Dare Babalola
The Supreme Court of Nigeria has nullified a controversial “status quo ante bellum” order issued in the lingering leadership dispute within the African Democratic Congress, ruling that such preservative directives cannot remain in force after the conclusion of substantive proceedings.
In a lead judgment delivered on Thursday, Justice Mohammed Garba held that while courts possess inherent authority to issue interim measures to safeguard the subject matter of litigation, those powers are strictly limited to the duration of active proceedings.
The apex court found that once a matter has been fully heard and determined, there is no legal basis for sustaining an order aimed at maintaining the status quo, as there is nothing left to preserve.
The ruling followed an appeal arising from the protracted internal crisis within the ADC, which has seen rival factions contest control of the party’s leadership structure, including disputes over appointments and congresses conducted by opposing groups.
Justice Garba explained that the directive issued by the trial court to maintain the status quo ante bellum was intended to prevent either party from taking steps that could prejudice the court while the case was ongoing.
However, he emphasised that such an order automatically lapses once proceedings are concluded.
According to him, preservative orders are only valid in the context of live disputes before the court, noting that after a case has been “fully, faithfully, conclusively and finally concluded,” the legal foundation for such directives ceases to exist.
The court also examined the procedural validity of the appeal, particularly the reliance on Section 241(1)(f)(ii) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides for appeals as of right in certain interlocutory matters relating to injunctions.
Justice Garba ruled that the provision was inapplicable, as the trial court neither granted nor refused an injunction but merely issued procedural directions to preserve the subject matter pending determination of the case.
He further held that since the grounds of appeal were not strictly based on points of law, the appellants were required to obtain prior leave of court before filing the appeal.
Failure to do so, he said, rendered the appeal incompetent, stressing that compliance with such procedural requirements is a condition precedent to invoking the court’s jurisdiction.
The justice added that any defect in a notice of appeal affects the competence of the entire case, thereby stripping the court of the authority to entertain it.
Notwithstanding these findings, the Supreme Court proceeded to consider the substance of the preservative orders made by the lower courts and concluded that maintaining the status quo after the conclusion of proceedings was legally untenable.
Consequently, the apex court set aside the order and directed that all pending matters before the lower court be resolved in accordance with due process and the law.
