The Supreme Court of Nigeria on Thursday set aside a preservative “status quo ante bellum” order in the African Democratic Congress (ADC) leadership dispute, ruling that such directives cannot continue after substantive proceedings have been concluded.
In a lead judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Garba, the apex court held that while trial courts have the inherent authority to issue interim orders to preserve the subject matter of a dispute, such powers are strictly limited to active proceedings and cannot extend beyond final determination.
The court explained that status quo orders are designed to prevent parties from taking steps that could frustrate the outcome of a pending case. However, it stressed that once a matter has been “fully, conclusively and finally concluded,” there is no longer any legal foundation for preserving the subject matter.
“At that point, there is nothing left for the court to preserve,” Justice Garba stated.
The decision arose from appeals linked to the ADC’s prolonged leadership crisis, which has seen rival factions contest the legality of congresses, appointments, and control of the party’s structure.
The Supreme Court therefore allowed the appeal in part and nullified the order maintaining the status quo in the dispute.
Beyond the substantive issue, the court also examined the competence of the appeal filed before it. Justice Garba held that the constitutional provision relied upon by the appellants—Section 241(1)(f)(ii) of the 1999 Constitution—was inapplicable, as the lower court did not grant or refuse an injunction but merely issued procedural directions aimed at preserving the subject matter of litigation.
The court further ruled that because the grounds of appeal were not purely on points of law, the appellants ought to have obtained leave of court before proceeding.
It described such leave as a “condition precedent” for a valid appeal, adding that failure to obtain it rendered the process incompetent and deprived the court of jurisdiction.
According to the judgment, an incompetent notice of appeal invalidates the entire appeal, regardless of its merits.
However, despite those findings, the apex court still proceeded to consider the propriety of the preservative order and concluded that maintaining a status quo after proceedings had ended was unnecessary and legally unsustainable.
The court consequently set aside the order and directed that any pending issues before the lower court be determined in accordance with the law.
The ruling effectively narrows the scope of interim judicial intervention in political party disputes, particularly where substantive hearings have already been concluded, while leaving the ADC leadership conflict to continue through remaining legal processes.
Leave a Reply