Appeal Court Nullifies Order Halting NBA Election, Says AGF Cannot Issue Directives to Courts
• Condemns forum shopping, strikes out suit for want of jurisdiction
Alex Enumah in Abuja and Wale Igbintade in Lagos
The Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division, has set aside the proceedings and interim orders of the Oyo State High Court that halted the 2026 Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) National Officers’ Election, holding that the lower court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
In a unanimous judgment delivered on July 14, 2026, Justice Fadawu Umaru, with Justices Kenneth Ikechukwu Amadi and Fatima Binta Zubairu concurring, allowed the appeal and struck out the suit for want of jurisdiction.
The appeal, marked CA/IB/110/2026, was filed by Mr. Aham Ejelam, SAN; Ibrahim Aliyu Nasarawa; Muhammad M. Nuhu; Uju Okafor.; and Ume Maduka., against Chief Gabriel Ojo Adekunle Ijalana; the Incorporated Trustees of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA); Mazi Afam Josiah Osigwe, SAN; the Body of Benchers; and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), in his capacity as Chairman of the General Council of the Bar.
Also listed among the respondents were Ibrahim Lawal; Raymond Oki; and Omotan Olusola Ogunmodede.
The appeal challenged the March 4, 2026 ruling of Justice G.A. Opayinka of the Oyo State High Court, which granted an ex parte interim injunction restraining the appellants from acting as members of the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA) or taking further steps towards conducting the 2026 NBA National Officers’ Election.
The suit was instituted by the 1st to 4th respondents through an originating summons seeking the interpretation of provisions of the 2025 amended NBA Constitution relating to the composition of the ECNBA and certain provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Umaru reiterated that jurisdiction is the foundation of every judicial proceeding.
“Jurisdiction remains the lifeblood of every judicial proceeding. It is elementary that where a Court lacks jurisdiction, every step taken in the proceedings, no matter how well conducted, amounts to a nullity. Jurisdiction is therefore the threshold issue which must be resolved before a Court can validly exercise any judicial authority,” he held.
The appellate court agreed with the appellants that the dispute centred on the interpretation of the NBA Constitution, the governing instrument of an incorporated trustee registered under the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), and therefore fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the Constitution.
The court held that the respondents were not merely challenging administrative actions but were questioning appointments made under the NBA Constitution, making the dispute one relating to the governance of an incorporated body.
It consequently held that the Oyo State High Court lacked jurisdiction and that all proceedings and orders made in the suit, including the interim injunction, were null and void.
The Court of Appeal also held that the suit was wrongly filed in Oyo State, despite the fact that the appointments in dispute were made during a National Executive Council meeting in Benin City, Edo State, while the appellants performed their official duties in Abuja.
Describing the action as a classic case of forum shopping, the court ruled that the choice of the Ibadan Judicial Division amounted to an abuse of court process.
The court further held that the 1st to 4th respondents lacked the requisite locus standi because they were neither aspirants nor candidates in the NBA election and failed to demonstrate that they had suffered any personal legal injury arising from the appointments they challenged.
It also ruled that the respondents failed to comply with Article 21 of the NBA Constitution, which requires disputes concerning the affairs of the association to first be referred to the NBA Dispute Resolution Committee before recourse to the courts.
The appellate court equally faulted the ex parte injunction granted by the lower court, holding that it effectively granted the substantive reliefs sought before the appellants had an opportunity to be heard, contrary to settled principles governing interlocutory reliefs and the constitutional right to fair hearing.
In a separate concurring judgment, Justice Kenneth Ikechukwu Amadi made a significant pronouncement on the constitutional powers of the Attorney-General of the Federation, holding that the office cannot issue directives to courts in pending cases.
According to him “The question that now begs for an answer is whether the office of the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation can give any directive—that is, an order or instruction in a matter pending before this Court or any other court… The obvious answer is certainly no. To allow that will certainly enable that office to usurp and interfere with matters before the courts.”
Justice Amadi also criticised the conduct of counsel to the 1st to 4th respondents for refusing to adopt their brief of argument despite being present in court.
He described the conduct as “a blatant disregard for the established procedure governing appellate proceedings” and held that a brief of argument acquires legal effect only upon adoption.
Consequently, he struck out the respondents’ brief and held that the appeal remained unchallenged by the 1st to 4th respondents.
Allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal declared the proceedings and interim injunction granted by the Oyo State High Court on March 4, 2026, null and void, struck out Suit No. I/221/2026 for want of jurisdiction, and made no order as to costs.