Yakubu Busari
A Plateau State High Court sitting in Jos last Thursday delivered a ruling on an objection raised concerning the non-compliance with Order 54 of the Plateau State High Court Rules in the suit involving Fatima Akawu, Baba Akawu v. Jos North Local Government Area.
Hon. Justice Charles Domlong made this disclosure during the proceedings on the suit challenging the Indigeneship certificates of Jos North LGA by Hausa /Fulani.
The matter which commenced hearing on July 3, 2026 of denying the Hausa /Fulani of Jos North LGA as settlers non Indigenes were they Respondents obtained judgment.
However, some of the concerned senior citizens of Plateau State filed fresh application seeking the order of the court to set aside the earlier judgment entered.
Those who challenged the judgment include; Chief G.S. Pwul, SAN; Chief G.M. Kuttu, SAN; and E.G. Pwajok, SAN, alongside J.M. Okafor including Ada Emmanuel Ajik, Adagwom of Jos Izere Chiefdom; Ada Itsegok Chiroma; Da Samuel Pam; Joro Magaji; and the Ujah of Anaguta, respectively .
The applicants, judgment debtors in their applications, stressed that the counsel to the first and second respondents, Garba Ruba, SAN, argued that the they did not compliance with Order 54 of the Plateau State High Court Rules.
Their objections was centred on the requirement that counsel seeking to join parties in a suit in the court should abide by the laid-down relevant provisions of the court rules.
Following the intensive arguments by counsel on both sides, the court adjourned the matter until October 29, 2026, for ruling.
Delivering her ruling, Justice Domlong recalled that when the matter came up on July 3, 2026, the parties joined issues on the objection raised against counsel to the first and second respondents over alleged non-compliance with Order 54 of the court rules.
The judge noted that it is trite law that parties may seek to amend their positions or make changes to parties in a suit at any stage of the proceedings, provided they comply with the applicable rules of the court.
However, on the question of whether counsel to the first and second respondents had complied with the relevant requirements, the court answered in the negative, describing the application as defective and raising issues of discontinuance.
The matter was subsequently adjourned until December 9, 2026, for the continuation of the hearing, while the respondents were expected to put their house in order and ensure compliance with the relevant court rules.
