Kaduna State High Court sitting in Zaria has dismissed a suit bordering on theft and betrayal, between a former naval chief, Rear Admiral Biu Tahir Yusuf (rtd) and Kaduna State Geographic Information Services, KADGIS as defendants, and Bitmas Bakery Limited, Zainab Tahir Yusuf, and Habiba Tahir Yusuf as plaintiffs.
The court in the Suit No. KDH/Z/80/113/114/2022 before Justice Yakubu Badamasi, dismissed all the three consolidated matters in the suit, citing Order 28 Rule the court’s rule, after the plaintiffs, Bitmas Bakery Limited, Zainab Tahir Yusuf, and Habiba Tahir Yusuf, failed to produce all necessary documents related to the matter.
According to the court filing, the plaintiffs, through their counsel, Basiru Yombe, submitted that in the three suits being consolidated matter, filed their Pre Trial Conference papers in line with the Rule of the court and issues were joined in all the suites since January 30,2023.
The plaintiffs submitted further that the PTC had already been conducted while in Suit No KDH/Z/80/2022 trial had even commenced but yet to be concluded.
And on February 5, 2026, the court delivered a ruling upon which Suit No KDH/Z/80/2022 and Suit No KDH/Z/113/2022; and Suit No KDH/Z/114/2022 were consolidated to be tried and determined together.
“Thereafter, both the learned counsel representing the contending parties in this matter agreed for the three consolidated cases to be adjourned to the 13th April, 2026 for the Pre Trial conference.
However, on the 13/4/2026, the learned counsel for the first defendant applied under Order 28 Rule 1 (3) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2025 as amended, for the consolidated matters to be dismissed.
“He submitted that the Plaintiffs served the 1st defendant with their Pre Trial Conference document which were filed on the 26th March, 2026 at about 4.00pm on the 10th day of April, 2026. He argued that by the Rules of this court, the Plaintiffs have 14 days from close of pleadings within which to file their Pre Trial Conference processes and that the said 14 days began to run from the 5th day of February, 2026/the learned counsel to the 1st defendant further argued that from the 5th February, 2026 to 26/3/2026 the 14 days required by law had already elapsed and there was no order sought and obtained for extension of time within the plaintiffs could do so.
He submitted that there is no any default without consequences. See AKEYI VS CROWN ROYALTIES PLA (2016) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1189) at 114.
“On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that, in these three suits being consolidated matter, the plaintiffs already filed their Pre Trial Conference papers in line with the Ruler of this court and issues were joined in all the suites since 30/1/2023. He submitted further that, in fact, in Suit No KDH/Z/113/2022 and KDH/114/2022, PTC had already been conducted while in Suit No KDH/Z/80/2022 trial had even commenced but yet to be concluded.
“The learned plaintiffs’ counsel then raised a poser, i.e. upon non-withdrawal of the PTC papers prior to the consolidation of the three suits, can it be said that all such processes could have been gone? He answered in the negative and submitted that Order 28 Rule 7 of this Court’s Rules does not make PTC mandatory. See EGUAKUN LAWRENCE VS UNION DIAGNOSTIC & CLINICAL SERVICES PLC were the Supreme Court held that Pre Trial Conference is not compulsory but optional and the court can proceed to trial without it.
The learned plaintiffs’ counsel then urged the court to discountenance with the submission of the learned counsel to the first defendant and for the court to dispense with the Pre Trial Conference in this matter in the interest of justice,” the courr said.
In his response on points of law with regards to the above, according to the courr, the learned counsel to the first defendant submitted that Order 28 Rule 1 of this Count’s Rules has made Pre Trial Conference mandatory and that the Pre Trial Conference conducted in the proceedings before the previous court were dispensed with, particularly on 15/2/2026 when new PTC documents were ordered to be filed.
It held that the learned counsel also submitted that Order 28 Rule 7 of this court’s Rules gives the court the discretion to dispense with PTC where expedient, but the court has not exercised that power of the 5/2/2026.
“He further argued that the plaintiffs ought to have applied to the court to dispense with the PTC on the 5th February, 2026 and failed to do so rendered the authority cited by the plaintiffs’ counsel to be inapplicable.
“Counsel finally urged the court to dismiss the actions of the plaints for failure to file the PTC documents in accordance with the law.
“Lastly, the learned counsel for the 2nd defendant refrained from making much submission but rather, he left the determination of the present application at the discretion of the court.
“At the junction, having reviewed the submission of both learned counsels is recapitulated above and looking at the relevance of Order 28 of this Court Rules, I am of the considered opinion that recourse shall be had to some salient parts of such provision.
“In resolving the solitary issue for determination, this court has carefully studied all the processes before it, its record of proceedings (particularly its sitting on the 5th February, 2026) and the plausible wordings of Order 28 of this court’s rules together with the relevant judicial decisions in relation to the present application. After a thorough and critical evaluation of same, this court has formed the opinion that the wordings of Order 28 of this court’s Rules are plain, clear and unambiguous. In the case of I.B.W.A vs IMANO (NIG) LTD (1988) 1 NSCC 245 the Supreme Court held that it is a fundamental rule of the interpretation of statute that where the words used are clear and unambiguous, they should be onstrued as they are and given their ordinary plain meaning. This is because where the provision is ambiguous and clear, they contain the intention of the law maker.
“It is on this scores that this court adopts rule of interpretation in dealing with the arguments of counsel in relation to the provision of Order 28 referenced to in this suit.
Therefore, looking at the provision at the provision of Order 28 Rule 1 of HCCP Rule, 2025 of Kaduna State, it has become obvious that Pre-Trial Conference has been made to be mandatory.
“Again, Rule 3 of the same Order 28 has given option to the defendant where the plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 1 thereof to enter either initiate the filing of the Pre-Trial Conference documents or apply to the court for the matter to be dismissed. Perhaps in the instant case, counsel to the 1st defendant opted for the matter to be dismissed.
“Also, with regards to Order 28 Rule 7, the court has the discretion o dispense with the Pre-Trial Conference where it considers it expedient to do so.
“This actually requires the parties to the suit to agree at the close of the pleadings to dispense with the PTC or after the close of the pleadings for the court in consideration of the antecedents of the matter suo moto dispense with the PTC. In the circumstances of the matter of the above occurred. To this extent, I am in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel to the 1st defendant that the court did not exercise its powers under Order 28 Rule 7 on the 5/2/2026 and I so hold.
It should be noted that all the consolidated cases were transferred to this court from High Court No 2 Zaria. They stated denovo before this court on the 24th September, 2025.
“On the 5th February, 2026 when this court delivered its Ruling that consolidated the 3 matters, all the parties agreed for the cases to be adjourned to 13th April, 2026 for Pre-Trial Conference.
This implies that parties has abandoned all the PTC documents they previously filed before my learned brother in High Court 2 Zaria and the plaintiffs have 14 days within which to file and serve their PTC documents on the defendants pursuant to Order 28 Rule 1 of this Court’s Rules. On failure to do that, the plaintiffs should not be seen, asking the court to act on the PTC document already filed before High Court No. 2 Zaria as same are considered abandoned.
To this extent, I equally agreed with the submissions of the learned counsel to the first defendant.
In view of the foregoing, this court has become satisfied that to granting the application of the first defendant’s counsel for these matter to be dismissed as a result of the failure of the plaintiffs to comply with the extent provision of Order 28 Rule 1 of the Kaduna State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2025. Consequently, all the 3 consolidated matters are hereby dismissed pursuant to Order 28 Rule 3 of the court’s rule,” the court held.
Speaking on the ruling Admiral Yusuf described the case as that of betrayal by his ex-wife and her father, a former deputy governor of Kebbi State, and his former wife, the mother of the children and their aunties.
“Intact the whole family were at the court. They just came to my life with an intention to steal my things when I was sick receiving medical treatment in Dubai.
“Unfortunately, I survived. They never knew I would survive and come back.
“Before I came back, they had changed ownership of my properties looted my entire warehouse and stole all my vehicles.
“They were using instrument of state government because they were close to power then both in judiciary and in government.
“They could influence judges, police, hence they were busy changing ownership of my properties, even without fear, but God always vindicate just.
“After long time of postponements and adjournments, imagine transferring my case from higher court to lower court. We are now beginning to reverse to other judiciary and by God grace we have now gotten a landmark judgement. All is to the Glory of god,” the former naval chief said.
