Court Faults Counsel to First and Second Respondents Over Non-Compliance with Order 54 in Fatima Akawu, Baba Akawu V. Jos North LGA
By Peter Azi – Jos
Justice Charles Domlong of the Plateau State High Court, sitting in Jos, has delivered a ruling on an objection 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.
The matter came up for hearing on July 3, 2026, following an application by several parties seeking to be joined in the suit.
Counsel to the applicants seeking to join the suit included Chief G.S. Pwul, SAN; Chief G.M. Kuttu, SAN; and E.G. Pwajok, SAN, alongside J.M. Okafor. They represented Ada Emmanuel Ajik, Adagwom of Jos Izere Chiefdom; Ada Itsegok Chiroma; Da Samuel Pam; Joro Magaji; and the Ujah of Anaguta, among others.
- Advertisement -
The applicants, described as judgment debtors in the matter, joined issues with counsel to the first and second respondents, Garba Ruba, SAN, over compliance with Order 54 of the Plateau State High Court Rules.
The objection centred on the requirement for counsel seeking to join parties in a suit to comply with the relevant provisions of the court rules.
Following 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 hearing, while the respondents were expected to put their house in order and ensure compliance with the relevant court rules.
DemocracyNewslineNewspaper October 29th, 2026
