Supreme Court of Nigeria on Thursday nullified the “status quo ante bellum” order issued in the leadership tussle within the African Democratic Congress (ADC), ruling that such a directive cannot subsist after proceedings in a case have effectively been concluded.
In a lead judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Garba, the apex court emphasised that while courts possess inherent powers to issue preservative orders, such powers are limited to situations where there is an existing subject matter to protect.
The case stemmed from a legal dispute over the recognition of former Senate President David Mark and former Osun State governor Rauf Aregbesola as National Chairman and National Secretary of the ADC, respectively.
A plaintiff had earlier approached a trial court seeking interim and interlocutory injunctions restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising the duo as party leaders pending the determination of the substantive suit.
The suit also sought to prevent Mark and Aregbesola from parading themselves as national officers, occupying the party’s headquarters, and performing functions tied to the disputed positions.
However, records reviewed by the Supreme Court showed that when the ex parte application was first presented on September 4, 2025, the trial court declined to grant the requested interim reliefs immediately. Instead, it ordered that the respondents be put on notice to show cause why the application should not be granted.
Subsequently, an appeal was filed challenging, among other things, the directive that parties maintain the “status quo ante bellum” pending determination of the dispute.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court clarified 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—providing for appeals as of right in injunction matters—did not apply in this instance.
He further ruled that since the appeal did not arise from a substantive order granting or refusing an injunction, the appellants were required to obtain leave of court before filing. The failure to do so rendered the appeal incompetent, as obtaining such leave is a “condition precedent” affecting the court’s jurisdiction.
The apex court also explained the legal scope of “status quo ante bellum,” describing it as a temporary preservative measure aimed at preventing actions that could prejudice the court while a matter is still pending.
Justice Garba stressed that once proceedings have been “fully, faithfully, conclusively and finally concluded,” there is nothing left for the court to preserve. Continuing such an order beyond that point, he said, effectively transforms it into an unwarranted injunction.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the status quo order, and directed that all pending matters before the lower court be resolved in accordance with the law.
