The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has approached the Court of Appeal in Abuja seeking an order to halt further proceedings in the suit filed against it by its former presidential candidate, Dumebi Kachikwu, over the party’s leadership crisis.

In a motion on notice brought under Order 6 Rule 1, and Orders 25 Rules 2 and 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, the appellant/applicant, Nkemakolam Ukandu, urged the appellate court to stay proceedings in the matter marked FHC/ABJ/1331/2025, Hon. Dumebi Kachikwu & 4 Ors v. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) & 4 Ors, currently before the Federal High Court, Abuja, pending the determination of his appeal.

The motion, filed through his counsel, Kalu Kalu Agu, contended that the applicant has a direct and vested interest in the case, as the outcome of the suit at the lower court would directly affect his civil rights within the party.

Ukandu, who serves as the ADC’s National Welfare Officer, argued that continuing the proceedings at the Federal High Court without hearing from him would amount to a violation of his constitutional right to fair hearing.

In his supporting affidavit, deposed to on November 7, the appellant maintained that the Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction to determine a suit in the absence of necessary parties.

“It is trite law that a court cannot validly determine a matter without joining all the necessary parties whose interests are directly affected,” Ukandu stated.

He further warned that allowing the case to continue without his full participation “will occasion grave injustice and irreparable harm” to his rights as a party to the dispute.

According to him, “It will be unjust and against the principles of fair hearing for the court below to proceed with a matter that affects my civil rights, without allowing me to be heard. We, therefore, pray Your Lordships to grant the reliefs sought in this application.”

Ukandu, who is listed as the sixth defendant in the suit before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, had earlier petitioned for the transfer of the case to another judge, alleging possible bias.

In a letter dated October 31, he claimed that the presiding judge had shown “manifest bias or grave likelihood of bias leading to a breach of fair hearing.”

He explained that although he was joined in the matter on October 3, the plaintiffs’ counsel only managed to serve him the amended originating processes on October 22, barely a day before the adjourned hearing.

According to Ukandu, despite the late service, Justice Omotosho, “without any formal request for abridgement of time by any party, suo motu, reduced the time within which my counsel could file our defence from the usual 30 days allowed by the court rules to just seven days, including weekends.”

He described the judge’s action as a clear denial of his right to prepare an adequate defence, adding that the matter is not time-bound and does not require such urgency.

“The abridgement of time from 30 to 7 days, including Saturday and Sunday, is a clear act of bias and amounts to denying me a fair opportunity to respond. The case is not an election petition or a matter that demands such haste,” he said.

Ukandu further asserted that the decision of the Federal High Court to proceed under such conditions raises serious questions about impartiality.

“It is my humble view that no litigant should be subjected to a process where the appearance of fairness is compromised,” he added.

The Court of Appeal is expected to fix a date for the hearing of the motion for stay of proceedings in the coming days. (Daily Independent)