In a decisive and unanimously delivered ruling on Wednesday, February 4, 2026, the Court of Appeal sitting in Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria, dismissed in its entirety an application brought by Mr. E.E.J. Agwulonu and Nkum (Joy) Ijeoma Oluchi (representing themselves and 2022 shortlisted candidates) who sought to challenge and halt the 2024 judicial officers appointment exercise in Abia State. The three-member panel comprising Justices Oyebisi F. Omoleye (Presiding), Mohammed Lawal Abubakar, and Ntong Festus Ntong delivered a scathing rebuke of the applicants’ conduct, finding that they had lied under oath, withheld material evidence, failed to establish any legal right worthy of protection, and essentially sought to hold the entire Abia State judiciary appointment process hostage indefinitely without lawful justification.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/SADR.jpeg")
The Applicants/Appellants:
- Mr. E.E.J. Agwulonu (1st Applicant)
- Nkum (Joy) Ijeoma Oluchi (2nd Applicant, for herself and representing the 2022 Shortlisted Candidates)
The Respondents:
- Attorney General of Abia State (1st Respondent)
- Abia State Judicial Service Commission (2nd Respondent)
- National Judicial Council (3rd Respondent)
The Four Reliefs Sought
The applicants filed Motion on Notice dated November 6, 2024, and filed November 8, 2024, seeking:
- Extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal the final decision of the National Industrial Court, Owerri, delivered July 26, 2024
- Leave of the Court of Appeal to appeal against the said final decision
- Enlargement of time within which to file the appeal brought outside the stipulated period
- An Order of Injunction pending Appeal restraining the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents from commencing and/or continuing with any process of appointment of Judges of Abia State in another 2024 exercise during the pendency of related appeals (CA/OW/280/2023, CA/OW/281/2023, and CA/OW/298/2023)
The dispute traces back to 2022 when the Abia State Judicial Service Commission commenced an exercise for the appointment of judicial officers to fill existing vacancies in the Abia State Judiciary. The process involved:
- Invitation of expressions of interest
- Shortlisting of candidates
- Forwarding of shortlisted candidates to the National Judicial Council
- Interviews conducted by the NJC in October 2022
However, critically, no final appointments were ever made following the interviews. The 2022 exercise stalled and was never completed.
Subsequently, disputes arose concerning the 2022 exercise, leading to litigation at the Federal High Court, with appeals later filed at the Court of Appeal, Owerri Division.
In 2024, the Abia State Judicial Service Commission initiated a fresh judicial appointment process. This prompted the Attorney General of Abia State to file Suit No. NICN/OW/05/2024 at the National Industrial Court seeking declaratory reliefs affirming the Commission’s power to proceed with the 2024 exercise notwithstanding the inconclusive 2022 exercise and pending appeals.
The National Industrial Court delivered judgment on July 26, 2024, in favor of the respondents, declaring that the Abia State Judicial Service Commission possessed authority to commence the 2024 exercise and restraining any interference with the process.
The Court’s Devastating Findings
1. The Applicants Lied Under Oath
In what constitutes perhaps the most damaging finding, Justice Ntong declared unequivocally:
“The Applicants herein lied on oath when they stated in paragraph 5 of their Affidavit that they had earlier filed a Motion on Notice on 16/8/2024 but the trial Court failed to fixed hearing date until the prescribed three months period elapsed. This cannot be the true position of facts, and I vehemently refuse to believe same because the Applicants on 6/11/2024 filed at the Court of Appeal, Owerri Division a Notice of Discontinuance to withdraw the Motion on Notice dated 16/8/2024 in Appeal No. CA/OW/300M/2024.”
The Court noted that the three-month statutory period had not elapsed when the applicants voluntarily withdrew their earlier application. The period would have expired on November 16, 2024, but the applicants filed their discontinuance on November 6, 2024—ten days before the deadline.
2. Deliberate Withholding of Evidence
Applying Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, 2011, the Court invoked the presumption that evidence withheld would be unfavorable to the party withholding it:
“From the foregoing, there is no scintilla or modicum of doubt that the Applicants stylishly, mischievously and cunningly refused to draw the attention of the Court to the Notice of Discontinuance of their earlier Motion on Notice filed on 16/8/2024 and they Applicants equally lied on oath that it was the Court of Appeal that failed to issue hearing notice for the Application to be heard.”
3. No Vested Rights from Incomplete Exercise
The Court firmly established that the 2022 exercise conferred no legal rights on the applicants:
“Employment or appointment of judicial officers are not justiciable. Exhibit CA1 being the judgment of the trial Court brilliantly highlighted the stage at which a successful candidate can be laced with statutory flavour in accordance with the National Judicial Council Rules to be so clothed with irreversible right. The Applicants never wore the garment of statutory flavour to be so entitled to the alleged right. They are on a frolic of their own.”
Justice Omoleye’s contribution reinforced this point:
“The supporting affidavit admits, without qualification, that no appointment emanated from the 2022 exercise. Paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the affidavit do not assert that any recommendation was made by the National Judicial Council to the Governor, nor that any appointment was concluded.”
4. The 2022 Exercise Was Tainted by Corruption
The respondents’ counter-affidavits, which the Court accepted as credible, established that:
“The 2022 appointment process was compelled to be discontinued owing to widespread irregularities, corruption, and gross procedural misconduct, hence it became imperative to obtain a fresh and distinct approval from the National Judicial Council to lawfully initiate the 2024 appointment exercise.”
The Court noted emphatically:
“No Court or any reasonable Tribunal, Committee or Body will be friendly with any form of corruption or illegalities in any procedure or any exercise be it a judicial appointment, employment or any other employment in any society.”
5. The 2024 Exercise is Completely Distinct
The Court accepted the respondents’ position that:
- The 2024 process does not constitute a continuation, extension, or repetition of the 2022 exercise
- It does not pertain to the same vacancies or previous nominations
- A fresh approval was obtained from the National Judicial Council
- The applicants themselves participated in the 2024 exercise by submitting applications, signifying participation in an entirely fresh process
6. Failure to Satisfy Twin Requirements for Extension of Time
Citing the Supreme Court decision in C & N Inv. Ltd. v. Sterling Bank PLC (2025) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1974) 485, the Court reiterated that applications for extension of time require:
- Good and substantial reasons for failure to appeal within the prescribed period
- Grounds of appeal prima facie showing why the appeal should be heard
Both conditions must be satisfied conjunctively. The applicants failed on both counts.
7. The Jurisdictional Arguments Were Frivolous
While the applicants placed heavy reliance on Grounds 15, 16, and 17 of their proposed Notice of Appeal, arguing lack of jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court, the Court was unimpressed:
“Frivolous issues of jurisdiction that a Court lacks the authority to hear a case are treated as serious abuses of the legal process. Simply because jurisdiction is very fundamental in any proceeding, does not mean it can be raised recklessly or falsely to tactically delay or harass the other party and the Court. This cannot be welcomed in our jurisprudence.”
8. Complete Failure on Injunction Requirements
The application for injunction pending appeal failed comprehensively:
No Legal Right Established:
“The Applicants have not demonstrated any specific and known vested right arising from the 2022 judicial appointment exercise nor have they shown that such right has been violated or threatened.”
No Undertaking as to Damages:
“It is not disputed on the record that no undertaking as to damages was given in the supporting affidavit. That omission was specifically raised by all the Respondents and was not responded to by any further affidavit evidence.”
Justice Omoleye cited Mufutau Akinpelu v. Ebunola Adegbore (2008) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1096) 531: “no order for an interlocutory injunction should be made on notice unless the applicant gives a satisfactory undertaking as to damages.”
No Balance of Convenience Demonstrated: The applicants failed to show how the balance of convenience tilted in their favor.
No Irreparable Damage Shown: The Court found the claims of irreparable harm speculative and unsubstantiated.
The Catfish Metaphor
In a memorable passage, Justice Ntong employed vivid local imagery to characterize the applicants’ conduct:
“By the Applicants’ conduct, the Applicants are like a catfish called Asukpak Ebai in Anang language. The catfish will not enter the net and will not allow others to enter. It is opprobrious and unwholesome for any citizen of a State to hold to ransom for his or her failure to achieve a feet in that State.”
The Paean to Justice
Justice Ntong concluded with an eloquent tribute to the principle of justice:
“Justice is a food or puddy meant for all and sundry in Nigeria and all the States in general and Abia State in particular. Justice is a beautiful, handsome, and fair Groom or Bride: And like rain, justice falls on the roof of all; not segregating, not selective, not acrimonious, not rancorous and it does not have enemies. That is the reason I follow justice sheepishly. And where justice goes, I follow him or her, where justice stands, there I also stand.”
The Costs Order
The Court awarded ₦3,000,000 (Three Million Naira) in costs against the applicants, distributed as follows:
- ₦1,000,000 to the 1st Respondent (Attorney General of Abia State)
- ₦1,000,000 to the 2nd Respondent (Abia State Judicial Service Commission)
- ₦1,000,000 to the 3rd Respondent (National Judicial Council)
This substantial costs award reflects the Court’s strong disapproval of the litigation conduct.
Legal Representation
For the Applicants:
- J.U. Amad Esq. (holding brief for O.O. Nkume Esq.)
For the 1st Respondent (Attorney General):
- Ikechukwu Uwanna SAN, Attorney General of Abia State
- Chinedu Onyike Ogwo Esq., Acting Director, Civil Litigation Department
- Nkolika Cleopatra Ubani Esq., Principal State Counsel
- Akeem Muyiwa Eletu, Pupil State Counsel
- F.O. Ugwumadu PSC
For the 2nd Respondent (Judicial Service Commission):
- K. Nwaiwu SAN
- F.O. Nwabueze-Ohajimadu Esq.
- T.B. Godson Esq.
For the 3rd Respondent (National Judicial Council):
- E. Okoroji Esq.
- C.I. Achiniuu
Key Legal Principles Affirmed
- Applications for extension of time are not granted as routine – They require satisfaction of conjunctive conditions
- Judicial discretion must be exercised judicially and judiciously – Not arbitrarily or on sympathy
- Participation in an incomplete recruitment exercise creates no vested rights – Particularly where corruption allegations led to abandonment
- Evidence withheld is presumed unfavorable – Section 167(d) Evidence Act applies
- Interlocutory injunctions require undertaking as to damages – Absence is fatal
- Frivolous jurisdictional challenges constitute abuse of process – Courts will not tolerate tactical delay
- Fresh recruitment exercises are distinct from abandoned ones – Especially where the earlier was tainted by corruption
Broader Implications
For Public Service Recruitment: This ruling establishes that candidates in abandoned recruitment exercises cannot claim vested rights and cannot use litigation to block fresh exercises.
For Judicial Appointments: The decision affirms the authority of Judicial Service Commissions to initiate fresh appointment processes where earlier ones were compromised.
For Litigation Conduct: The substantial costs award and strong judicial language signal that courts will penalize litigation tactics designed to frustrate legitimate governmental processes.
For Appellate Practice: Practitioners are reminded of the strict requirements for extension of time applications and the consequences of providing misleading information to courts.
Abia JSC judgementConclusion
This ruling represents a comprehensive judicial repudiation of attempts to weaponize litigation to hold public appointments hostage. The Court’s findings of dishonesty, evidence suppression, and frivolous argumentation, combined with the ₦3 million costs order, send an unambiguous message about the consequences of such conduct. The decision clears the path for Abia State to proceed with its 2024 judicial appointment exercise unimpeded by claims arising from the corruption-tainted and never-completed 2022 process.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR LAWYERS: A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE
Reimagine your practice with the power of AI “...this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic.” — Ohio Books Ltd
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe, Esq., ACIArb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director, Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
Bonus:
Get a FREE eBook titled “How to Use the AI in Legalpedia and Law Pavilion” with every purchase.
How to Order: 📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878 📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com 🌐 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access directly online at: https://selar.com/prv626
________________________________________________________________________ The Law And Practice Of Redundancy In Nigeria: A Practitioner’s Guide, Authored By A Labour & Employment Law Expert Bimbo Atilola
_______________________________________________________________________
"You Don't Need To Be Rich, You Just Need To Start" — Victoria Ezeigwe, Esq Launches Investment Handbook For Nigerians Starting With ₦5,000
Get your copy today and take the first step toward financial growth:👉 https://selar.co/4f16676016
_______________________________________________________________________
