The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has adjourned the case challenging the eligibility of former President, Goodluck Jonathan, to contest the 2027 presidential election.
Naija News reports that Justice Peter Lifu fixed May 15, 2026, for further hearing after both the plaintiff and his lawyer failed to appear in court.
The judge cautioned that punitive costs could be imposed on the plaintiff if there is another unexplained absence at the next sitting.
At Monday’s proceedings, Jonathan’s lawyer, Chris Uche (SAN), informed the court that the plaintiff was absent despite the matter previously being adjourned at the plaintiff’s request.
Justice Lifu subsequently asked the court registrar whether any official communication had been received explaining the absence of the plaintiff or his counsel. The registrar confirmed that no such correspondence had been submitted.
The court also addressed issues surrounding the service of hearing notices. It emerged that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) had not been served, contrary to an earlier directive issued by the court on May 8.
Counsel to Jonathan maintained his request for the suit to be struck out, arguing that the court possessed the authority to dismiss matters lacking diligent prosecution, even where parties had already exchanged processes.
He further stressed that the plaintiff was responsible for ensuring all relevant parties were properly served, especially in a matter concerning the eligibility of a former president to seek office again.
According to Uche, court records indicated that both INEC and the AGF had neither been properly served nor filed any response in the matter.
He also urged the court to award punitive costs against the plaintiff for failing to appear without explanation.
However, Justice Lifu decided to give the plaintiff another opportunity and adjourned the matter until May 15, 2026, while directing that all parties be properly served before the next hearing.
The judge added that the issue of costs would be revisited if the plaintiff fails to comply with the court’s directives.