The Supreme Court on Thursday nullified the “status quo ante bellum” order issued in the leadership dispute within the African Democratic Congress, ruling that such preservative directives cannot remain in force after the underlying proceedings have been concluded. Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Mohammed Garba held that while courts have inherent powers to issue preservative orders to protect the subject of litigation, such powers become invalid once there is nothing left to preserve.
The case stemmed from the legal tussle over the recognition of former Senate President David Mark and former Osun State governor Rauf Aregbesola as the National Chairman and National Secretary of the ADC. The suit was initiated through an originating summons, alongside motions seeking interim and interlocutory injunctions to stop the Independent National Electoral Commission from recognising Mark and Aregbesola as party officers pending the determination of the substantive matter.
The plaintiff also sought orders restraining both men from presenting themselves as national officers, occupying the party’s national headquarters, or carrying out responsibilities tied to the disputed positions.Court records reviewed by the apex court showed that when the ex parte application came before the trial court on September 4, 2025, the judge declined to immediately grant the requested interim reliefs and instead directed that the respondents be put on notice.
According to Justice Garba, the trial court held that fairness and the interest of justice required giving the respondents an opportunity to show cause why the reliefs sought should not be granted. The matter was then adjourned for hearing after service of the court processes on the respondents. An appeal was later filed challenging the lower court’s directives, including the order for parties to maintain the “status quo ante bellum” pending resolution of the dispute.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court neither granted nor refused an injunction but merely issued procedural and preservative directions.Justice Garba held that Section 241(1)(f)(ii) of the 1999 Constitution, which allows appeals as of right in injunction-related matters, was not applicable in this case. He explained that since the appeal did not arise from an actual order granting or refusing an injunction, leave of court was required before a valid appeal could be filed.
The justice described obtaining leave as a mandatory legal requirement, stressing that failure to secure it rendered the appeal incompetent.He further clarified that “status quo ante bellum” orders are temporary preservative measures designed to prevent parties from altering the circumstances of a case while proceedings are ongoing. According to him, such powers can only be exercised during active litigation and automatically lose relevance once proceedings have been fully concluded.
The court noted that allowing the order to subsist after the conclusion of proceedings effectively converted it into an unjustified injunction.Justice Garba also explained that “status quo ante bellum” refers to the state of affairs that existed before the event that triggered the legal dispute. The Supreme Court subsequently allowed the appeal, set aside the order, and directed that all outstanding processes before the lower court be determined in line with due legal procedure.
Source: https://punchng.com/
