Procedural Irregularity Alleged In Federal High Court Judgment On Nigeria Democratic Congress Logo Dispute

A fresh controversy has arisen over a June 26, 2026 judgment of the Federal High Court, Lokoja Division, delivered by Hon. Justice Isa H. Dashen, concerning the registration and logo of the Nigeria Democratic Congress [NDC]. The ruling has attracted pointed criticism from constitutional lawyer and public affairs commentator, Prof. Chidi Odinkalu, who contends that the decision contains a fundamental procedural defect.

The Proceedings and Orders Sought According to a certified true copy of the 18-page ruling reviewed by Prof. Odinkalu, the application filed by Barrister Emmanuel Uzowuru, described in the proceedings as Protem National Legal Adviser of the Peace Movement Party [PMP], contained two distinct prayers:

Extension of Time: An order extending the time within which the Applicant could apply to set aside the Court’s earlier judgment of December 10, 2025; and

Substantive Relief: An order to set aside that December 10, 2025 judgment. In his assessment, Prof. Odinkalu states that the second prayer was contingent on the first. As a matter of settled procedure, an application filed outside a statutory or court-prescribed timeline cannot be entertained on its merits until the court first grants leave by way of an extension of time.

The Alleged Procedural Defect Prof. Odinkalu argues that Justice Dashen proceeded to grant the substantive relief — setting aside the December 10, 2025 judgment — without an express determination of the threshold application for extension of time. “The application before the court asked for two orders,” Prof. Odinkalu explained. “The second prayer was contingent on the first being granted. In the event, the judge proceeded to consider and grant the second prayer without at all considering the first.” He further queries the jurisdictional basis for the grant: “I am wondering, without considering that underlying first application for extension of time, to whom did the court grant the order on the second prayer?” In his view, the omission transcends a mere drafting oversight and implicates foundational principles of judicial procedure, particularly the requirement for leave where applications are filed out of time.

The Court’s Reasoning The ruling indicates that the Court found the Applicant had established exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. Justice Dashen also held that the December 10, 2025 judgment was entered without the participation of a necessary party whose interests were directly affected, thereby constituting a breach of the constitutional right to a fair hearing under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution. On that basis, the Court set aside the earlier judgment ex debito justitiae, vacated it, restored the suit to the stage immediately preceding that judgment, and directed that all parties be joined to fully ventilate the substantive dispute.

Criticism of the Judicial Approach Notwithstanding the Court’s findings on fair hearing and jurisdiction, Prof. Odinkalu maintains that the procedural route adopted is “deeply problematic.” He asserts that the request for extension of time, described as the “legal gateway” to the substantive application, does not appear to have received independent judicial determination prior to the grant of the principal relief. In a concluding remark, the former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission questioned the expedition of the decision.

Implications and Next Steps The dispute adds a further dimension to the ongoing litigation on the NDC’s registration and logo. Legal observers indicate that the alleged procedural omission may form a basis for appellate review. The matter is expected to remain subject to public and professional scrutiny, both for its political ramifications and for the broader questions it raises regarding compliance with procedural rules and the administration of justice.