Court fixes June 19 for judgment in publisher’s suit against NIPSS

The Federal High Court, Abuja, has fixed June 19 to deliver judgment in a suit filed by PRNigeria Publisher, Yushau Shuaib, challenging his withdrawal from Senior Executive Course 47, National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies, NIPSS, Kuru-Jos.

Justice Binta Nyako fixed the date on Wednesday after counsel adopted their written arguments for and against the suit.

At the resumed hearing, counsel to Shuaib, Mr Teslim Adigun told the court that the plaintiff had filed a 43-paragraph affidavit, in addition to 14 exhibits and a written address in support of his claims.

Adigun urged the court to grant his client’s reliefs by declaring the withdrawal illegal and ordering his reinstatement into the course.

Responding, counsel to NIPSS, Mr P.A Akubo, SAN said the claims of the plantiff were exaggerated and prayed the court to dismiss the suit.

The News Agency of Nigeria, (NAN) reports that Shuaib had dragged NIPSS to court to challenge his alleged unlawful withdrawal from the course after his admission had been approved and all required payments and conditions fulfilled.

Shuaib, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1329/2025, is seeking reinstatement into SEC 47 with full rights and privileges.

He also asked the defendants to pay him ₦1 billion in general and aggravated damages for alleged emotional and reputational harm.

He is also asking for ₦100 million as litigation costs.

The plaintiff is also praying the court for perpetual injunction restraining NIPSS from further harassment or intimidation.

After taking all the arguments, Justice Nyako fixed June 19 for judgment.

Earlier, the judge asked the plaintiff to return the key to the hostel accommodation he had in his possession.

The plaintiff had contended that he was holding unto the key on the grounds that the sum of ₦18.3 million he paid for the course covered accommodation for the entire duration, and the hostel suite was allocated on that basis.

He argued that his participation in the programme had not been lawfully terminated, noting that the legality of his suspension and withdrawal remained a central issue for determination by the court.