The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, has unanimously dismissed the appeal filed by Barrister Julius Abure challenging the leadership of the Labour Party, affirming Senator Nenadi Usman as the legitimate National Chairman, imposing a N10 million cost against Abure for wasting judicial time, and strongly criticising the former chairman for abuse of court process and forum shopping on a matter the Supreme Court had already conclusively determined.
The three-member panel, in a lead judgment delivered by Justice Oyejoju Oyewumi with Justices A.B. Mohammed and Eberechi Suzzette Nyesom-Wike concurring, affirmed the decision of the Federal High Court and held that the appeal was “devoid of merit and constituted an abuse of court process.”
The ruling effectively closes another chapter in the Labour Party’s protracted leadership crisis, reinforcing the legal position established by the Supreme Court in April 2025 and leaving Abure with no further avenue to challenge Usman’s leadership short of a fresh application to the Supreme Court itself.
The Labour Party leadership dispute has traversed all three tiers of the Nigerian judiciary over the past year.
On April 4, 2025, the Supreme Court conclusively settled the dispute when it nullified the convention that had purportedly returned Abure as National Chairman of the Labour Party. That ruling removed Abure from the chairmanship and created the legal basis for an alternative leadership structure.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, a caretaker committee headed by Senator Nenadi Usman was constituted to provide leadership to the party. The committee’s formation was based on the doctrine of necessity, a legal principle that permits extraordinary measures to fill a governance vacuum and prevent institutional collapse.
On January 21, 2026, Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment and directed INEC to recognise Senator Usman as the legitimate leader of the Labour Party “to the exclusion of all others.”
Dissatisfied with that decision, Abure filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal in suit No. CA/ABJ/CV/255/2026, titled Barr. Julius Abure & Anor v. Sen. Nenadi Esther Usman & 3 Ors, seeking to overturn the Federal High Court’s judgment.
The appellate court’s unanimous ruling addressed several key legal questions and resolved each against Abure.
On the finality of the Supreme Court’s decision, the Court of Appeal held that the Supreme Court had, on April 4, 2025, “conclusively settled” the leadership dispute within the Labour Party when it nullified the convention that returned Abure as National Chairman. The word “conclusively” is legally significant as it means the matter cannot be relitigated at any lower court.
On the Federal High Court’s power to direct INEC, the appellate court agreed with the trial court that the Federal High Court possessed the constitutional power under Section 251 of the Constitution to compel a statutory Federal Government agency to perform its functions. This means the order directing INEC to recognise Usman as National Chairman was within the court’s jurisdiction and properly made.
On the doctrine of necessity, the appellate court endorsed the trial court’s finding that the constitution of the caretaker committee headed by Usman was justified under the doctrine of necessity, which was “needed to provide leadership in the party when there appeared to be a vacuum.” This ruling provides legal validation for the caretaker structure that has been governing the Labour Party since the Supreme Court’s intervention.
On abuse of court process, the Justices strongly criticised Abure for engaging in what the court described as abuse of process. They noted that Abure had persisted in laying claim to the leadership of the Labour Party “despite the clear and unambiguous pronouncement of the apex court.”
On forum shopping, the court specifically criticised Abure for filing proceedings at a Nasarawa State High Court on a matter that had already been decided by the Supreme Court. Forum shopping, which involves filing cases in multiple jurisdictions in search of a favourable ruling, is considered a serious abuse of the judicial process and is strongly disapproved by Nigerian courts.
The court did not merely dismiss the appeal but imposed a cost of N10 million against Abure “for wasting judicial time on a matter that had already been conclusively determined.”
The imposition of costs at this level is relatively unusual in Nigerian appellate practice and reflects the court’s view that Abure’s appeal was not merely unsuccessful but was brought in bad faith, without legal merit, and for the purpose of prolonging a dispute that the highest court in the land had already resolved.
The N10 million fine sends a broader message to litigants across Nigeria’s political landscape who persist in filing appeals and fresh suits on matters that have been definitively settled by superior courts. At a time when courts are overwhelmed with political party disputes, the imposition of punitive costs may serve as a deterrent against the kind of serial litigation that has characterised Nigeria’s opposition party crises.
The Court of Appeal’s criticism of Abure for filing proceedings at the Nasarawa State High Court on a matter already decided by the Supreme Court is particularly significant in the current political context.
Forum shopping has become endemic in Nigerian political litigation, with parties filing similar or related cases in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously, seeking favourable rulings from different judges. The practice creates contradictory court orders, confusion about which ruling prevails, and opportunities for parties to cherry-pick the most favourable order from competing jurisdictions.
The ADC leadership crisis provides a contemporary example of this phenomenon, with cases filed simultaneously before multiple Federal High Court judges, state high courts, and the Court of Appeal, producing competing orders and status quo directives.