By Uthman Baba-Naseer,Minna

The Federal High Court, sitting in Minna has struck out the defence of the 1st Defendant Statement of Defence African Democratic Congress (ADC) Senatorial Candidate for Niger South Senatorial District challenging the eligibility of Hon. Baba Shehu Agaie.

In a ruling delivered on the Wednesday 16th September 2026, following the resumed hearing into the lawsuit filed at the court by the former Minister of Sport Mr. Abdulrahman Hassan Gimba, who is the plaintiff in the lawsuit, Justice Mohammed Barau Saidu, ruled that the first defendant/Applicant’s statement of Defence in the lawsuit was filed out of time hence struck it out.

Justice Mohammed Barau held that the practice direction of the Federal High Court does not provide for extension of time to file Statement of Defence after the statutory 10 days provided by the Practice Direction guiding such a lawsuit.

He further declared that the first defendant had not filed their statement of defence within the stipulated period of time as provided in the Federal High Court Practice direction,”the Applicant’s statement of Defence is hereby struckout”

The former Minister of Sport, Mr. Abdulrahman Gimba, had approached the Federal High Court through his team of Attorneys led by Adamu Umar,Esq, challenging the nomination of Alhaji Baba Shehu Àgaie,by the African Democratic Congress ADC as the candidate of the Niger South Senatorial Zone in 2027 election.

Baba Shehu Àgaie,was the leader of the State chapter of the ADC when he was nominated to contest the Senatorial seat of the Niger South Senatorial District.

There was no primary election conducted by the State chapter of the party,which prompted the lawsuit against the ADC and Baba Shehu Àgaie by the former Minister Abdulrahaman Hassan Gimba.

By Uthman Baba-Naseer,Minna

The Minna High Court number two,has ordered the Ministry of Basic and Secondary Schools in Niger State, to pay the sum of Five Million Naira as damages and One million naira as cost of litigation to the Incorporated trustees of Niger State Parents Teachers of Nigeria (NIPTAN),

Similarly,the court has refrained the defendants from interfering in the affairs of the plaintiff under whatever reasons affirming that the plaintiff is a registered association under the corporate affairs Commission that has the constitutional right to carry out its activities without any interference.

This was the outcome of the Judgement delivered by Justice Mikaila Abdullahi in the
case number,NSHC/MN/446 2025 instituted against the defendants.

The Plaintiff some time in 2025,approached the court through its Attorney Abubakar Sadiq Maaji,Esq,to challenge the dissolution of the Niger State Parents Teachers Association executive committee and inaugurated a caretaker committee to oversee the affairs of the State chapter of the association.

Joined in the suite include,the National Parents Teachers Association,the Director General of Niger State Schools Reform Hajiya Maimuna Mohammed,and the caretaker committee inaugurated by the defendants.

Justice Mikaila Abdullahi, held that the actions of the defendants to dissolve the executive committee of the association is illegal,null and void and ordered that the defendants has no any constitutional right to pocknose into the legitimate affairs of the plaintiff and refrained the defendants from taking any further action against the plaintiff.

He further held that the plaintiff, being an incorporated entity by the corporate affairs Commission (CAC) has been constitutionally empowered by law to operate as an incorporated trustee to carry out its constitutional duty as enshrined by law without any interference.

Justice Mikaila,further, held that the action of the defendants to inaugurate the caretaker committee to replace the existing constitutional body of the Niger State parents Teachers Association (NIPTAN) amount to the violation of its right of association as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN) as amended.

He then ordered that the defendants should henceforth refrain from any further action that will amount to illegally interfering into the legitimate activities of the plaintiff.

He then awarded the sum of six million naira to the plaintiff as cost of damages and cost of litigation respectively.

Commenting on the Judgement,the chairman of NIPTAN in Niger State,Alhaji Yunusa Adamu described the outcome of the legal battle as a victory to the association and to the entire parents in Niger State and the country in general.

He said the judgement has opened a new chapter into the association that will now be geared towards moving the association further in improving the standard of the educational development in the state and the country as a whole.

He commended the judge for displaying unwavering courage in arriving at giving this erudite judgement and damning the consequences.

By Our Correspondent

The Lagos State Government and other appellants have appealed the September 11, 2026 ruling of the Lagos State High Court which granted a mandatory injunction nullifying the installation of the Onise of Ise Land, Oba Ibrahim Adebowale Saliu.

In a Notice of Appeal dated September 14, 2026, the 1st to 4th appellants are asking the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, to set aside the ruling delivered by Hon. Justice Y. A. Adesanya in Suit No. LD/0022PRA/2026.

The appellants contended that the trial court breached their right to fair hearing by proceeding with the application for mandatory injunction without hearing them.

They alleged that their counsel was unaware the matter had been fixed for hearing during the court’s vacation and that the application was heard in his absence.

According to the appellants, their litigation clerk was at the registry on September 10, 2026, to file their counter-affidavit and written address in opposition to the mandatory injunction, as well as an application for extension of time, when they learnt at about 12:36pm that the matter had already been called.

They said counsel immediately sought a rehearing on grounds of fair hearing, but the trial court dismissed the application as incompetent and proceeded to deliver its ruling on the mandatory injunction.

The appellants also challenged the substantive basis for the order, arguing that the interim injunction earlier granted by the High Court on August 13, 2026, for seven days restraining them from acting on a letter issued by the Ise kingmakers dated March 30, 2026, had already expired on August 20, 2026 and was not renewed.

They, therefore, argued there was no basis for granting a mandatory injunction, particularly as the installation of Oba Saliu, which was carried out by the Ise Kingmakers, took place after the expiration of the interim order.

Citing authorities including Dr. Modile v. The Governor of Lagos State and Dr. Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso v. Kano State, the appellants argued that mandatory injunction is an exceptional and drastic remedy which was not justified in this case, as the chieftaincy stool is neither perishable nor destructible and the successful party could still obtain relief after trial.

The appellants have also filed a stay of execution, implying that the installation of Oba Saliu as the Onise of Ise Land remains unaffected pending the determination of the appeal. Respondents in the appeal include Alhaji Adeniyi Atere, Mrs Idowu Adebisi Lana, Mr Babatunde Ekundayo Lana and others.