Court Adjourned ADC Leadership Case Indefinitely. Justice Emeka Nwite, has adjourned the case indefinitely stating that both parties must be heard before proceeding.
KaNO—
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday had indefinitely adjourned the suit filed by an African Democratic Congress chieftain, Nafiu Bala Gombe, challenging the party’s leadership under former Senate President David Mark.
Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the case sine die after the plaintiff informed the court that he had applied to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for the transfer of the case to another judge.
The suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025 has generated a fresh crisis within the ADC following the emergence of Mark and former Osun State governor, Rauf Aregbesola, in the party’s leadership structure.
At the resumed proceedings, the plaintiff, Luka Musa Haruna, told the court that the Supreme Court had on April 30 dismissed an appeal earlier filed by Mark against the proceedings.
Court Adjourned ADC Leadership Case Indefinitely
He said the Supreme Court also set aside the Court of Appeal’s order staying proceedings in the substantive suit.
“The interlocutory appeal of the second 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,” he said
The lawyer, however, stated that the plaintiff had written a letter dated May 4, 2026 to the Chief Judge seeking reassignment of the case to another judge
Haruna urged Justice Nwite to await the administrative decision of the Chief Judge on the request.
“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.
Court Adjourned ADC Leadership Case Indefinitely
The request was opposed by lawyers representing the defendants, 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, 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
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,” he added
.Court Adjourned ADC Leadership Case Indefinitely
Counsel for the second defendant, Sulaiman Usman, described the move as “forum shopping and judge shopping
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 fifth defendant, P.I. Oyewole, also opposed the request, describing it as “strange” and accusing the plaintiff of inviting the Chief Judge “to indulge in judicial rascality.”
Responding, Haruna maintained that the plaintiff stood by the application.
Ruling, Justice Nwite held that the court could not take any action on the letter without hearing all parties.
Court Adjourned ADC Leadership Case Indefinitely
“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
He added that since the letter was addressed to the Chief Judge, the trial court could not make any pronouncement on it.
Justice Nwite subsequently adjourned the matter indefinitely.
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,” Justice Nwite said.
Court Adjourned ADC Leadership Case Indefinitely
Gombe is seeking an order restraining Mark, Aregbesola and others from parading themselves as leaders of the ADC, arguing that their emergence violated the party’s constitution and provisions of the Electoral Act.
Supreme Court Verdict On David Mark Suit
In a unanimous judgement delivered on 2nd May 2026, a five-member panel of the supreme court held that the appeal fails in part and succeeds in part.
In the first part, the apex court agreed with the court of appeal’s verdict that the appellant (Mark) ought to have sought leave of the trial court before filing an appeal, since the substantive issues before the trial court had not yet been heard and determined.
“I find the court below to be right that the appellant, in whose favour the order of the federal high court was made, ought to have sought the leave of the court before appeal…” the supreme court held.
Court Adjourned ADC Leadership Case Indefinitely
Mohammed Garba, who read the lead judgment, held that since the appellant failed to meet the condition precedent for filing the appeal, it robbed the appellate court and, by extension, the supreme court of jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The lead justice also held that the issue opposing jurisdiction of the trial court cannot be determined by the Supreme Court since it is already the subject of a pending preliminary objection, which has not yet been determined at the High Court.
“I therefore endorse the decision by the court below upholding the first respondent’s preliminary objection to the competence of the appellant’s appeal and an order striking it out on that ground,” Garba said.
Consequently, the court ordered the parties to go back and continue with the suit pending at the federal high court.
Court Adjourned ADC Leadership Case Indefinitely
On the second issue, which succeeded, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal overstepped its boundaries by asking parties to maintain the status quo
Status quo ante bellum”, in legal terms, refers to restoring the condition of the position of things as they were before the dispute arose.
