questions and reliefs sought in the court below.
Ukandu, the ADC National Welfare Officer said if the proceedings in the case are not stayed, his civil rights, given to him by virtue of the matter in the court below, would be infringed in his absence, without affording him the opportunity to be heard.
“It is settled in law that a court has no jurisdiction to determine a suit in the absence of necessary parties.
“We, therefore submit that it will wreak grave injustice to allow the proceedings at the court below to determine without affording the appellant/applicant the opportunity to be heard.
“In the circumstances of the foregoing, we pray Your Lordships to grant prayer in this application,” he requested.
The case was filed on November 7 and supported by an affidavit of 12 paragraphs done by the appellant/applicant himself.
Ukandu, who is the sixth defendant in the suit filed by Kachukwu before Justice James Omotosho of Abuja Federal High Court, had earlier requested that the case should be given to another court, because he is afraid he will be denied fair hearing before the judge.
Ukandu, through his October 31 letter, said the basis for his application is rooted in the “manifest bias or grave likelihood of bias leading to breach of fair hearing” by Justice Omotosho.
He said he was joined in the suit on October 3, but the plaintiffs’ counsel did not serve him the amended originating process until October 22, a day before the adjourned date.
He said he was, however, surprised when Justice Omotosho, “without any application for abridgement of time by any counsel in the matter, suo moto, abridged the time within which the 6th defendant counsel should file his defense to the plaintiffs’ originating process.”
Instead of 30 days allowed by the Rules of the Court, Ukandu said the defendant was given only seven days to respond, “including Saturday and Sunday, which makes it impossible for the 6th defendant’s counsel to respond appropriately.”
Ukandu said the suit is open ended matter which requires no such urgency ordered by the judge, adding that his right to fair hearing has been infringed upon by the abridge of time, as he has been denied the opportunity to file his defense.
