By Chuks Collins, Awka
A Federal High Court sitting in Awka, Anambra State, has adjourned until May 25, 2026, further proceedings in a ₦100 million suit filed by the Enugu Electricity Distribution Company (EEDC) against Anambra-based rights activist, Comrade Osita Obi.
The court, presided over by Justice Bala Khalifa-Mohammed Usman, fixed the new date following arguments surrounding a preliminary objection filed by the defence challenging the court’s jurisdiction to hear the matter.
EEDC instituted the suit against Obi, seeking ₦100 million in damages over a street protest allegedly organised by the activist in 2019 against the company’s electricity distribution practices in Anambra State.
The electricity distribution firm claimed that the protest was staged at Obi’s instance in response to what it described as persistent complaints by electricity consumers over epileptic power supply and related service issues.
At the resumed hearing on Wednesday, counsel to the first defendant, Mr. Martin Obi, informed the court that the defence had earlier filed a preliminary objection questioning the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain the suit.
He noted that the plaintiff had since responded to the objection but added that hearing notices for the proceedings had not been served on some of the parties involved in the case.
According to the defence counsel, the failure to serve the notices reflected a lack of diligent prosecution of the case by the plaintiff.
Following the submissions, Justice Usman adjourned the matter to May 25 to allow all parties to properly address the issues raised before the court.
Speaking to journalists after the court session, Obi maintained that the plaintiff had no sustainable cause of action against his client.
He argued that for any suit to be validly instituted, there must be a clear and legally recognisable cause of action, describing the protest organised by his client as a peaceful demonstration protected by the Nigerian Constitution.
“The protest organised by the first defendant was peaceful and is recognised and protected by the Constitution,” he said.
Obi also contended that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, noting that the plaintiff, being a private company, does not fall within the category of entities whose disputes fall under the court’s constitutional jurisdiction.
He cited Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which outlines the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
“The plaintiff is not a Federal Government agency, and the defendants are also not Federal Government agencies,” he said.
He further explained that unlike State High Courts, which have unlimited jurisdiction, the Federal High Court is a specialised court with limited but exclusive jurisdiction as defined under the Constitution.
