Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned proceedings in the suit challenging the eligibility of former President Goodluck Jonathan to contest the 2027 presidential election following the absence of both the plaintiff and his counsel in court.
The judge fixed May 15, 2026, for the next hearing and warned that punitive costs could be imposed on the plaintiff if there is another failure to appear.
During Monday’s proceedings, counsel to the defendant, Chris Uche (SAN), drew the court’s attention to the plaintiff’s absence, noting that the case had previously been adjourned at the plaintiff’s request.
Justice Lifu subsequently asked the court registrar whether any formal communication had been received explaining the absence of the plaintiff or his lawyer. The registrar informed the court that no such correspondence had been filed.
The proceedings also raised issues regarding the service of hearing notices, as it emerged that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) had not been served, contrary to an earlier order of the court made on May 8.
Uche urged the court to strike out the suit, arguing that even where parties have exchanged processes and issues have been joined, the court still possesses the authority to dismiss or strike out a matter for lack of diligent prosecution.
He further contended that the plaintiff had a duty to ensure proper service of all court documents and hearing notices, particularly in a case involving the eligibility of a former president to seek office.
According to him, court records showed that neither INEC nor the AGF had been properly served or filed any response in the matter.
The senior advocate also asked the court to award punitive costs against the plaintiff for failing to appear in court without explanation.
However, Justice Lifu opted to grant the plaintiff another opportunity and adjourned the matter to May 15, directing that all parties be properly served before the next hearing.
The judge added that the issue of costs would be considered if the plaintiff failed to take the necessary steps before the adjourned date.
