Nigeria’s apex court on Thursday nullified a controversial “status quo ante bellum” directive issued in the lingering leadership tussle within the African Democratic Congress (ADC), ruling that such an order cannot stand after the conclusion of proceedings.
In a lead judgment delivered by Mohammed Garba, the Supreme Court of Nigeria held that while courts are empowered to issue preservative orders to safeguard the subject matter of litigation, those orders lose validity once a case has been fully determined.
The court consequently upheld the appeal and struck out the order that had maintained the status quo in the dispute between rival factions contesting the party’s leadership.
The case stemmed from a prolonged legal battle over the control of the ADC, including disagreements surrounding the legitimacy of appointments and congresses conducted by opposing groups within the party.
Justice Garba explained that the trial court’s directive to maintain the status quo ante bellum was intended as a temporary safeguard to prevent any party from taking actions that could impose a fait accompli on the court while the matter was still pending.
He, however, stressed that such judicial powers are limited to active proceedings, noting that once a matter has been “fully, faithfully, conclusively and finally concluded,” there would
The apex court also examined the validity of the appeal and the constitutional provisions relied upon by the appellants.
Justice Garba ruled that Section 241(1)(f)(ii) of the 1999 Constitution, which allows appeals as of right in certain interlocutory rulings involving injunctions, was not applicable in the case.
According to him, the trial judge neither granted nor declined an injunction but merely issued procedural directions to protect the subject matter pending the hearing.
The court further held that since the grounds of appeal were not strictly based on points of law, prior leave of court was required before filing the appeal.
Justice Garba described the requirement for such leave as a “condition precedent” for the competence and validity of the appeal, adding that any defect in a notice of appeal affects the jurisdiction of the court and renders the entire process incompetent.
Notwithstanding these findings, the Supreme Court proceeded to evaluate the legality of the preservative orders made by the lower courts and ultimately ruled that maintaining the status quo ante bellum after the conclusion of proceedings was unnecessary and without legal foundation.
The court therefore set aside the order and directed that all pending matters before the lower court be resolved in accordance with the law.
