bizplus consulting services withdraws its legal action against the judicial appointment process involving Chukwuemeka Tony Ubani, leaving allegations concerning a judgment enforcement dispute unresolved.
The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Bizplus Consulting Services Limited seeking to prevent the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Judicial Service Committee and the National Judicial Council (NJC) from considering Chukwuemeka Tony Ubani, Director of Enforcement at the FCT High Court, for appointment as a judge.
Justice Inyang Ekwo dismissed the suit on Thursday, October 29, 2026, following the plaintiff’s decision to discontinue the proceedings.
The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2174/2026, sought to restrain the judicial bodies from screening, shortlisting, evaluating or recommending Ubani for appointment until allegations relating to his handling of a judgment enforcement process involving the Benue State Government had been investigated.
Court Dismisses Case Following Withdrawal
During Thursday’s proceedings, counsel to the defendants, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, informed the court that Bizplus had filed a notice of discontinuance, formally indicating its intention to withdraw the case.
Kehinde urged Justice Ekwo to dismiss the suit with costs, arguing that the parties had already joined issues before the plaintiff decided to discontinue the action.
In his ruling, Justice Ekwo held that the notice of discontinuance was deemed and proceeded to dismiss the suit.
The court’s decision brought the particular proceedings to an end without determining the substantive allegations against Ubani or resolving the issues raised in his preliminary objection.
Dispute Linked to Benue State Judgment Debt
The case originated from a separate dispute involving Bizplus, the Benue State Government and funds allegedly held by United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc.
In an affidavit supporting its application, Bizplus stated that it was a judgment creditor in the dispute and was seeking to recover an outstanding debt from the state government.
According to the company, the FCT High Court issued a garnishee order absolute in its favour on December 4, 2025, as part of the recovery process.
A garnishee order absolute directs a third party, such as a bank holding money belonging to a judgment debtor, to release the specified funds to the judgment creditor in accordance with the court’s order.
Company Questions Enforcement Officer’s Conduct
Bizplus alleged that Ubani, acting as Director of Enforcement at the FCT High Court, wrote a letter dated May 4, 2026, requesting police assistance to facilitate the execution of the garnishee order.
The company maintained that the letter formed part of the administrative steps taken to enforce the order against funds allegedly belonging to the Benue State Government and held by UBA.
However, the proposed enforcement exercise reportedly became contentious after the bank objected to the process.
Bizplus claimed that the operation was suspended on September 4, 2026, following UBA’s objection, which reportedly relied on its interpretation of a Court of Appeal order directing the parties to maintain the status quo.
The company further alleged that Ubani later denied authorising the enforcement operation despite his earlier written request for police assistance.
Bizplus described the alleged inconsistency as a matter requiring investigation by the relevant judicial authorities.
Petitions Submitted to Judicial Bodies
Following the dispute, Bizplus said it submitted petitions to the FCT Judicial Service Committee and the NJC, asking both institutions to investigate Ubani’s conduct during the enforcement proceedings.
The company argued that the allegations should be examined before he was considered for appointment to the Bench.
It subsequently approached the Federal High Court, seeking orders to stop the judicial appointment process until the concerns raised in its petitions had been addressed.
In its originating processes, the plaintiff asked the court to prevent the relevant bodies from screening, shortlisting, evaluating or recommending Ubani for judicial appointment. It also sought the suspension of any steps already taken towards his proposed appointment.
Ubani Challenges Company’s Legal Standing
Ubani opposed the suit through a preliminary objection, questioning whether Bizplus had the legal standing, or locus standi, to institute the proceedings.
He argued that the company had not established a personal injury, enforceable legal right or sufficient interest that would entitle it to challenge the judicial appointment process.
Ubani further contended that being a judgment creditor in a separate dispute involving the Benue State Government did not automatically confer the legal authority to interfere with the statutory responsibilities of institutions responsible for judicial appointments.
He maintained that any complaints against him should be handled by the appropriate authorities under their statutory powers.
Other defendants in the suit included the FCT Judicial Service Committee, the National Judicial Council and the Attorney-General of the Federation.
Dismissal Does Not Resolve Misconduct Allegations
Before the court could determine the substantive allegations or rule on Ubani’s preliminary objection, Bizplus filed its notice of discontinuance.
Justice Ekwo subsequently dismissed the suit following the submissions made by the defendants’ counsel.
The ruling does not establish the truth or otherwise of the allegations raised by Bizplus, nor does it amount to a judicial finding that Ubani committed misconduct.
The court also did not determine the merits of the underlying judgment debt dispute involving Bizplus, the Benue State Government and UBA.
Instead, the proceedings concerned the company’s attempt to obtain judicial orders preventing the relevant authorities from considering Ubani for appointment to the FCT High Court Bench.
With the dismissal, the specific lawsuit seeking to halt the appointment process is no longer pending before the Federal High Court. The allegations raised in the withdrawn action remain distinct from the court’s decision to dismiss the case.
