Lagos-Calabar Highway: Court dismisses ₦1bn suit, slams ₦6m cost on plaintiffs

In a dramatic turn at the Federal Excessive Court docket in Ikoyi, Lagos, Hon. Justice Allagoa has brushed off a high-profile lawsuit filed by Chief Emeka Jackson Mewu and 26 others against the Federal Ministry of Works and five utterly different defendants over the Lagos-Calabar coastal toll road, citing procedural violations and joined disorders in the swimsuit.

The court docket also imposed a ₦6 million save against the plaintiffs, to be shared equally among the six defendants.

The matter, FHC/L/CS/310/2025, came up on Monday, June 23, 2025, for a document of provider and pending motions.

Nevertheless, tensions rose when the plaintiffs’ counsel, Olajide Onasanya Esq., knowledgeable the court docket of a Stare of Discontinuance, citing procedural defects.

He pleaded with the court docket no longer to award costs, or to impose only a minimal quantity if it must.

But the defence crew—led by Senior Recommend of Nigeria (SAN) Y. A. H. Ruba, SAN, representing the 1st and 2nd defendants—pushed help laborious.

Ruba argued that the plaintiffs had already initiated the swimsuit by Originating Summons, and the defence had replied with a Counter Affidavit, thereby becoming a member of disorders in conserving with the Federal Excessive Court docket Tips.

He insisted that a Stare of Discontinuance filed after the parties joined disorders became invalid except leave of court docket became sought—a step the plaintiffs failed to build terminate.

“At this stage, the swimsuit can not be withdrawn. The ideal expose is dismissal—no longer inserting out,” Ruba argued, citing the case of Benjamin & Anor v. APC. He demanded ₦50 million in costs for the peril precipitated to his purchasers.

Counsel for the 3rd and 4th defendants (Lagos Assert Authorities) aligned with the effort of the lead counsel, affirming that they had also filed responsive processes, including a counter affidavit and Stare of Preliminary Objection. They requested a ₦20 million save.

Counsel for the Fifth defendant (Mrs. Ibukun Fasoro) echoed the same arguments however mentioned she would gain either a strike-out or dismissal, soliciting for ₦30 million in costs as a consequence of costs incurred.

The sixth defendant’s counsel, representing the Central Financial institution of Nigeria (CBN), also confirmed that disorders had been joined and sought ₦20 million in costs.

In response, the plaintiffs’ counsel maintained that inserting out became the obliging expose upon filing a Stare of Discontinuance and appealed to the court docket’s discretion no longer to impose heavy costs.

Justice Allagoa agreed that the plaintiffs failed to adjust to the court docket’s principles, which mandate that discontinuance must happen within 14 days of the defence entry, or else require the court docket’s leave. Nevertheless, he handled the procedural lapse as a “mere irregularity,” allowed the discontinuance, however concluded that disorders had certainly been joined.

Accordingly, the court docket brushed off the swimsuit and ordered the plaintiffs to pay ₦1 million to each and each of the six defendants—a complete of ₦6 million—as save for defending the now-brushed off motion.