The protracted leadership crisis at the Lagos Country Club, Ikeja, has taken another legal turn following the withdrawal of a Federal High Court judge, Justice A. Lewis-Allagoa, from a suit challenging a previous Consent Judgment connected to the club’s internal affairs.
Justice Lewis-Allagoa, who was presiding over Suit No. FHC/LAG/CS/876/2026, involving Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Babatunde Fashanu, and the Incorporated Trustees of Lagos Country Club and others, recused himself from the proceedings on Thursday, October 29, 2026.
The development followed an application by Fashanu seeking the transfer of the case to another judge on the grounds of alleged likelihood of bias and concerns over the consistency of previous judicial decisions relating to the dispute.
In his Motion on Notice dated June 1, 2026, the SAN reportedly questioned the judge’s suitability to preside over the latest suit, pointing to orders made in two earlier cases involving the club.
At the centre of the controversy are Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1792/2024, instituted by Fashanu to challenge an earlier Consent Judgment in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/321/2024, and Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1886/2024, which subsequently produced another Consent Judgment.
Fashanu argued that in the 1792 case, the court issued three separate orders on October 22, 2024, November 6, 2024, and January 23, 2025, directing the parties to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the suit.
He alleged that some of the defendants disregarded the orders and proceeded with activities within the club, including conducting elections into its Management Committee, which produced the twenty-second defendant as president for a one-year tenure.
The plaintiff further alleged that, while his suit was still pending, the first defendant and some other parties entered into Terms of Settlement dated July 8, 2025, culminating in a Consent Judgment delivered on July 16, 2025, in the 1886 case.
According to Fashanu, the subsequent judgment validated actions taken pursuant to the original Consent Judgment in the 321 case, despite his pending challenge to that judgment.
He maintained that the development effectively undermined the purpose of his earlier suit, which sought to nullify the original Consent Judgment on grounds bordering on alleged violations of fundamental rights and denial of fair hearing.
The SAN also questioned the role of the Incorporated Trustees, arguing that they were legally empowered to represent the interests of the club’s members, including himself, in court proceedings.
He alleged that the trustees allowed the 1886 proceedings to produce decisions affecting his interests and allegedly conflicting with subsisting orders in the 1792 case, without giving him an opportunity to be heard.
Fashanu consequently argued that Justice Lewis-Allagoa’s involvement in the earlier proceedings, particularly the orders that formed the basis of his complaint, raised concerns about the judge’s ability to impartially determine the latest suit seeking to invalidate the 1886 Consent Judgment.
He further contended that the judge had made known his position on issues central to the dispute in a manner that could give the impression that the matter had already been pre-judged, creating what he described as a real likelihood of bias.
Although the application for recusal was scheduled for hearing on October 29, the judge reportedly informed the parties that he would rather withdraw from the matter because the plaintiff had indicated a lack of confidence in him.
He subsequently directed that the case be reassigned to another judge of the Federal High Court.
The latest development marks another phase in the prolonged legal contest surrounding the management, leadership and administration of Lagos Country Club.
The substantive suit seeks to set aside the July 16, 2025 Consent Judgment in the 1886 case, as well as decisions and actions allegedly undertaken pursuant to it, including the disputed Management Committee elections.
With the withdrawal of Justice Lewis-Allagoa, attention will now shift to the reassignment of the case and the eventual determination of the legal issues raised by the plaintiff.
The recusal itself does not constitute a ruling on the merits of Fashanu’s allegations, which remain to be determined by the court.