The Oyo State High Court has adjourned the legal battle between Egbe Amofin Oodua and the Registered Trustees of the Nigerian Bar Association sine die, meaning indefinitely, following the entry of an appeal at the Court of Appeal against the interim order of injunction earlier granted in favour of the claimant, in a ruling that effectively freezes the lower court proceedings and moves the NBA election dispute to the appellate level.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
The adjournment, delivered at a resumed hearing on Monday, April 27, 2026, came after a dramatic courtroom session in which Chief A.A. Malik SAN produced appeal records and motion papers “like magic” to counter the claimant’s efforts to keep the matter active, drew laughter with a play on the Latin term “sine die” by suggesting the court should apply the break “until sinners die, noting that the wages of sin is death,” and successfully persuaded the presiding judge to step back from the case to avoid what he described as a “collision course” with a superior court.
The ruling marks a significant moment in the NBA’s leadership selection process, providing what legal observers have described as a “tactical breather” for the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association and all stakeholders in the Association’s affairs.
The significance of the proceedings was reflected in the courtroom, which was packed with senior members of both the Inner Bar and the Outer Bar, underscoring the case’s importance to the legal profession.
Chief Yomi Alliyu SAN led the legal team for the claimant, Egbe Amofin Oodua, comprising Mutalubi Ojo Adebayo SAN, Tunji Ogunrinde SAN, and other counsel.
The defendants, who include the Registered Trustees of the NBA, were represented by a formidable battery of Senior Advocates and other lawyers. Sammie Somiari SAN, Chief A.A. Malik SAN, and Dr. Liborous Oshoma Esq. appeared for the first, second, third, and sixth defendants respectively.
The presence of multiple SANs on both sides of the case reflected the gravity of the dispute, which touches on the NBA’s electoral process, the legitimacy of court orders affecting the Association’s democratic procedures, and the broader question of whether litigation should be used to interfere with internal Bar governance.
The session began with the claimant’s team seeking to move an application for an interlocutory injunction, a more substantive order that would have replaced the earlier interim injunction and potentially restrained the NBA and ECNBA from taking specific actions pending the determination of the case.
However, proceedings were immediately complicated by multiple procedural objections from the defence.
A pending joinder application filed by Lateef Omoyemi Akangbe SAN, the former NBA Lagos Branch Chairman who has been vocal about the Legal Practitioners Bill 2025, introduced the question of whether additional parties needed to be joined before the court could proceed.
The second defendant’s counsel complained that originating processes had not been served on his client and that the joinder application had only just been served on him, making it impossible to respond adequately.
Dr. Liborous Oshoma, counsel for the first defendant, questioned the priority of the injunction application, arguing that a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction, to which the claimant had already joined issues, remained pending and should be heard first.
The procedural tangles threatened to consume the entire hearing before any substantive progress could be made.
The decisive intervention came from Chief A.A. Malik SAN, appearing for the sixth defendant, who shifted the proceedings from procedural wrangling to a fundamental jurisdictional question.
Malik prayed the court to stay proceedings in the matter entirely. In a lighthearted but legally devastating submission, the learned silk referenced the Latin term “sine die,” which means “without a day” or indefinitely, and suggested the court should apply the break “until sinners die,” adding with characteristic wit that “the wages of sin is death.”
The biblical reference drew laughter in the courtroom, but the underlying legal argument was deadly serious.
Malik informed the court that an appeal against the court’s earlier interim order had already been officially entered at the Court of Appeal as Appeal No. CA/IB/176/2026. He argued that for the High Court to continue hearing the matter would risk a “collision course” with a superior court, as jurisdiction now effectively resided at the appellate level.
The most dramatic moment of the proceedings came when the claimant’s senior counsel attempted to keep the matter active by arguing that the records of appeal and affidavit of facts were not yet formally before the trial court, meaning the appeal had not been properly entered and the High Court retained jurisdiction.
The argument suffered what observers described as “a severe setback and took a deserved hit” when Malik SAN promptly produced and tendered across the Bar, in a moment described as happening “like magic,” a copy of the record of appeal, a motion for stay of execution and proceedings filed at the Court of Appeal, and an affidavit of facts.
The production of the documents eliminated the claimant’s procedural objection in real time, leaving no basis for the argument that the appeal had not been properly entered.
Counsel for the first, second, and third defendants supported the stay argument, asserting that the Court of Appeal is now the proper venue to seek any preservative orders regarding the res, the subject matter of the suit.
Sammie Somiari SAN specifically informed the court that the appellate court “is cloaked with jurisdiction to preserve the res in any matter before it,” meaning any party seeking to prevent action on the subject matter of the dispute should apply to the Court of Appeal rather than the trial court.
In a well-considered ruling, the presiding judge elected, in the words used by observers, to “wash his hands” of the proceedings to avoid jurisdictional conflict with the Court of Appeal.
The judge recognised the established principle that once an appeal is entered against an order of a lower court, the lower court should generally refrain from taking further steps in the matter that could conflict with or prejudice the appeal. Continuing to hear the case, including granting further injunctive orders, could create a situation where two courts issue competing directives on the same subject matter.
The suit was consequently adjourned sine die, pending the outcome of the appeal at the Court of Appeal.
The claimant’s spirited efforts to obtain a preservative order before the adjournment were unsuccessful, with the court accepting the defence’s argument that any such orders should now be sought at the appellate level.
The case involves Egbe Amofin Oodua, a Yoruba lawyers’ association, challenging aspects of the NBA’s electoral process. The claimant had previously obtained an interim order of injunction from the Oyo State High Court, an order that had drawn attention and controversy within the legal profession.
The suit is connected to the broader dispute over the constitution of the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association and the conduct of the forthcoming NBA presidential elections, which has been one of the most contentious issues within the Bar in the current election cycle.
NBA President Afam Osigwe SAN has recently denied endorsing any candidate and insisted the ECNBA is independent of presidential control. His former adversary Chief Okutepa SAN, now reconciled with the President, had challenged the ECNBA’s composition in separate proceedings. And the ECNBA chairman has been criticised for remaining “faceless” and silent while controversies swirl around the electoral process.
The Egbe Amofin case represented one of the most significant legal challenges to the NBA’s electoral arrangements, with the interim injunction potentially affecting the ECNBA’s ability to proceed with its work.
The indefinite adjournment carries significant implications for the NBA’s electoral process.
With the trial court stepping back and the matter now at the Court of Appeal, the interim order of injunction granted in favour of the claimant remains in a state of legal uncertainty. The defendants have filed a motion to stay the execution of the order at the Court of Appeal, and until that motion is determined, the question of whether the injunction remains operative or is effectively suspended is a matter of legal debate.
Legal observers have described the adjournment as providing a “tactical breather” for all stakeholders. For the ECNBA, it removes the immediate pressure of a trial court that might issue further restrictive orders. For the claimant, the appeal process provides a higher-level forum to argue for the preservation of its interim order. And for the NBA as an institution, it moves the dispute out of the trial court where it was generating daily complications and into the appellate level where proceedings are typically more measured and deliberate.
However, some observers have expressed concern about the broader pattern of lawyers using litigation to stall their own association’s democratic processes. The NBA elections have been accompanied by multiple court cases across different jurisdictions, with competing orders, preliminary objections, and procedural manoeuvrings that have consumed institutional energy and created uncertainty about whether the elections can be conducted credibly and on schedule.
The spectacle of Senior Advocates arguing for and against the ability of their own professional association to hold elections, before a packed courtroom of their peers, is both a testament to the robustness of the legal profession’s commitment to the rule of law and a reflection of the internal divisions that have characterised the NBA’s governance in the current cycle.
The Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division, will now consider the appeal marked CA/IB/176/2026. The defendants’ motion for stay of execution and proceedings will be heard at the appellate level, where the court will determine whether the interim order granted by the trial court should be suspended pending the hearing of the substantive appeal.
If the Court of Appeal grants the stay, the interim injunction will be suspended and the ECNBA can proceed with the electoral process without the constraint of the lower court order. If the stay is refused, the injunction remains in force and continues to affect the electoral process.
The substantive appeal will determine whether the trial court was correct to grant the interim order in the first place, a question that could have lasting implications for the relationship between external litigation and the NBA’s internal democratic processes.
For the NBA, the case adds to the list of unresolved legal matters, including the ECNBA composition dispute, the Okutepa-Osigwe reconciliation’s terms, and the allegations of presidential endorsement, that continue to cast shadows over what should be a straightforward process of electing the next president of Africa’s largest Bar association.
As Chief Malik SAN quipped with his play on Latin and scripture, the court has adjourned “until sinners die.” Whether the sinners in question are those who file litigation to obstruct elections, those who allegedly manipulate the electoral process, or simply the human condition that makes perfect governance impossible, is a question each member of the Bar will answer differently.
The court has washed its hands. The appeal awaits.
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR LAWYERS: A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE
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
______________________________________________________________________ “Bridging Theory And Courtroom Practice” — Hagler Sunny Okorie, Nathaniel Ngozi Ikeocha Unveil ‘Functional’ Tort Law Book For Nigerian Legal System
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.
______________________________________________________________________
“Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
