By Ismail Salif, Esq
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
The political terrain has remained highly tense following the Court of Appeal’s decision on the interlocutory injunction application and the divergent interpretations that have followed the court’s directive that parties should maintain the status quo ante bellum.
The tension was further heightened by the press release issued by the Commission on 1 April 2026, wherein it stated:
“Since the names of the current National Working Committee members led by Senator David Mark were uploaded on 9th September, 2025 by INEC (7 days after the suit was instituted), the names would be removed from the INEC portal pursuant to the order of the Court of Appeal to maintain the status quo ante bellum until the matter is decided by the trial court.”
This article is a legal analysis founded on a plethora of judicial precedents. To properly appreciate the correctness or otherwise of INEC’s position, it is necessary to first understand the legal meaning of status quo ante bellum, as judicially interpreted, and then analyse the Commission’s reliance on the doctrine in the case of Senator David Mark v. Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe & 4 Ors, Appeal No. CA/ABJ/145/2026.
The Court of Appeal held as follows:
“Finally, it is necessary to make preservatory orders to ensure that the subject matter of the dispute pending before the trial court is not prejudiced as Courts have inherent powers to control and regulate proceedings to ensure justice…
Accordingly, in order to protect the integrity of the proceedings and the eventual determination of the substantive suit pending before the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: That Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025 be and is hereby granted accelerated hearing in view of the Electoral Time Table released by the 4th Respondent.
That the parties are hereby directed to maintain the STATUS QUO ANTE BELLUM and shall refrain from taking any step or doing any act capable of foisting a fait accompli on the court or otherwise rendering nugatory the proceedings before the trial court.”
What Really is Status Quo Ante Bellum?
The phrase status quo ante bellum has received judicial interpretation in numerous cases.
In Hon. Emma Molokwu & Ors v. Pastor John Iron Obiudu & Ors (2014) AELR 3770 (CA), the Court defined it thus:
“The literal meaning of status quo ante bellum is the state of affairs before the beginning of the hostilities or the state of affairs existing during the period immediately preceding the issue of the writ.” Per Mshelia, JCA (P. 32, paras. B–C).
Similarly, in Ogunro v. Duke (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt. 978) 130, the Court held:
“Status quo ante bellum, the phrase, is defined as the state of affairs existing during the period immediately preceding the issue of writ. It means the state of affairs before the beginning of hostilities.”
To make the concept clearer, two selected authorities are considered below.
- Akapo v. Hakeem-Habeeb (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 247) 266
This case involved a dispute within the Ojora Chieftaincy Family of Lagos, a well-known and long-recognised Idejo white cap chieftaincy family under Lagos customary law. The plaintiff had been officially approved by the Lagos State Government as the Chief Ojora of Lagos in 1977, making him the recognised head of the family and the person responsible for overseeing the family’s properties and affairs.
The family had an internal constitution created from an earlier court settlement, which established an 18-member family council led by the plaintiff to manage the family’s landed properties and other family matters. Over time, however, the council became inactive because there were vacancies and not enough members to form a quorum for meetings.
As time went on, the relationship between the plaintiff and some influential members of the family broke down. In April 1984, during a general family meeting that the plaintiff did not call, some family members claimed to have removed him as Chief Ojora, accusing him of mishandling money collected from family properties.
Despite this attempted removal, the plaintiff and the family council continued to manage the family’s properties and collect rent from tenants in different parts of Lagos. The disagreement later became more serious when some family members set up a caretaker committee and gave it authority to control family affairs.
The conflict eventually turned physical when, in April 1985, the defendants and their agents allegedly forcibly entered the family office at Bale Street, Ajegunle, chased away the workers, seized receipt books and cash found in the office, and took over the collection of rents from tenants. They also informed tenants through letters and newspaper publications that all future rents should be paid to them instead of the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Court:
“The status quo which the Court can by the granting of injunction maintain, is the restoration of the parties to the position they were before April, 1985, when the respondents with force took over the management and control of the offices and property of the Ojora Chieftaincy family, hitherto under the control and management of appellant and the family council. In the circumstances of this case to deny the appellant the grant of the injunction sought is to approve their illegal conduct in taking over control and management of the family property. It will indeed amount to a condonation of illegality.”
(Karibi-Whyte, J.S.C.)
“To begin with, the literal meaning of status quo ante bellum is the state of affairs before the beginning of hostilities. So, the status quo that ought to be maintained in this case is the state of affairs that existed before the defendants’ forcible takeover of the management and control of the family properties which constitutes the wrongful act complained of in the application.”
(Nnaemeka-Agu, J.S.C.)
“The status quo ante, in this case, must be the position whereby the plaintiff and the family council managed the family properties before the violent takeover by the defendants.”
(Ogundare, J.S.C.)
The principle from this case is unmistakable: the court restored the parties to the position existing immediately before the complained wrongful act.
- Ogunro v. Duke (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt. 978) 130
This case involved a dispute within the Etim Effiong Duke family of Calabar, a large extended family that jointly owned extensive family land, including the Asari Eso Layout.
The dispute centered on who was the rightful family head whether the 1st appellant or the respondent. While this leadership issue remained unresolved, the appellants accused the respondent of alienating portions of the family land without the consent of the larger family.
To prevent further disposal of the land, the appellants instituted an action at the High Court and simultaneously sought urgent restraining orders. However, the trial court refused the injunction.
Judgment
“In the instant case, from the affidavit evidence presented before the trial court, it was not in dispute that the respondent, whether rightly or wrongly, was the family head of the Etim Effiong Duke family for more than two years before the appellants commenced proceedings on 6/03/01, and the respondent as the family head controlled and managed the family land. That was the status quo ante bellum.”
Again, the court identified the relevant status quo as the state of affairs existing immediately before the institution of the suit and before hostilities commenced.
Applying the Principle to the ADC / INEC Situation
From the foregoing authorities, one legal truth clearly emerges: the court always restores the parties to the point before the alleged wrongful disruption began not to any artificial or selectively chosen date.
In both cases examined above, the courts looked to the last peaceful and uncontested state of affairs before the dispute escalated into hostilities.
Applying that reasoning to the ADC leadership dispute, the crucial legal question is this: what was the state of affairs before the commencement of the hostilities that gave rise to the suit?
If, as the available facts suggest, the names of the National Working Committee led by Senator David Mark had already been uploaded by INEC on 9 September 2025 and remained the recognised leadership structure before the suit-induced controversy intensified, then that state of recognition arguably constituted the true status quo ante bellum.
On that reasoning, the legally relevant “ante bellum” would be the position that existed before the challenge by Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe introduced the present judicial hostilities, namely the period when the David Mark-led administration was peacefully recognised on the Commission’s portal.
Consequently, any interpretation of the Court of Appeal’s order that removes the already existing and previously recognised leadership structure may raise serious legal questions as to whether the Commission has in fact preserved the pre-hostility state of affairs or inadvertently altered it.
CONCLUSION
The doctrine of status quo ante bellum is not a vague political slogan; it is a precise preservatory judicial principle developed to protect the subject matter of litigation. The courts have consistently held that it means the restoration or preservation of the last uncontested position before the wrongful act or before litigation hostilities commenced.
The authorities in Akapo v. Hakeem-Habeeb and Ogunro v. Dukemake it abundantly clear that the law looks backward to the last peaceful legal state, not forward to a position created by the dispute itself.
Therefore, in the ADC controversy, the correctness of INEC’s decision must be tested against one decisive question: Did the removal of Senator David Mark’s NWC from the portal preserve the last peaceful and recognised state of affairs, or did it itself create a new state of affairs?
If the latter is the case, then the action may stand at variance with the settled judicial meaning of status quo ante bellum.
In the final analysis, the law favours preservation, not alteration. Any step taken under the guise of maintaining status quo must faithfully reflect the pre-dispute reality, otherwise it risks undermining the very integrity of the judicial process the order was designed to protect.
Ismail Salif, Esq.Legal Practitioner.08171238117, 09136315775, salif.yahoo.com
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
Reimagine your practice with the power of AI “...this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic.” — Ohio Books Ltd
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe, Esq., ACIArb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director, Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
Bonus:
Get a FREE eBook titled “How to Use the AI in Legalpedia and Law Pavilion” with every purchase.
How to Order: 📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878 📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com 🌐 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access directly online at: https://selar.com/prv626
_______________________________________________________________________ [A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
The book, titled The Law of Torts in Nigeria: A Functional Approach, authored by Professor Hagler Sunny Okorie Ph.D and Ikeocha, Nathaniel Ngozi Esq, offers law students, practitioners, and academics a comprehensive guide to understanding and applying tort law in Nigerian courts. Interested buyers can place orders via the following contact numbers: 08028636615, 08037667945, 08032253813, or +234 902 196 2209.
