The Federal High Court, Abuja, has ordered Nkemakolam Ukandu, National Welfare Secretary of the African Democratic Congress, to pay ₦50 million each to Chief Judge John Tsoho and Justice Peter Lifu, after striking out his suit against them and the National Judicial Council for want of diligent prosecution, without the court ruling on the underlying allegations.
The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has ordered Nkemakolam Ukandu, National Welfare Secretary of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), to pay ₦100 million in costs to two judges after striking out the suit he had filed against them.
Justice Salim Ibrahim made the costs order — ₦50 million payable to Chief Judge John Tsoho and ₦50 million to Justice Peter Lifu — within 14 days, on an oral application by counsel to the judges. The order followed the court's earlier decision to strike out Ukandu's suit against the National Judicial Council (NJC), Tsoho and Lifu for want of diligent prosecution.
The matter, Case No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1165/2026, was before Justice Salim Ibrahim of the Federal High Court, Abuja. The defendants were the NJC, Chief Judge Tsoho and Justice Lifu. Ukandu had sought an order compelling the NJC to investigate allegations of corruption, abuse of judicial powers and bias which he made against the two judges. Those allegations were contained in Ukandu's suit and have not been established or tested by any court; the case was struck out on procedural grounds before it reached that stage.
What “struck out for want of diligent prosecution” means
A suit is struck out for want of diligent prosecution when the party who filed it fails to take the necessary steps to move the case forward — such as appearing in court, filing required processes, or complying with directions — within the time the court allows. It is a procedural dismissal, not a ruling on the truth or falsity of the claims made in the suit. A case struck out on this ground can, in principle, be relisted, subject to the court's rules and any conditions the court may impose; it is distinct from a suit dismissed on the merits after the claims have been heard and considered.
The costs order that followed is separate from, but connected to, that procedural outcome. Costs orders in Nigerian civil procedure are compensatory rather than punitive in principle — intended to indemnify a party for expenses incurred in defending a matter — though the size of an award can also signal a court's view of how a case was conducted. Ibrahim J's order was made on an oral application by counsel to the two judges, rather than following a separate contested hearing on costs.
The NJC's role
The National Judicial Council is the constitutional body responsible for the appointment, discipline and removal of judicial officers in Nigeria, and it is the standard route through which complaints against sitting judges — including allegations of corruption or misconduct — are meant to be lodged and investigated. Ukandu's suit had sought to compel the NJC to act on such a complaint; the strike-out means the court did not reach a determination on whether the NJC had any such obligation in this instance, or on the underlying allegations themselves.
