The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday, fixed Jan. 23 to hear the application for stay of further proceedings filed by the Kabiru Turaki-led Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) against a suit instituted by a faction of the party in the camp of the FCT Minister, Mr Nyesom Wike.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik adjourned the matter to allow counsel for plaintiffs, Dr Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, to respond to the motion for stay.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the Wike-led PDP and its acting National Chairman, Alhaji Mohammed Abdulrahman, alongside Sen. Samuel Anyanwu, the factional National Secretary, had filed the suit.
The plaintiffs, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2501/2025, had sought an order of injunction restraining the Turaki-led leadership (5th to 25th defendants) from parading themselves as representatives of the PDP in any capacity whatsoever.
They also prayed the court to stop the police and Department of State Services (DSS) from allowing Turaki-led leadership access to the party’s national secretariat at Wadara Plaza in Abuja.
Ads by
Besides, they sought an order of injunction restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from accepting any other office address or any other address from the Turaki-led leadership as the PDP’s office address other than as already contained in the commission’s records, among other reliefs.
The plaintiffs prayed the court to declare that INEC, the police and the DSS are constitutionally bound to enforce and give full effect to the decisions of the Federal High Court in the judgements and ruling delivered by Justice James Omotosho and Justice Peter Lifu.
Justice Abdulmalik had earlier granted an ex-parte motion brought by the plaintiffs directing parties not to take any action pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Following the order, the Turaki-led PDP challenged the decision at the Court of Appeal.
They also filed an application for the court to stay proceedings in the suit pending the decision of the Appeal Court.
The Turaki-led leadership, through their lawyer, equally filed a motion on notice asking Justice Abdulmalik to recuse herself from the case.
They argued that there exists a reasonable and well-founded apprehension of the likelihood of bias against them in the manner the suit had been handled by the judge.
NAN reports that Justice Abdulmalik had, on Dec. 5, 2025, adjourned the matter to Jan. 14 to allow parties to regularise their processes and for hearing of all pending applications and the substantive suit.
When the case was called on Wednesday, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, Ikpeazu, informed the court that on the last adjourned date, the court ruled that all pending applications would be taken together with the substantive case.
He said they were ready to proceed.
But Chief Chris Uche, SAN, who appeared for the Turaki-led leadership of the PDP, informed the court that on Dec. 5, when the matter came up, they drew the attention of the judge to the motion for recusal, asking her to withdraw from the case.
The lawyer said the court then adjourned the matter for the plaintiffs to respond to their motion.
Uche said though Justice Abdulmalik made an order pending their motion for recusal, they had filed an appeal against the order.
“We filed an appeal against my lord’s decision, and we have a duty to report to your lordship that that appeal has now been entered in the Court of Appeal, numbered CA/ABJ/CV/1770/2025.
“We have also filed an affidavit of facts of entering of the appeal in order to bring to your knowledge the entry of the appeal.
“Records have been fully transmitted, and the plaintiffs are very much aware and have taken steps to file processes in the appeal,” he said.
Uche, who said the processes were already before the court, added that a motion for stay of further proceedings in the suit pending the appeal had also been filed.
According to him, it is trite and beyond dispute that once an appeal has been entered, the trial court ceases to take further proceedings or further hearings in the suit.
He cited a 2021 case of Secondus vs. Ibaochi Alex to back his argument.
He, therefore, prayed the court to stay proceedings pending the determination of their appeal and urged the court to adjourn the matter sine die (indefinitely).
Responding, Ikpeazu admitted that though an appeal had been filed, the lawyer argued that an appeal in a matter does not automatically translate into a stay of execution or proceedings.
He argued that in determining whether or not to proceed, the nature of the appeal is utmost relevant.
“By virtue of Order 4, Rule 11(2) of the Court of Appeal rules, Sub. 1 provides for a basis for the application they have just made, but Sub. 2 limits the scope of Sub. 1,” he said, quoting the section.
He argued that a stay cannot be granted if an appeal does not affect the subject matter of the suit.
“The bottom line is the appeal is against the interlocutory decision of my lord,” he said, arguing that the court has the inherent power to make an order for parties to stay action while the subject matter is determined.
