The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Friday, declined an application seeking to restrain the African Democratic Congress, led by Senator David Mark, from holding conventions, congresses or meetings to elect or ratify members of its executive bodies and other party structures.
Justice Emeka Nwite, in a ruling, refused the motion ex parte filed by a former Deputy National Chairman of the ADC, Nafiu-Bala Gombe, holding that granting such an application without hearing from the other parties would amount to overreaching.
“I have listened to the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant and have also gone through the affidavit evidence with exhibits thereto along with the written address,” the judge said.
Justice Nwite noted that the court had earlier, on September 4, 2025, ordered the defendants to show cause why an interim order restraining them from acting as leaders of the ADC should not be made, stressing that parties had since exchanged processes in the substantive matter.
“It is not in dispute that the present application is an off-shoot of the substantive matter of the said application.
“It is not in dispute that all the parties are already before this court. Hence, any ex-parte application without a notice to the other parties will be overreaching.
“Hence, the interest of justice will be met by putting the other parties on notice. Consequently, the application is refused,” Justice Nwite ruled.
He proceeded to adjourn the matter until February 3, 2026, for the respondents to show cause.
In the motion ex parte marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, Gombe listed the ADC, Senator David Mark and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola as first to third defendants, while the Independent National Electoral Commission and Chief Ralph Nwosu were named as fourth and fifth defendants.
Filed on December 15 through his counsel, Michael Agber, Gombe sought three interim reliefs, including an order restraining the ADC from holding any convention, congress or meeting to elect or approve persons into its executive committees or governing bodies pending the determination of a motion on notice.
He also sought an order restraining INEC from attending, monitoring or recognising any such activities by the party, as well as an order directing the maintenance of the status quo in the management and organisation of the ADC.
When the matter was called, Agber informed the court that he had a motion ex parte. Justice Nwite recalled that a similar application had earlier been refused, with an order that the respondents be put on notice.
“Now, is there any difference from this application?” the judge asked.
Agber argued that the prayers were different, stating that the application was aimed at restraining ADC and INEC from taking steps that could affect the pending suit.
In response, Justice Nwite said: “Now, the case is already before me and if any person does something untoward, such action will be null and void.
“This application ought not to come by way of ex-parte because already, the parties are already before the court. So I am just telling you my mind.”
Emphasising the need for fair hearing, the judge added: “I cannot make an order in the absence of the party as justice is tripartite.
You can not shave somebody’s head in his absence”.
Despite the court’s reservations, Agber was allowed to move the motion. He said it was brought pursuant to Order 26 Rule 6 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, Sections 82 and 83 of the Electoral Act 2022, and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
In an affidavit of urgency, Gombe alleged that despite the pending suit, the ADC, with the acquiescence of INEC, had continued to hold meetings nationwide in preparation for conventions and congresses under what he described as the “illegal leadership of Senator David Mark and others.”
He cited several instances, including the unveiling of an alleged new ADC national headquarters, the issuance of membership cards to prominent political figures, and the release of party guidelines for the Osun governorship primary election, which he claimed were in contempt of an earlier court order.
