The Supreme Court on Thursday overturned a contentious “status quo ante bellum” decision issued during the long-running leadership crisis in the African Democratic Congress, ruling that the preservative directive could not continue to exist after the proceedings were ended.
In a main judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Garba, the Supreme Court ruled that, while courts have inherent powers to impose preservation orders to protect the subject matter of litigation, such orders cannot survive once proceedings have been “fully, conclusively, and finally concluded.”
The court then granted the appeal and overturned the ruling that maintained the status quo ante bellum in the dispute between competing sections of the ADC leadership.
The decision stemmed from a court struggle concerning the party’s leadership structure, namely the legitimacy of appointments and congresses held by rival factions within the party.
In the opinion, Justice Garba emphasized that the trial court’s command to maintain the status quo ante bellum was effectively a preservative order designed to prevent parties from attempting to impose a fait accompli on the court while proceedings were ongoing.
The justice, however, ruled that such rights may only be employed in live hearings.
According to him, once the procedures are “fully, faithfully, conclusively, and finally concluded,” there will be “nothing left for that court to preserve.”
The Supreme Court also reviewed the competence of the appeal filed in the case and the constitutional basis relied on by the appellants.
Justice Garba ruled that Section 241(1)(f)(ii) of the 1999 Constitution, which allows for appeals as of right in certain interlocutory rulings involving injunctions, did not apply in this case.
He held that the trial court did not approve or deny an injunction application but rather provided procedural directives to preserve the subject matter of the dispute pending hearing.
The court also ruled that because the grounds of appeal were not solely on legal issues, leave of court was required before the appeal could be filed.
The justice emphasized that gaining leave in such circumstances constituted a “condition precedent” for the appeal’s legitimacy and competence.
He went on to say that the competency of a notice of appeal is determined by the court’s jurisdiction and that if it is flawed, the entire appeal is rendered ineffective.
Despite these conclusions, the Supreme Court proceeded to evaluate the legitimacy of the lower courts’ preservation decisions, ultimately ruling that maintaining the status quo ante bellum after the relevant processes had concluded was needless and legally unsustainable.
As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the order and ordered that all outstanding proceedings before the lower court be decided in conformity with the law.
Details later…
