A Perpective on ‘Status Quo’

Nkem Okoro

Brief Introduction of the case:

Senator Dino Melaye, the Senator Representing Kogi West, Senatorial District, by an Originating Summons, filed at the Federal High Court Abuja, is challenging the validity, constitutionality and legality of the purported petition written by his alleged constituents seeking his recall as a Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Upon filing the Originating Summons, Distinguished Senator Dino Melaye, through his Lawyer Chief Mike Ozekhome SAN, filed a motion on notice for an interlocutory injunction and a motion ex parte for an interim injunction against INEC. The motion ex parte was fixed for hearing on the 6th day of July 2017.

The said motion ex parte was brought on the ground that except the court makes a restraining order, the subject matter in issue, might be destroyed even before the hearing of the substantive application. The motion was supported by exhibits, among which were exhibit DM 16, being a schedule published by INEC on the 3rd day of July 2017, indicating the chronology of events and dates in the process of the purported recall of the Plaintiff.

It is pertinent to observe at this point that, the Plaintiff, through his lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome SAN, had written INEC on the 29th day of June 2017, intimating the electoral body of the pendency of the action and the need for the body to restrain itself with respect to the matter which was already in court, so as not to undermine the jurisdiction and the integrity of the trial court. The said letter had two annexures, which were the Originating Summons and the Motion on Notice for an interlocutory injunction. The electoral body had on the 28th day of June, received and acknowledged service of all the court processes prior to the receipt of the letter from the plaintiff’s lawyer on the 29th June 2017, in which copies of the processes were equally sent to it.

Having received service copies of the court processes on the 28th June, 2017 and also the letter written by the Plaintiff’s lawyer, on the 29th June,2017, naturally, it was expected that INEC, would respect the court, by suspending every further action on the issue. Strangely, on the 3rd day of July 2017, notwithstanding the receipt of the court processes and the letter from the plaintiff through his lawyer four days earlier, INEC rolled out its schedule for the purported recall of the plaintiff.

It was therefore disturbing, to see the supersonic celerity with which INEC was moving in respect of the recall of the plaintiff herein. These were the background facts upon which the trial court, was called upon to make a preservatory order so that the res in issue will not be destroyed.

The trial judge, Justice Tsoho, of Federal High Court, Abuja, stated that he does not usually grant ex parte orders without giving the defendant an opportunity to show cause why the order should not be granted. The court further said that this situation is different, on the ground that, the next day was the court’s last sitting for the legal year prior to the court’s vacation. The court further stated, that in view of exhibit DM 16, which is INEC’s schedule of activities for the purported recall of the plaintiff, which is commencing on the 10th day of July 2017, that there is indeed, a situation of grave urgency which warrants the court to exercised its unfettered discretion to preserve the res in issue before the court.

It was on this basis and upon being further urged by Chief Mike Ozekhome SAN, that the court made a preservatory order, directing the parties to maintain the status quo starting from the 6th day of July 2017, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice which was fixed for hearing on the 29th day of September 2017.

The maintenance of status quo as ordered by the court, in this case, has generated a lot of arguments and has also been subjected to various interpretations by lawyers and none lawyers alike for various interests and purposes. It thus, becomes necessary that one clarifies, and inform the public the true meaning and purport of the order that “parties, maintain the status quo, existing on the 6th day of July 2017, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction on the 29th day of September 2017.”

We shall commence by looking at the various definitions of the word “status quo”. Burton’s Legal Thesaurus (Fourth Edition) defines Status quo as follows:

“Absence of change, conservation of the same situation, equilibrium, existing conditions, existing state, maintenance of regularity, preservation of the same conditions, stable state, static condition, things as they are.”

Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Edition defines status quo in the following words:

“The situation that currently exists”

Legal Definition of status quo by Mariam Webster Dictionary:

“the existing state of affairs; specifically: the last actual and uncontested state of affairs that preceded a controversy and that is to be preserved by preliminary injunction “

We shall also look at some Supreme Court definitions of the word “status quo”


In the case of FIRST AFRICAN TRUST BANK LTD. & ANOR v. EZEGBU & ORS.

(1993) LPELR-1279(SC), the Supreme Court held as follows:

“In Blacks Law Dictionary (5th Edition) the phrase status quo ante is defined thus on page 1264: “The existing state of things at any given date quo ante bellum, the state of things before the war. “Status quo” to be preserved by a preliminary injunction is the last actual, peaceable, uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy: Edgewater Construction Co Inc. v. Percy Wilson Mortgage & Finance Coops: 2 111 Dec. 864, 357 N.E. 2d 1307. 1314” Per Wali, JSC. (Pp.30-31, Paras.G-B)(Emphasis, Supplied)

In the case of ADEWALE v. THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR, EKITI STATE & ANOR. (2006) LPELR-5991(CA), the Court of Appeal held as follows:

“The literal meaning of status quo ante bellum is the state of affairs before the beginning of hostilities. See Akapo v. Hakeem-Habeeb (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 247) p. 266. The status quo which the court, by granting of an interlocutory injunction, can maintain is the restoration of the parties to the position they were before the commencement of the dispute between them. Akapo v. Hakeem (1992) 7 SCNJ 11 at 140, (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 247) 266. The status quo means the position prevailing when the defendant embarked upon the activity sought to be restrained. Fellowes v. Fisher (1976) QB 122 at 141; Ayorinde v. A.-G., Oyo State (1996) 2 SCNJ 198 at 211, (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt. 434) 20. Where the act has been completed and carried out, an interlocutory injunction cannot be a remedy for it because the status quo to be maintained is the situation as it existed at the time of filing the action Ayorinde v. A.-G., Oyo State supra; that is, at a stage when no further activity can be restrained.

The position is therefore that where litigation immediately follows the peaceable or peaceful state of affairs or status, the status quo to be maintained by an order of interlocutory injunction is that peaceable or peaceful state or status before the litigation. But where such a state of affairs has been disturbed or interfered with, resulting in a law suit, the status quo is not the unlawfully created one immediately preceding the suit, but the original peaceable or peaceful state or status before it was apparently “unlawfully” altered.” Per OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A. (Pp.30-31, Paras.D-D)

It is important at this point to also look at the various definitions of the word “status quo ante”

The Blacks Law Dictionary (5th Edition) defines the word thus:

“The situation that existed before something else”

There are also myriads of case law definition of the word, status quo ante. In the case of ORONTI v. ONIGBANJO (2012) LPELR-7804(SC), the Supreme Court explained the meaning of the word thus:

“…Status quo ante bellum means the state of affairs existing before the case was filed.”

Having distinguished between the meaning of the words status quo and status quo ante, it is important that we understand the import of each when used by the courts. Firstly, the order of status quo or status quo ante, are all restraining orders of a court. The very moment the court makes the order that parties should maintain, whether status quo or status quo ante, it means, that parties are restrained from destroying the state of affairs either as it was, before the institution of the action, or as it was before the order was made. Its effect is usually to freeze the state of affairs relating back, or as it was currently before the making of the order.

In the case of Senator Dino Melaye against INEC, it is important to ascertain the current state of affairs which the court, by its order, made on the 6th day of July 2017, to the effect that parties maintain status quo as existing on that day. We had earlier referred you to exhibit DM 16, which is INEC’s schedule to the effect that the process of the recall by INEC was to commence on the 10th of July 2017. By this, the current state of affairs is that INEC had published its guideline, preparatory to commencing the purported recall process. By the said order of Court, INEC can no longer take any further step in the matter until the hearing and determination of the motion on notice on the 29th day of September 2017. The court, in this case, did not just order that parties maintain status quo, but that parties should maintain status quo, that existed as at the 6th day of July 2017, by which day, the recall process has not commenced.

If by 6th day of July 2017, when the freezing order was made, the process has not commenced, it then means that the process will no longer commence. Assuming without conceding that the process had commenced by the 6th day of July 2017, when the freezing order was made, the effect of the order is that no further steps can be taken by INEC until the hearing and determination of the motion on notice on the 29th day of September, 2017.

We do not wish to believe that the electoral body has been bought over by parties who are desperate to recall fraudulently, the best and most outspoken Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The supersonic speed with which the electoral body had pursued this recall process, in the face of court processes which were long served on it, gives one the impression that all is not well. One, may therefore not be surprised that the electoral body may choose to ignore the clear order of the court in this case and one also hopes that they understand the dire and grave consequences of such ignominious path.

It is rather pathetic that the executive in the current dispensation, have continuously treated court orders with disdainful recklessness. Bearing in mind the confidence Nigerians have in the electoral body in view of the upcoming elections in 2019, one only hopes, that Nigerian’s hope, will not be dashed again.

Nkem Okoro Esq.

Constitutional Law Lawyer, Abuja.

Unrep desktop

How is the matter now, has it been discharged and acquitted on the favour of the respondent?