Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja has expressed displeasure over what he described as the tardiness of the plaintiff in the handling of a suit querying ex-President Goodluck Jonathan’s eligibility to contest next year’s presidential election.
Justice Lifu spoke on Friday when the case was called, but neither the plaintiff, Johnmary Jideobi (who is a lawyer) nor his lawyer, Ndubuisi Ukpai, was in court. Ukpai later came midway into proceedings.
The judge, who described the conduct of the plaintiff and his lawyer as unacceptable, awarded a N1million cost against Jideobi.
At the commencement of proceedings, Chris Uche (SAN) announced appearance for Jonathan, while J. D. Esho appeared for the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which is the third defendant in the case, was not represented.
The judge then asked the court’s Registrar to confirm from the court’s record if the plaintiff and INEC were served with hearing notices for the day’s sitting.
The Registrar confirmed that both the plaintiff and INEC were served, following which Uche applied that the case be dismissed with substantial cost due to the plaintiff’s continued absence in court.
Uche said the plaintiff and his lawyer did not see the reason to either write to the court or the defendants, explaining why they would not be in court.
The lawyer to the team ex-President said Jideobi and Ukpai have, by their conduct, showed absolute disdain and disrespect for the court.
Uche said he was surprised that the plaintiff has chosen to abandon the case.
Uche said despite getting to know about the case from the media, Jonathan filed all necessary documents, including a preliminary objection and proceeded to serve them on the plaintiff.
He added: “The plaintiff thinks he can hold the court and other parties to ransom, and stay back in the comfort of his house and drag all of us to court.”
Uche who contended that there must be a consequence for every action, said: “They (plaintiff and his lawyer) think the courts are toothless bulldogs. The dignity of the court must be protected.”
He prayed the court to invoke its disciplinary power against the plaintiff and dismiss the case as constituting an abuse of court’s process.
Esho told the court that her office was, on May 11, served with Jonathan’s response to the suit, adding that the AGF was not yet served with the originating summons which the plaintiff filed.
The court’s Registrar also confirmed that, although INEC was served with hearing notice of Friday’s sitting, it was not yet served with what the plaintiff filed.
Midway into proceedings, Ukpai entered the court and apologised for his lateness, claiming that the vehicle he boarded, broke down on the way.
Ruling, Justice Lifu said: “I have carefully and painstakingly considered all the submissions and prayers of the learned counsel in this matter.
“As this court has earlier ruled and ordered, this case has a character of politics. I have taken judicial notice of INEC’s timetable.
“The duty of this court is to ensure that political cases are given accelerated hearing and disposed of expeditiously.
“In that wise, and as earlier stated, this court reiterates the provisions of the National Judicial Policy in case management. I hereby orders as follows:
“The plaintiff, who filed this suit on October 6, 2025 and has not deemed it fit to serve, is hereby granted grace of two hours from now, that is 10:30 am, to serve all the processes to the 2nd and 3rd defendants (INEC and AGF) unfailingly.
“The 2nd and 3rd defendants are hereby ordered to file and serve their responses, if any, before 11am on Monday, 18th of May, 2026.
“By consent of counsel, this suit is adjourned to May 18th, 2026, by 12noon for definite hearing of the originating summons and all pending applications,” the judge said.
He noted that Jideobi filed the suit since October 6, 2025 but failed to serve INEC and the AGF).
The judge added: “No doubt, cost follows event. On May 11, this court refused to grant the first defendant’s application for a cost of N5m.
“Today, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff did not serve the originating summons to the second and third defendants since October 6, 2025.
“This case is for hearing today and the hearing has been frustrated or aborted due to the tardiness of the plaintiff who is a lawyer by training and calling.
“Hearing cannot go on now as an event. Consequently, I hold that punishment should lie where the fault is.
“I hereby award the cost of N1m against the plaintiff but in favour of the 1st defendant only. I so ruled,” the judge said adjourned till May 18 for hearing.
