As the legal tussle over the leadership of African Democratic Congress (ADC) gathers momentum, the party’s national welfare officer, Nkemakolam Ukandu, has requested of the Court of Appeal to stay proceedings in a suit challenging the party’s leadership as filed by former presidential candidate, Dumebi Kachukwu.
Ukandu, an appellant/applicant in the case, made the appeal via a motion on notice brought under Order 6 Rule 1, Order 25 Rule 2 and 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, filed before Court of Appeal, Abuja Division.
He asked 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.
Ukandu’s motion as filed by his lawyer, Kalu Kalu Agu, stressed that if proceedings in the case are not stayed, his civil rights would be undermined as the case would be determined in his absence.
“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,” Ukandu appealed to the court.
The application which was filed on November 7, was supported by an affidavit of 12 paragraphs deposed 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 transferred to another court, because he is not likely to get fair hearing before the judge.
In his letter dated October 31, Ukandu said the ground for his application arose from “manifest bias or grave likelihood of bias leading to breach of fair hearing” by Justice Omotosho.
He stated that he was joined in the suit on October 3, but the plaintiffs’ counsel was unable to serve him the amended originating process until October 22, a day before the adjourned date.
He said he was however, taken aback when the presiding judge, “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.”
According to him, instead of 30 days allowed by the Rules of the Court, 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 not a time-bound matter that requires such urgency ordered by the judge, adding that his right to fair hearing has been denied by the abridge of time, as he has been denied the opportunity to file his defense.
