The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Monday adjourned till October 13, 2026, for the hearing of a motion to amend the originating summons in the suit filed by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress against President Bola Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress, and the Independent National Electoral Commission.
The suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026 was slated for further mention before Justice Inyang Ekwo. When the case was called, counsel for the plaintiffs, Joseph Silas, told the court that processes had been served on all the defendants within the stipulated period, and that the plaintiffs had received and responded to their processes.
Recall that an earlier dispute over service of the processes on the first defendant had stalled proceedings in the case.
Counsel for the President, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, reminded the court that at a previous hearing on September 1, 2026, counsel for the second defendant, Popoola Owosanya, had offered to receive the court processes on behalf of the first defendant.
Olanipekun told the court that the offer had been rejected by the plaintiffs’ counsel, who later approached the court for an order permitting substituted service on Tinubu, alleging that the plaintiffs subsequently attempted to “deceive this court” by claiming that they were unable to serve the first defendant.
Justice Ekwo, however, urged the lawyers to focus on the business of the day.
Silas subsequently informed the court of the plaintiffs’ application to amend their originating summons. He said counsel to the defendants had been put on notice of the application.
Recall that an earlier dispute over service of the processes on the first defendant had stalled proceedings in the case.
Counsel for the President, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, reminded the court that at a previous hearing on September 1, 2026, counsel for the second defendant, Popoola Owosanya, had offered to receive the court processes on behalf of the first defendant.
Olanipekun told the court that the offer had been rejected by the plaintiffs’ counsel, who later approached the court for an order permitting substituted service on Tinubu, alleging that the plaintiffs subsequently attempted to “deceive this court” by claiming that they were unable to serve the first defendant.
Justice Ekwo, however, urged the lawyers to focus on the business of the day.
Silas subsequently informed the court of the plaintiffs’ application to amend their originating summons. He said counsel to the defendants had been put on notice of the application.
After confirming that the lawyers had indeed been served with the application, Justice Ekwo adjourned the case.
“This case is hereby adjourned until the 13th of October 2026, for hearing of the motion to amend originating summons,” the judge held.
Atiku and the ADC instituted the suit in August, challenging Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election. Their case centres primarily on an alleged discrepancy involving the name on a National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate submitted to INEC and the President’s official name. The allegation forms part of the substantive issues yet to be determined by the court.
The court had on September 16 granted the plaintiffs permission to serve Tinubu through the APC after the plaintiffs told the court that efforts to effect personal service on the President had proved difficult. The order had been challenged by the APC, which argued that Tinubu’s lawyers had already collected the originating processes and filed his defence before the application for substituted service was made.
Meanwhile, INEC has also filed a response challenging the competence of the action, including arguments relating to the plaintiffs’ locus standi and alleged abuse of court process.
