Chief Judge Tsoho Rejects First Trustees’ Reassignment Bid, Says Justice Osiagor Will Continue FBNQuest, Nestoil, Neconde Suit

The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, has dismissed an application by First Trustees Limited seeking to have a case involving FBNQuest Merchant Bank, First Trustees Limited, Nestoil Limited, and Neconde Energy Limited reassigned to another judge.

Justice Tsoho ruled that the matter, marked FHC/L/CS/2127/2025, will continue before Justice Daniel Osiagor, who is currently presiding over it.

The decision was communicated in a letter dated June 19, 2026, and signed by the Chief Judge’s Special Assistant, Joshua Ajit. The letter was addressed to First Trustees Limited, with a copy seen by our correspondent on Thursday.

According to the correspondence, the request for reassignment was opposed by the defendants, who filed separate responses between June 12 and June 16, 2026. They argued that the grounds presented for the request were not supported by facts and relied on a recent Supreme Court judgment in Neconde Energy Limited v. FBNQuest Merchant Bank Ltd & 4 Others, delivered on June 15, 2026.

The defendants maintained that the Supreme Court did not disqualify Justice Osiagor from continuing with the case, nor did it order that the matter be transferred to another judge.

Agreeing with the submissions, Justice Tsoho held that the apex court’s decision contained no express or implied instruction removing Justice Osiagor from the proceedings. Instead, he noted that the ruling “reinforces the desirability of his continuing with the matter.”

He further emphasized that Supreme Court decisions are binding on all persons and authorities in Nigeria under Section 235 of the Constitution.

In conclusion, the Chief Judge ruled that there was no legal basis for granting the request. “In the light of all the foregoing, the application for reassignment of the case(s) is refused, and Hon. Justice Osiagor shall continue with the conduct of same,” the letter stated.

The dispute is part of a wider legal battle involving the four corporate entities, arising from enforcement issues tied to financial and asset management agreements.