The Supreme Court on Thursday nullified the “status quo ante bellum” order issued in the leadership tussle within the African Democratic Congress, effectively restoring the leadership of David Mark as National Chairman and Rauf Aregbesola as National Secretary.
In a lead judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Garba, the apex court ruled that preservative orders cannot subsist once the substantive issues in a case have been conclusively determined.
The ruling followed a protracted legal dispute over the legitimacy of the ADC leadership, with a plaintiff seeking to restrain the Independent National Electoral Commission from recognising Mark and Aregbesola as party officials.
The plaintiff had also urged the court to bar the duo from parading themselves as national officers, occupying the party’s headquarters, or performing functions attached to the offices pending the determination of the suit.
However, the Supreme Court held that the trial court neither granted nor refused the interlocutory injunctions sought but merely issued procedural directives, including an order for parties to maintain the status quo.
Justice Garba clarified that such orders are inherently temporary and intended solely to preserve the subject matter of litigation while proceedings are ongoing.
He stressed that once a matter has been “fully, faithfully, conclusively and finally determined,” there remains nothing for the court to preserve, rendering any subsisting status quo order legally unsustainable.
“The exercise of preservative powers is contingent on the existence of a live dispute. Where proceedings have ended, such orders lose their legal foundation,” the court held.
The apex court further ruled that the appeal challenging the lower court’s directive was incompetent, as it was filed without the requisite leave.
According to the court, Section 241(1)(f)(ii) of the 1999 Constitution, which allows appeals as of right in injunction matters, did not apply since no actual order granting or refusing an injunction had been made.
Justice Garba described the requirement for leave as a “condition precedent” to a valid appeal, noting that failure to comply deprived the appellate court of jurisdiction.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the status quo ante bellum order, describing its continued enforcement after the conclusion of proceedings as tantamount to an unwarranted injunction.
The court also directed that all pending processes before the lower court be resolved in line with the law.
The judgment is expected to bring clarity to the leadership crisis within the ADC and reaffirm judicial boundaries on the use of interim preservative orders in political disputes.
FOLLOW US
FOR MORE HERE
