Onyekachi Eze 
The African Democratic Congress (ADC), has asked the Court of Appeal to stay proceedings in the suit against it by its former presidential candidate, Dumebi Kachukwu, challenging the party’s leadership.
In motion on notice brought under Order 6 Rule 1, Order 25 Rule 2 and 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, filed before the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, the Appellant/Applicant, Nkemakolam Ukandu, asked the court to stay proceedings in the suit No. FHC/ABJ/1331/2025; Hon. Dumebi Kachukwu & 4 ords v the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) & 4 ords, currently pending at the Federal High Court, Abuja, pending the determination of the substantive appeal.
The motion, which was filed by his lawyer, Kalu Kalu Agu, the appellant/applicant told the court that he has a vested interest, which has arisen from the questions and reliefs sought in the court below.
Ukandu, who is ADC National Welfare Officer, added that if the proceedings in the case are not stayed, his civil rights, which accrued to him by virtue of the matter in the court below, would be determined in his absence, without affording him the opportunity to be heard.
“It is settled in law that a court has no jurisdiction to determine a suit in the absence of necessary parties.
“We, therefore, submit that it will wreak grave injustice to allow the proceedings at the court below to determine without allowing the appellant/applicant to be heard.
“In the circumstances of the foregoing, we pray Your Lordships to grant prayer in this application,” he requested.
The application, which was filed on November 7, was supported by an affidavit of 12 paragraphs deposed by the appellant/applicant himself.
Ukandu, who is the sixth defendant in the suit filed by Kachukwu before Justice James Omotosho of Abuja Federal High Court, had earlier requested that the case be transferred to another court, because he is not likely to get a fair hearing before the judge.
In his letter dated October 31, Ukandu said the ground for his application arose from “manifest bias or grave likelihood of bias leading to breach of fair hearing” by Justice Omotosho.
He stated that he was joined in the suit on October 3, but the plaintiffs’ counsel was unable to serve him the amended originating process until October 22, a day before the adjourned date.
He said he was, however, 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’s counsel should file his defence to the plaintiffs’ originating process.”
According to him, instead of the 30 days allowed by the Rules of the Court, the defendant was given only seven days to respond, “including Saturday and Sunday, which makes it impossible for the 6th defendant’s counsel to respond appropriately.”
Ukandu said the suit is not a time-bound matter that requires such urgency ordered by the judge, adding that his right to a fair hearing has been denied by the abridgement of time, as he has been denied the opportunity to file his defence.
