UPDATED: Supreme Court restores Mark’s ADC leadership, voids status quo order
The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the “status quo ante bellum” order made in the leadership crisis rocking the African Democratic Congress, ruling that the preservative directive could not validly continue after proceedings had effectively been concluded.
In a lead judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Garba, the apex court held that while courts possess inherent powers to issue preservative orders to protect the subject matter of litigation, such powers cannot be exercised where there is “nothing left” to preserve.
The judgment arose from the legal battle over the recognition of former Senate President, David Mark, and former Osun State governor, Rauf Aregbesola, as National Chairman and National Secretary of the ADC, respectively.
The first respondent had approached the trial court through an originating summons, accompanied by motions seeking interim and interlocutory injunctions restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission from recognising Mark and Aregbesola as officers of the party pending the determination of the substantive suit.
The plaintiff also sought orders restraining the duo from parading themselves as national officers of the party, occupying the party’s national headquarters, and carrying out functions connected to the disputed offices.
Proceedings reviewed by the Supreme Court showed that when the ex parte application came up before the trial court on September 4, 2025, the judge declined to immediately grant the interim reliefs and instead directed that the respondents be put on notice.
According to the proceedings cited by Justice Garba, the trial court held that “the interest of justice would be met by putting the other parties on notice” to show cause why the reliefs sought should not be granted.
The matter was subsequently adjourned for hearing after service on the respondents.
An appeal was later filed challenging the orders made by the lower court, including directives that parties should maintain the “status quo ante bellum” pending determination of the dispute.
However, the Supreme Court held that the trial court neither granted nor refused an application for injunction but merely issued procedural and preservative directions.
Justice Garba ruled that Section 241(1)(f)(ii) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides for appeals as of right in matters involving injunctions, did not apply in the circumstances of the case.
