The Supreme Court on Thursday nullified a disputed “status quo ante bellum” directive issued during the lingering leadership tussle within the African Democratic Congress (ADC), ruling that such an interim order cannot remain in force after a case has been fully decided.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Mohammed Garba stated that while courts have inherent authority to issue preservative orders to safeguard the subject of litigation, those directives lapse once proceedings have been completely and conclusively determined.
READ MORE: NESCAFÉ Launches “Next Level Promo” to Reward and Empower Consumers
The apex court consequently upheld the appeal and struck out the order that had maintained the pre-dispute position in the clash between rival ADC leadership factions.
The ruling stemmed from a legal dispute over the party’s leadership framework, including the validity of appointments and congresses organised by opposing groups.
Justice Garba explained that the lower court’s directive to maintain the status quo was a temporary safeguard designed to prevent any party from taking actions that could undermine the court’s authority while the case was still ongoing.
However, he emphasised that such measures are only applicable during active proceedings.
According to him, once a matter has been “fully, finally and conclusively resolved,” there is nothing left for the court to preserve.
The Supreme Court also considered the validity of the appeal and the constitutional provisions cited by the appellants.
Justice Garba held that Section 241(1)(f)(ii) of the 1999 Constitution which allows appeals as of right in certain interlocutory rulings involving injunctions was not applicable in this instance.
He noted that the trial judge neither granted nor refused an injunction but merely issued procedural directions to maintain the status quo pending the hearing.
The court further ruled that since the appeal raised issues beyond pure questions of law, prior leave of court was required before filing.
The justice described obtaining such leave as a mandatory precondition for the appeal’s competence.
He added that the validity of a notice of appeal directly affects the court’s jurisdiction, and any defect renders the entire appeal incompetent.
Nonetheless, the apex court went on to review the propriety of the preservative orders issued by the lower courts, ultimately ruling that sustaining the status quo ante bellum after the conclusion of proceedings was both unnecessary and legally untenable.
About The Author
