Federal High Court Sets Aside Judgment Recognising NDC As Political Party

A Federal High Court sitting in Lokoja has set aside its earlier judgment of December 10, 2025, which had directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) as a political party. The court, presided over by Justice Isah Dashen, found that the original judgment was constitutionally defective due to the non-joinder of the Peace Movement Party (PMP), a necessary party whose rights were adversely affected by the ruling. The PMP claimed ownership of the logo relied upon by the NDC for its registration. This decision effectively nullifies all actions taken pursuant to the earlier judgment, including NDC's registration and any related electoral activities, restoring the parties to their pre-judgment status and mandating a fresh hearing with all necessary parties joined. The ruling underscores the critical importance of fair hearing and proper joinder of parties in litigation.

In a significant development for Nigeria's political landscape and electoral jurisprudence, the Federal High Court in Lokoja recently vacated its own judgment that had compelled the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) as a political party. This decision, delivered on June 26, 2026, by Justice Isah Dashen, has far-reaching implications, effectively nullifying the NDC's registration and all subsequent actions taken under its purported status as a political party.

The court's ruling stemmed from an application by the Peace Movement Party (PMP), which argued that its fundamental right to fair hearing was breached as it was not joined in the original suit, despite claiming ownership of the logo that formed the basis of the NDC's registration. The judgment highlights a crucial aspect of judicial procedure: the imperative of ensuring all necessary parties are heard before a determination is made, particularly when their rights are directly impacted. This article delves into the legal framework underpinning this decision, its immediate consequences, and the broader lessons for legal practitioners in Nigeria.

The core thesis of this analysis is that the Federal High Court's decision to set aside its earlier judgment, while seemingly a reversal, is a reaffirmation of fundamental constitutional principles, particularly the right to fair hearing, and the inherent power of courts to correct judgments tainted by fundamental procedural defects. It demonstrates that the principle of *functus officio* is not absolute, especially when a judgment is deemed a nullity due to a denial of fair hearing.

The registration of political parties in Nigeria is a process meticulously governed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and the Electoral Act 2022. Section 222 of the Constitution outlines conditions for an association to function as a political party, including the registration of its national officers with INEC and ensuring its membership is open to all citizens irrespective of origin, birth, sex, religion, or ethnic grouping. The Electoral Act 2022, particularly Section 75, further empowers INEC to register political associations that comply with constitutional and statutory requirements.

Under Nigerian law, political parties are the exclusive vehicles for contesting most elective offices, meaning access to the electoral process begins with legal party registration. INEC is mandated to issue a certificate of registration if all conditions are met. However, the process is not without its challenges, and disputes over registration often find their way to the Federal High Court, which has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine such matters.

The power of a court to set aside its own judgment is an exceptional one, typically invoked under specific circumstances. While the doctrine of *functus officio* generally dictates that a court cannot revisit a final judgment it has delivered, Nigerian jurisprudence recognizes exceptions. A court retains inherent jurisdiction to set aside its judgment if it is a nullity, was obtained by fraud, or where there was a fundamental defect, such as a denial of fair hearing to a necessary party. This inherent power is often exercised *ex debito justitiae*, meaning as a matter of right or justice, to prevent an injustice.

The Federal High Court in Lokoja, in Suit No. FHC/LKJ/CS/49/2025, set aside its judgment of December 10, 2025, which had ordered INEC to register the NDC. Justice Isah Dashen's ruling on June 26, 2026, was predicated on the finding that the earlier judgment adversely affected the rights of the Peace Movement Party (PMP), which was not joined as a party in the original suit. The PMP had claimed ownership of the logo used by the NDC to secure its registration, making its non-inclusion a critical procedural flaw.

The court held that the non-joinder of the PMP amounted to a denial of fair hearing, rendering the December 10, 2025, judgment constitutionally defective and a nullity. This aligns with established principles of Nigerian law, as articulated in cases like *Mohammed v. Husseini* (1998) 14 NWLR (Pt. 584) 108, where the Supreme Court clarified that the *functus officio* doctrine does not apply to judgments not delivered on the merits or those tainted by fundamental procedural defects. Similarly, the principle that a breach of fair hearing renders proceedings a nullity has been affirmed in cases such as *Adigun v. Attorney-General of Oyo State* and *Pam v. Mohammed*.

The application to set aside the judgment was brought pursuant to Order 26 Rules 1 and 8 and Rule 56 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, alongside the court's inherent jurisdiction. The court's exercise of its inherent jurisdiction *ex debito justitiae* to set aside a null judgment is well-founded in Nigerian jurisprudence. As stated in *Mark v. Eke* (2004) LPELR-1841(SC), a court of record has the inherent jurisdiction to set aside its own judgment given in any proceeding with a fundamental defect, such as one going to jurisdiction or competence, which renders the judgment a nullity.

The implication of this ruling is profound: all actions taken by INEC in compliance with the now-vacated judgment, including the recognition of NDC, the issuance of its certificate of registration, its inclusion in INEC's records, and any appearance on ballot papers, are reversed. The court directed all parties to revert to their positions before the December 10, 2025, judgment and ordered the claimants to join all necessary parties to ensure a complete and effective determination of the dispute.

However, the NDC has rejected the ruling, asserting that it remains a legally recognized political party and has filed an appeal. The party contends that the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to overturn its own final judgment through a motion, relying on a strict interpretation of the *functus officio* doctrine. This sets the stage for further legal battles, likely at the Court of Appeal, where the interplay between the finality of judgments and the imperative of fair hearing in cases of fundamental procedural defects will be further scrutinized.

The Federal High Court's decision to set aside its judgment regarding the registration of the Nigeria Democratic Congress serves as a critical reminder of the procedural safeguards embedded in Nigeria's legal system, particularly the constitutional right to fair hearing. For legal practitioners, this case underscores the paramount importance of conducting thorough due diligence to identify and join all necessary parties in any action, especially those involving proprietary rights or statutory recognition. Failure to do so, as demonstrated here, can lead to the nullification of an otherwise seemingly final judgment, regardless of the stage of execution.

Practitioners should meticulously review the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 and relevant case law on setting aside judgments, understanding the narrow but crucial exceptions to the *functus officio* rule. The ongoing appeal by the NDC will be a significant case to watch, as it will further clarify the boundaries of a trial court's inherent jurisdiction to revisit its own decisions and the appellate courts' stance on judgments rendered null due to fundamental defects. This development reinforces that justice, in its truest sense, often demands a re-evaluation of processes to ensure equity and fairness for all affected parties.