Justice Inyang Ekwo gave the ruling on Wednesday after granting an application filed by Diezani's counsel, Godwin Iyinbor. The request, which sought leave to file a supplementary affidavit introducing the UK court's decision, was not opposed by the EFCC.
The development marks another chapter in the high-profile asset forfeiture dispute, with the former minister arguing that her acquittal abroad is a significant development that should be considered by the Nigerian court while determining her suit against the anti-graft agency.
When the matter came up for hearing, both parties first regularised their court processes before Iyinbor moved the motion on notice filed on June 25.
According to the lawyer, the application was intended to place before the court a fresh and material development arising from Diezani's acquittal by the Southwark Crown Court in London.
He urged the court to grant leave for the supplementary affidavit and to deem it properly filed.
Although EFCC counsel, Mofesomo Oyetibo (SAN), acknowledged receipt of the application, he argued that it would not materially affect the proceedings.
"They just want to bring to your lordship's attention that the applicant has been exonerated in UK," Oyetibo told the court, adding that the motion was "intended to waste the judicial time of the court."
Justice Ekwo, however, sought clarification on whether the EFCC intended to formally oppose the application.
In response, Oyetibo confirmed that the commission had no objection.
Following the clarification, the judge granted the application as requested and adjourned the case until October 6 for hearing. He also directed that the EFCC's preliminary objection and the substantive suit would be heard together on the next adjourned date.
The legal dispute stems from Diezani's suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, in which she is asking the court to reverse the forfeiture of several of her assets. The EFCC is the sole respondent in the case.
In her amended originating motion, filed on February 19, 2025, following leave granted by the court two days earlier, Diezani challenged the EFCC's public notice announcing the auction and sale of properties allegedly linked to her.
Her legal team, led by Prof. Mike Ozekhome (SAN), argued that the anti-graft agency moved to dispose of her properties without first securing a criminal conviction or complying with constitutional and statutory safeguards.
According to the application, "A major plank of the applicant's case before this honourable court is that the respondent had sought to visit the applicant with grave proprietary consequences without conviction, without fair hearing, and without strict compliance with the relevant statutory provisions regulating forfeiture, management and disposal of properties."
Ozekhome further informed the court that a significant event occurred after the amended processes had already been filed.
"After the filing of the applicant's processes and while this suit was still pending before this honourable court, a subsequent and material event occurred, to wit: the applicant was acquitted by the Southwark Crown Court, London, United Kingdom, on 17th June, 2026, of criminal allegations of bribery brought against her, a proceeding of obvious material relevance to the allegations repeatedly referenced in relation to the applicant," the application stated.
The senior advocate maintained that the UK court's judgment was directly relevant to issues already before the Nigerian court.
"The said subsequent development is material and relevant to the applicant's case, particularly as it relates to the issues of absence of conviction, fair hearing, due process, propriety of irreversible proprietary deprivation, and the need for strict compliance with statutory safeguards before disposal of properties affecting the applicant's proprietary rights."
Ozekhome clarified that Diezani was not asking the Federal High Court to treat the UK judgment as binding on the Nigerian proceedings.
Instead, he argued that the foreign court's decision merely constituted a fresh and material fact capable of assisting the court in reaching a just determination of the matter.
He stated that the evidence was unavailable when the earlier court processes were filed and therefore could not have been included at the time.
According to him, the court possesses the discretion to admit such additional evidence where it would aid the fair and just resolution of the dispute.
The latest proceedings come weeks after the Southwark Crown Court in London, on June 17, discharged and acquitted the former minister of criminal bribery allegations brought against her in the United Kingdom.
The Abuja court is expected to hear both the EFCC's preliminary objection and the substantive suit on October 6, when arguments over the legality of the asset forfeiture process will proceed.