The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday adjourned indefinitely an African Democratic Congress (ADC) leadership crisis suit pending the determination of an appeal concerning the same matter before the Supreme Court.
The judge, Emeka Nwite, ruled that he had to put hearing on hold since an appeal challenging his court’s jurisdiction to hear the suit had been entered at the Supreme Court.
|
|
PREMIUM TIMES reported earlier on Tuesday that the Supreme Court set 22 April for hearing the appeal regarding the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction to hear the suit.
Mr Nwite said it is settled law that where a court lacks jurisdiction, any proceedings conducted become a nullity.
|
|
|
|---|
“Jurisdiction is the live wire of any case,” he said, adding that any decision reached without jurisdiction, no matter how well delivered, amounts to a nullity.
He stated that since jurisdiction of the court is being challenged at the appellate level, and the Supreme Court has yet to determine the issue, it would not serve any useful purpose to continue with the case.
Accordingly, Mr Nwite adjourned the matter “sine die” pending the determination of the Supreme Court.
The suit was filed by Nafiu-Bala Gombe against the African Democratic Congress (ADC), David Mark, Rauf Aregbesola, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and Ralph Nwosu.
Mr Gombe is challenging the process that produced Mr Mark and Mr Aregbesola as national chairman and national secretary of the party. He argues that their emergence was unlawful and contrary to the party’s constitution.
He asked the court to nullify their appointments and restrain them from parading themselves as leaders of the party.
At the early stage of the case, the judge, Mr Nwite, declined to grant an ex parte application and directed that all parties be put on notice.
The dispute later moved to the Court of Appeal, with Mr Mark challenging the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction to hear the suit. He argued that Mr Gombe’s suit bordered on an issue of internal affairs of the party which the court of law has been barred from entertaining.
While the Court of threw out the appeal, it ordered parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum.
The ruling escalated the crisis in the party, with the INEC interpreting to mean it barred it from recognising both the Mr Gombe’s faction and Mr Mark’s factions of the party.
Displeased with the ruling, Mr Mark went on appeal at the Supreme Court.
Tuesday proceedings
Tuesday’s proceedings coincided with a Supreme Court hearing on the ADC dispute.
The development prompted Mr Nwite to pause the Federal High Court hearing from morning till 2 p.m. to await the outcome of the proceedings at the Supreme Court.
When the hearing resumed in the afternoon, Mr Nwite asked for updates on the case from the lawyers.
Responding, Lukman Fagbemi, who appeared for Mr Gombe, reminded the court of its 13 February order suspending hearing in the case pending the determination of the Court of Appeal.
He said that on 11 March, the Court of Appeal heard the matter and on 12 March dismissed the interlocutory appeal and ordered accelerated hearing.
He added that the Court of Appeal also ordered that parties should maintain the status quo ante bellum.
Mr Fagbemi said David Mark, the second defendant, “exercising his right of appeal, lodged an appeal at the Supreme Court on 16 March against the decision of the Court of Appeal.”
Mr Fagbemi added that on 1 April, Mr Mark also filed an application to stay the execution of the Court of Appeal order.
He however, explained that earlier in the morning on Tuesday, the Supreme Court struck out the application for stay of execution of the Court of Appeal order and directed parties to file their respective briefs and responses and fixed 22 April for hearing of the appeal.
Mr Fagbemi, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), said that with the developments at the Supreme Court, all parties and the Federal High Court, “are legally bound to await the Supreme Court’s decision.”
Reacting, lawyer to the ADC, Shaibu Aruwa, also a SAN, confirmed that Mr Mark’s application for stay was struck out by the Supreme Court.
He submitted that what is before the Supreme Court is a “narrow issue” on whether the court has justification to proceed, adding that the Court of Appeal order for accelerated hearing had not been challenged at the Supreme Court.
He said Section 83(6)(a) of the Electoral Act 2026 requires the matter to be heard in an accelerated manner.
He also argued that, based on Supreme Court rules, a lower court is not expected to await an interlocutory application to proceed with a case.
“Considering the fact that there have been numerous applications in this suit, it is my belief and I urge this court to take all the applications. If need be, proceed to hearing of the substantive suit and reserve its judgement and adjourn sine die to await the decision of the Supreme Court. This way, a lot of time would have been saved,” Mr Aruwa said.
He added that if the Supreme Court finds that the lower court lacks jurisdiction, the matter ends there, but if it holds otherwise, the court may proceed.
Similarly, lawyer to Mr Mark, Suleman Usman, also a SAN, confirmed most of the facts presented by Messrs Fagbemi and Aruwa regarding the interlocutory appeal.
He said the substantive matter is still before the court and there is likelihood of it returning for determination.
Mr Usman said that for the sake of time management, the court “should tidy up its records by hearing of all pending applications.”
Lawyer to Mr Aregbesola, M. E. Sheriff, aligned with the submissions of ADC and Mr Mark. He said “there is no application for stay of proceedings before any court, and the Court of Appea’sl order for accelerated hearing remains valid.”
O. A. Olawuyl, the lawyer to the fifth defendant, Ralph Nwosu, also asked the court to proceed with the hearing of the suit.
Another lawyer, A. A. Badmus, who represented parties seeking joinder, also aligned with the position of ADC and Mr Mark. He argued that there is an order of a higher court for accelerated hearing and no motion for stay pending in any court. He urged the court to proceed with the matter and await the Supreme Court’s decision.
INEC lawyer, Hassan Aliyu, said he had no submissions and left the matter to the discretion of the court.
Reacting, Mr Fagbemi said the essence of informing the lower court of the developments before the higher court is so the court can take “judicial notice of same.”
He also disagreed with Mr Sheriff, arguing that the law does not require a motion for stay before the court can halt proceedings in the circumstances.
He urged the court to wave off the submissions of Messrs Aruwa, Usman, and others.
READ ALSO: ADC Convention: Peter Obi raises alarm over insecurity, poverty, rising debt under Tinubu
After listening to their submissions, the judge took a breka again to prepare his ruling.
Ruling
When Mr Nwite returned, he ruled that allowing proceedings to continue while the Supreme Court is considering the issue of jurisdiction would amount to judicial recklessness.
He said had to suspend further proceedings since the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal may determine the entire dispute.
On the effect of the accelerated hearing ordered by the Court of Appeal, Mr Nwite held that it cannot be reconciled with the prayers before the Supreme Court seeking the aside of the Court of Appeal ruling.
“The question now is how can you reconcile these two positions?” he asked.
Mr Nwite adjourned the matter indefinitely “pending the determination of the Supreme Court.”
![The Minister of Education, Tunji Alausa [PHOTO CREDIT: @DrTunjiAlausa]](https://i0.wp.com/media.premiumtimesng.com/wp-content/files/2026/02/640407752_18038901590754499_2448924351706284639_n-e1773343365463.jpg?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1)
