ENUGU, Nigeria (VOICE OF NAIJA)- Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja has rebuked a plaintiff, Johnmary Jideobi, and his lawyer, Ndubuisi Ukpai, over what he described as a lack of diligence in prosecuting a suit seeking to stop former President Goodluck Jonathan from contesting the 2027 presidential election.
The judge, who described the conduct of both the plaintiff and his counsel as unacceptable, slammed a N1 million fine against Jideobi in favour of the former president.
Justice Lifu expressed displeasure that despite filing the suit on October 6, 2025, the plaintiff had failed to serve the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, and the Attorney-General of the Federation, AGF, who are listed as the second and third defendants in the matter.
The court also noted that Jonathan’s lawyer, Chris Uche, SAN, informed the court during the last sitting on May 8 that his client only became aware of the suit through media reports before deciding to file and serve all necessary court processes.
Justice Lifu further observed that neither the plaintiff nor his counsel appeared in court on May 11 despite personally requesting that the matter be heard by 2pm on that date.
The judge said the repeated actions of the plaintiff and his lawyer had continued to stall proceedings in the case.
Although Jonathan’s lawyer requested a N5 million cost against the plaintiff, the court reduced the amount to N1 million in the interest of fair hearing.
READ ALSO Court Fines Keyamo N10m For Filing Frivolous Suit Against Atiku
“No doubt, cause follows event,” the judge stated.
When the matter was called on Friday, neither Jideobi nor Ukpai was initially present in court, while counsel to the former president, Chris Uche, and lawyer to the AGF, J.D. Esho, were already seated.
Justice Lifu subsequently directed the court registrar to confirm whether hearing notices had been served on the plaintiff and INEC, which the registrar confirmed.
Following the confirmation, Uche urged the court to dismiss the suit and award substantial costs against the plaintiff for repeatedly failing to appear in court.
According to the senior lawyer, neither the plaintiff nor his counsel made any effort to communicate with the court or opposing parties regarding their absence.
Uche accused both men of showing disrespect and disdain for the court process.
He said it was surprising that the plaintiff dragged a former commander-in-chief before the court only to abandon the matter midway.
“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 argued.
“There must be consequences for every action. They think the courts are toothless bulldogs, and the dignity of the court must be protected.”
He therefore asked the court to invoke its disciplinary powers and dismiss the suit for being an abuse of court process.
Counsel to the AGF, Esho, also informed the court that although her office had been served with Jonathan’s response to the suit on May 11, they were yet to receive the originating summons filed by the plaintiff.
The registrar equally confirmed that INEC had not been served with the plaintiff’s court processes despite receiving hearing notices.
Midway into proceedings, Ukpai eventually appeared in court and apologised for arriving late.
“My lord, I am sorry. I am for the plaintiff. Our vehicle broke down on the way,” he pleaded.
After listening to submissions from all parties, Justice Lifu adjourned the matter until May 18 for definite hearing of all pending applications and the substantive suit.