A Fourteen-year Legal Odyssey by ADR

Something extraordinary unfolded in one of the courts of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The Claimant and the 1^st Defendant reached an amicable resolution to their dispute.

Pedestrian, one might conclude—but wait for the details.

This suit was filed on 3 August 2011. It was originally assigned to Justice A. U. Ogakwu, then of the FCT High Court, now elevated to the Court of Appeal. Hearings had commenced when Justice Ogakwu was promoted, and the case was reassigned to Justice A. B. Mohammed, necessitating a fresh start.

At this juncture, the Claimant applied to join the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, the Federal Capital Development Authority, the Department of Development Control, the Inspector-General of Police, and the Nigerian Police Force as Defendants. The application was granted, prompting all parties to amend their respective processes to reflect this joinder. The Claimant filed an Amended Statement of Claim spanning 60 paragraphs. In response, the 1^st Defendant submitted an Amended Statement of Defence, comprising a 90-paragraph defence and a 38-paragraph counterclaim. Just as the hearing gained momentum, Justice A. B. Mohammed was elevated to the Court of Appeal. The suit was reassigned once more, landing on the docket of Justice A. H. Musa on 13 September 2021.

For ten years, from the date of filing, this suit wandered like the Israelites in the Wilderness of Zin. Minimal progress was recorded from 13 September 2021, when it reached Justice Musa’s docket, until June 2025. On that day in June, the court adjourned the suit to 24 September 2025 for a definite hearing.

Remarkably, on 8 July 2025, the parties reached a truce. Curiously, the terms of settlement were strikingly simple—a paradoxical expression of battle-weariness without the casualties of a true battle. It was the quintessential war of attrition, ultimately anticlimactic.

Unable to wait until the adjourned date of 24 September 2025, the parties, of their own accord, requested an earlier date before the court’s vacation to adopt their terms of settlement. The court graciously granted their request, and the Terms of Settlement were adopted on 16 July 2025 and entered as a Consent Judgment on the same date.

Fourteen years after the suit was filed, the parties opted for an out-of-court settlement.

Ultimately, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) prevailed. This outcome underscores the growing reliance on ADR in transactions involving substantial stakes, particularly among multinationals. Beyond such scenarios, ADR is increasingly the preferred mechanism in emerging technology fields—such as fintech, cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence, and intellectual property—where time is of the essence and profitability is intricately tied to efficient time management.

Real estate practitioners are strongly advised to prioritise Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms. The rationale is clear: land title disputes are notorious for protracted trials and appeals, often spanning decades. For example, cases such as Piaro v. Tenalo & Anor (1976) LPELR-2919 (SC) endured for 20 years, Abdullahi v. Adetutu (2020) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1711) 338 SC took 26 years (1993–2019) from the trial court to the Supreme Court, and Mr Abdulganiyu Adeniran and Anor (For Adeniyi Apata Family, Offa) v. HRH Oba Abdulganiyu Ajibola Ibrahim Olusokun II, Elerin of Erin-Ile (For Himself and the Erin-Ile Community) and 2 Ors. (2019) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1673) 98 SC lasted 45 years (1973–2018). Although many contracts incorporate clauses mandating amicable dispute resolution, a key challenge, drawn from experience, is the parties’ reluctance to engage these clauses in good faith. Frequently, parties treat such clauses as mere formalities, applying them half-heartedly to satisfy jurisdictional prerequisites, such as conditions precedent for accessing the court’s jurisdiction, rather than genuinely pursuing restorative justice.

Given the glacial pace of our judicial system, contracting parties are strongly encouraged to pursue Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) options diligently and in good faith before resorting to litigation, especially when the contract’s value hinges on timely execution. Fortunately, courts, including appellate courts, have established ADR centres to facilitate this process. It is anticipated that litigants will embrace these mechanisms to enhance access to justice and promote restorative justice, ensuring that relationships are preserved during the pursuit of justice. Where relationships are strained, the objective remains to mend them and achieve mutually acceptable resolutions.

What purpose is served by spending fourteen years in court, filing endless processes, restarting hearings de novo, and engaging in what amounts to motions without movement, only to resolve the dispute through ADR in the end?

As a capstone, I propose that parties in matrimonial proceedings adopt ADR to resolve their disputes—not to preserve the marriage, but to dissolve it. Why turn a dissolution—especially one entangled in messy facts—into a public spectacle worthy of a Netflix celebrity scandal series? But that excursus is a topic for another day.

---

About Author

Ogbu, Blessing Ekpere, Esq. is a legal practitioner, consultant, writer and poet. He majors in Constitutional Law and Intellectual Property Law. He holds an LLB and LLM degrees from the prestigious University of Jos and is an Associate of the Institute of Chartered Mediators and Conciliators (ICMC).

Ogbu, Blessing Ekpere, Esq., a legal practitioner, writes from Abuja and can be reached at sir_ideology@yahoo.com.