Ibadan Court of Appeal Halts NBA Elections Due to Lack of Jurisdiction
The Ibadan District Court of Appeal has suspended the proceedings and interim order from the Oyo State High Court, which had previously stalled the 2026 Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) national officer elections. The appellate court held that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.
In a unanimous ruling delivered on July 14, 2026, Justice Fadau Umar, alongside Justices Kenneth Ikechukwu Amadi and Fatima Binta Zubair, supported the appeal and dismissed the case due to jurisdictional issues.
The appeal, identified as CA/IB/110/2026, was initiated by Mr. Aham Ejelam, with support from SAN Ibrahim Aliyu Nasarawa, Muhammad M. Nuhu, Uju Okafor, and Ume Maduka. The respondents included Chief Gabriel Ojo Adekunle Ijalana, Corporate Director of the NBA; SAN Maji Afam Josiah Osigwe; Venture Group; and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), acting in the capacity of Chairman of the General Council of the Bar Association. Other respondents were Ibrahim Lawal, Raymond Oki, and Omotan Olusola Ogunmode.
The appeal contested a decision made on March 4, 2026, by Justice GA Opainka of the Oyo State High Court. This decision had issued a unilateral interim injunction restraining the appellants from serving on the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA) or proceeding with the national executive elections for 2026.
The suit was initially filed by the first through fourth defendants, who sought judicial interpretation of the provisions within the 2025 Amended NBA Constitution, particularly around the ECNBA’s composition and specific stipulations of the Lawyers Act.
Justice Umar, in his lead judgment, reiterated the critical role of jurisdiction in judicial proceedings. He emphasized that jurisdiction is the essence of any judicial process, stating that if a court lacks this authority, any actions taken become invalid, underscoring the necessity of resolving jurisdictional questions prior to any effective court proceedings.
The Court of Appeal concurred with the appellants’ arguments, noting that the dispute revolved around the interpretation of the NBA Constitution, which governs a corporate trustee registered under the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA). Thus, it deemed such matters to fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as outlined in section 251 of the Constitution.
Furthermore, the appellate court articulated that the dispute involved the governance of the corporation itself, asserting that the defendants were not merely contesting administrative actions but were also questioning appointments made under the NBA Constitution. Consequently, the court ruled that the Oyo State High Court lacked jurisdiction, rendering all proceedings, including the interim injunction, null and void.
The Court of Appeal criticized the choice of the Oyo State High Court for such a case, labeling it an example of forum shopping and an abuse of court processes. It also found that the initial plaintiffs lacked standing, as they were not candidates for the NBA elections and could not demonstrate personal legal injury related to the contested appointments.
In its ruling, the court highlighted that the defendants did not adhere to Article 21 of the NBA Constitution, which stipulates that disputes concerning the association should first be resolved by the NBA Dispute Resolution Committee prior to court intervention.
In a concurrent judgment, Justice Kenneth Ikechukwu Amadi addressed the constitutional powers of the Attorney General of the Federation, asserting that the Attorney General cannot issue directives in ongoing cases. He criticized the legal representatives who neglected to formally accept briefs for the first to fourth defendants despite their court appearances, labeling the behavior a disregard for established appellate procedures.
The Court of Appeal overturned the proceedings and the interim injunction issued by the Oyo State High Court on March 4, 2026, declaring them null and void. The appeal was upheld, and the court laid aside suit number I/221/2026 for lack of jurisdiction, without imposing any costs.
