The Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division, has nullified the proceedings and interim orders of the Oyo State High Court which halted the 2026 Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) National Officers’ Election, ruling that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
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.
The appeal 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 NBA, Mazi Afam Josiah Osigwe (SAN), the Body of Benchers and the Attorney-General of the Federation.
The appellate court held that the dispute centred on the interpretation of the NBA Constitution, which governs an incorporated trustee under the Companies and Allied Matters Act, and therefore fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
Justice Umaru stated that jurisdiction remains fundamental to every judicial proceeding and that any action taken without jurisdiction amounts to a nullity.
The court further ruled that the suit was wrongly instituted in Oyo State despite the appointments being challenged having been made during a National Executive Council meeting in Benin City, Edo State, while the appellants performed their duties in Abuja.
Describing the action as forum shopping, the court held that filing the matter in Ibadan amounted to an abuse of court process.
The court also ruled that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to institute the suit because they were neither aspirants nor candidates in the election and failed to show any personal injury arising from the appointments being challenged.
It further held that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the dispute resolution provisions contained in the NBA Constitution before approaching the court.
The Court of Appeal equally faulted the ex parte injunction granted by the lower court, holding that it effectively granted substantive reliefs before the appellants were heard, contrary to established legal principles and the constitutional right to fair hearing.
In a concurring judgment, Justice Kenneth Amadi held that the Attorney-General of the Federation lacks the power to issue directives to courts in pending matters, warning that such actions would amount to interference with judicial proceedings.
The court consequently struck out the suit, declared all proceedings and orders of the Oyo State High Court null and void and made no order as to costs.
