The Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday dismissed the application filed by the Sen. David Mark-led leadership of African Democratic Congress, ADC, challenging Nafiu-Bala Gombe’s plan to amend his suit.
Mr Gombe, a former Deputy National Chairman of ADC, had, in his suit, prayed the court to stop Mark and Rauf Aregbesola from parading themselves as leaders of the party.
Mr Gombe, in a motion filed by his lawyer, Lukman Fagbemi, SAN, had sought to amend the reliefs in his originating summons but Mark and Aregbesola raised objections.
Justice Peter Lifu, in a ruling, held that the objections by Mark, the embattled ADC’s National Chairman, and Aregbesola, the National Secretary, were frivolous, baseless and without an iota of merit.
Justice Lifu held that the amendment sought by the plaintiff, which was to give life to his case, was a normal attempt in a civil litigation to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented.
Besides, the judge held that Gombe’s application was occasioned by a change of counsel adding that the apprehension exhibited by Mark-led leadership was unnecessary and uncalled for.
Justice Lifu said that Mark and other defendants in the matter were at liberty to file counter affidavit against the amended originating summons to indicate consequential amendment to the earlier one.
He said that after perusing the whole objections of the defendants, he was unable to see where they would be jeopardised if the amendment was granted.
Justice Lifu consequently dismissed the objections and allowed the amendment by the plaintiff.
The judge also awarded a fine of N500, 000 each against Mark and Aregbesola to be paid to Gombe.
Mark and Aregbesola had opposed the attempt by Gombe to amend claims in the leadership suit filed against them.
The duo had urged Justice Lifu not to allow the amendment to the allegations against them on the ground that doing so would lead to a miscarriage of justice.
Gombe, through his lawyer, had moved the application seeking amendment to the originating summons he filed against the ADC, Mark, Aregbesola, and others, challenging the emergence of the defendants as new national officers of the party.
Gombe insisted that he had the right under the law to make any amendment necessary to ensure justice in his suit.
The plaintiff had predicated the proposed amendment on eight grounds and a six-paragraph affidavit, maintaining that the law backed his decision as long as judgment had not been delivered in the matter.
However, Mark, represented by Dr Suleiman Umar, SAN, had vehemently opposed the application on several grounds.
The lawyer had argued that the parties had already joined issues and that granting any amendment would give the plaintiff an undue and undeserved advantage after seeing the strength of the defence already filed and served on him.
He had urged the court to reject the application, describing it as detrimental to his client and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
On his own part, Aregbesola, through his counsel, Realwan Okpanachi, alleged that Gombe had changed the character of his case against the defendants through the sought amendment.
He faulted the plaintiff’s new claims, adding that, contrary to the allegations, the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the ADC changed the national leadership on July 29, 2025, during a duly convened NEC meeting.
He argued that a notice of the NEC meeting was served on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on July 1, as required by law, thereby ensuring the legality of their emergence as party’s national leaders.
Referring to the earlier originating summons, Aregbesola said Gombe had attached an unsigned copy of the ADC constitution and, after seeing the defendants’ objections, had now introduced a signed copy in the amended process to strengthen his case.
Insisting that “he who comes to equity must come with clean hands,” Aregbesola urged Justice Lifu to reject the application on the ground that “new claims, different documents and exhibits have been introduced through the amendments.”
He argued that the proposed amendments were made in bad faith and constituted an abuse of court process because they were filed after the Supreme Court judgment directing an accelerated hearing of the matter.
The defendant urged the judge to hold that the sought amendments lacked merit and should be dismissed.