By Lateef Ibrahim Abuja
The National Social Welfare Officer of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Nkemakolam Ukandu, has asked the Chief Judge of Federal High Court, Abuja Division, to reassign suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1331/2025, filed by Dumebi Kachukwu & 4 Ords v. the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and 5 Ords, to another court.
The case is presently before Justice James Omotosho of FHC No. 7, but Ukandu who is the 6th defendant in the case, said he is not likely to get fair hearing before Justice Omotosho.
In a motion on notice brought under Order 49 Rule 1 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rule 2019, filed by his lawyer, Kalu Kalu Agwu, the defendant/applicant is alternatively seeking an order staying further proceeding in the suit pending the decision of the Chief Judge on his application.
Ukandu said, in his letter dated October 31, that the ground for his application arose from “manifest bias or grave likelihood of bias leading to breach of fair hearing” before Justice Omotosho.
He stated in his motion that he was joined in the suit on October 3, and the plaintiffs’ counsel was directed by the order of the court to make a consequential amendment on the originating process to reflect the joining of the 6th defendant on the matter, and serve all parties, before the case was adjourned to October 23 for hearing.
According to him, the plaintiffs’ counsel, however, was unable to serve him the amended originating process until October 22, a day before the adjourned date, which he, the counsel informed the court.
The defendant/applicant said his counsel told the judge that he would be bound by the Rule of the court to file his reply, which is 30 days.
He, however, said he was 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 Sunda
y, which makes it impossible for the 6th defendant’s counsel to respond appropriately.”
The defendant/applicant said the suit is not a time-bound matter that requires such urgency ordered by the judge.
The counsel stated that his client’s right to fair hearing has been denied by the abridgement of time, and he has been denied the opportunity to file his defense.
