ADC: Court Adjourns Gombe’s Suit against David Mark-led Leadership Indefinitely
Alex Enumah in Abuja
The Federal High Court (FHC) in Abuja on Friday, again adjourned indefinitely the suit filed by a chieftain of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Nafiu Bala Gombe, challenging the Senator David Mark-led leadership of the ADC.
Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the suit pending the presentation of the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment of the Supreme Court as well as the decision of the FHC Chief Judge (CJ), Justice John Tsoho, on the letter of the plaintiff seeking the transfer of the case to another judge.
Friday’s adjournment is the second time the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, would be adjourned indefinitely.
The first last month was in deference to the apex court’s decision in an interlocutory appeal filed by the second defendant, David Mark.
Recall that a five-member panel of the Supreme Court had last week ordered the return of the suit to the trial court after dismissing the interlocutory appeal by Mark, as well as vacating the maintenance of status quo ante bellum order by Court of Appeal.
When the matter came up on Friday, Gombe’s lawyer, Mr Luka Musa Haruna, who briefed Justice Nwite on what transpired at the apex court disclosed his client had, through a letter dated May 4, 2026, applied to the CJ of the court for the transfer of the case to another judge.
He said the letter had already been transmitted to the court registrar and urged Justice Nwite to await the administrative decision of the Chief Judge.
“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.
Surprised and angry with what they perceived as an ambush, the defendants 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, who held brief for Shuaibu Aruwa, SAN, argued that the plaintiff had misrepresented the outcome of the Supreme Court judgment.
He submitted that the apex court partially allowed the appeal and specifically upheld the appellate court’s order directing accelerated hearing of the case.
Okpanachi further faulted the plaintiff for allegedly ambushing the defendants 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.
He added, “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.”
Okpanachi maintained that litigants were not permitted to choose courts or judges to determine their cases, adding that the court should maintain the earlier order adjourning the matter sine die, pending the filing of the CTC of the Supreme Court judgment.
Similarly, second defendant’s lawyer, Sulaiman Usman, also condemned the plaintiff’s move, describing it as “forum shopping and judge shopping.”
Usman told the court that the Supreme Court had commended Justice Nwite “in glowing terms” over his handling of the proceedings.
“So 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 third defendant, M.E. Sherriff, aligned himself with the submissions of the first and second defendants, arguing that substantive prayers could not be sought through ordinary letters.
Similarly, counsel for the fifth defendant, P.I. Oyewole, described the application as “strange” and accused the plaintiff of inviting the Chief Judge “to indulge in judicial rascality.”
“My Lord, asking the Chief Judge to transfer that kind of case is worse than forum shopping,” Oyewole argued.
Responding, Haruna faulted the defence for attacking a letter they had not seen, insisting that the plaintiff stood by its application.
Justice Nwite subsequently held that the court could not take any decision on the letter without hearing all parties.
“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.
“This matter is best adjourned sine die to afford the parties file the 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.
Recall that Gombe had approached the court for an order restraining Mark leadership from parading themselves as leaders of the ADC pending the hearing and determination of his suit challenging their leadership.
He had also asked the court to issue another order against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), restraining it from recognizing the Mark leadership.
But in his ruling in the interlocutory application, Nwite ordered Gombe to put the defendants on notice so that they appear before the court to show cause, why the application should not be granted.
Rather than appearing before the trial court to show cause, the defendant appealed to the Abuja division of the Court of Appeal, challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court to dabble into the matter they described as internal matters of the ADC.
The appellate court in dismissing the appeal for lacking in merit, ordered accelerated hearing in the suit and further ordered all parties to maintain status quo ante bellum.
Dissatisfied, Mark approached the appellate court but, his appeal was dismissed and the matter returned to the trial court.