The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed January 23, 2026, for hearing of 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 Federal Capital Territory Minister, Nyesom Wike.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik adjourned the matter to the date to allow counsel for plaintiffs, Dr Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, respond to the motion for stay.
The Wike-led PDP and its acting National Chairman, Alhaji Mohammed Abdulrahman, alongside Senator 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 25 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 the Turaki-led leadership access to the party’s national secretariat at Wadara Plaza in Abuja.
Besides, they sought an order of injunction, restraining the 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 judgments and rulings 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 likelihood of bias against them in the manner the suit had been handled by the judge.
Justice Abdulmalik had, on December 5, 2025, adjourned the matter to January 14 to allow parties regularise their processes and for hearing of all pending applications and the substantive suit.
At Wednesday’s proceedings, lawyer to 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 December 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 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 filed 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 is ceased to take further proceedings or further hearing 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, Rules 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 the 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 made an order for parties to stay action while the subject matter is determined.
Ikpeazu further stated that based on the rules of the Federal High Court (FHC), the judge had done rightly by the order.
Besides, he submitted that the defence had not filed any application to set aside the ruling.
He, therefore, urged the court to proceed with the proceedings, having earlier made order to take all the pending applications.
But Justice Abdulmalik asked Ikpeazu if he had been served with the application for stay and he responded that they were only served the previous day.
“We were served very late yesterday my lord,” he said.
He said he could respond to the application on points of law.
But the judge held that Ikpeazu should filed a formal application in response to the motion for stay.
Justice Abdulmalik consequently adjourned the matter until January 23 for hearing of the application for an order staying further proceedings in the suit.
The Turaki-led leadership of the party, in the motion on notice filed by Uche, had prayed the judge to withdraw from the suit and remit the case file to the chief judge (CJ) for re-assignment to another judge for determination on its merit.
Giving twelve grounds while their application should be considered, Uche argued that the right to fair hearing is constitutionally guaranteed under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), including the right to an impartial tribunal.
The senior lawyer said the 5th to 25th defendants/applicants, in the motion, had formally petitioned the CJ of FHC, requesting that no case concerning the internal affairs or disputes of PDP be assigned to Justice Abdulmalik and two other judges of the Abuja judicial division due to past antecedents and perceived partisanship in similar matters.
According to Uche, the suit which was filed only on November 21, 2025, got its way into His Lordship’s court and on Nov. 25, 2025, the judge made an ex-parte against the defendants in a format and template that was curious and in alliance with the format and template utilised by Hon. Justice Omotosho of the same court against the defendants.
He said while giving the impression on paper that the prayers in the motion were being refused, yet the judge granted even more far-reaching orders against the defendants in fact, which similarity and pattern exceed coincidence.
Uche said the orders made ex-parte by the judge when there was no real urgency touched directly on and determined the main substance of the suit at such a preliminary and interim stage.
