- He noted that once proceedings are fully concluded, there is nothing left to preserve
- An appeal was later filed challenging the directive for parties to maintain the existing situation
- Justice Garba emphasised that obtaining such leave is a necessary legal requirement
The Supreme Court has nullified the “status quo ante bellum” order issued in the leadership dispute within the African Democratic Congress, ruling that such a directive cannot remain in force once proceedings have been concluded.
Delivering the lead judgment, Eko Hot Blog gathered that Mohammed Garba explained that while courts have the authority to issue temporary measures to protect matters under litigation, such powers only apply when a case is still active.
EDITOR’S PICK
- Lassa Fever Hits Oyo, Government Activates Emergency Response
- Bruno Fernandes Reveals Why He Rejected Huge Al Hilal Move
- FG Defends Borrowing Strategy
He noted that once proceedings are fully concluded, there is nothing left to preserve.
The case stemmed from a dispute over the recognition of David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola as national officers of the party.
At the trial court, a plaintiff had sought orders to stop the Independent National Electoral Commission from recognising the duo, while also asking the court to bar them from acting in those capacities pending the outcome of the case.
However, the trial judge did not immediately grant the request but instead directed that all parties be notified and allowed to respond, stating that this approach would serve the interest of justice.
An appeal was later filed challenging the directive for parties to maintain the existing situation, commonly referred to as “status quo ante bellum.”
But the Supreme Court held that the lower court neither granted nor refused an injunction, meaning the appeal could not proceed without prior permission of the court.
Justice Garba emphasised that obtaining such leave is a necessary legal requirement, and failure to do so renders an appeal invalid.
He further clarified that “status quo ante bellum” orders are temporary safeguards meant to prevent actions that could complicate a case while it is still ongoing.
Once the matter has been resolved, continuing such an order effectively turns it into an improper injunction.
Based on this reasoning, the apex court set aside the earlier directive, bringing an end to that aspect of the legal dispute.
FURTHER READING
