The High Court of Oyo State sitting in Ibadan has suspended further proceedings in Suit No. I/221/2026: Ibrahim Lawal & Ors v. Nigerian Bar Association & Ors, following the filing and transmission of an appeal by the defendants to the Court of Appeal.
Justice Gabriel Opayinka, who presided over the matter, delivered the ruling on April 15, 2026, holding that the court would not take any further steps in the case pending the determination of the appeal by the appellate court. The matter was consequently adjourned sine die, effectively putting the substantive suit on hold indefinitely.
The case centres on a challenge to the constitutionality of the procedure adopted by the President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Mazi Afam Josiah Osigwe, SAN, in constituting the Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA) ahead of the 2026 National Officers’ Election.
At the resumed sitting, the matter came up for hearing of pending applications. The 1st Claimant, Ibrahim Lawal, Esq., was present in court, while a formidable array of Senior Advocates of Nigeria appeared for the respective parties.
The Claimants were represented by Chief Yomi Aliyu, SAN, alongside several senior counsel. On the defence side, appearances included Babatunde Ogala, SAN; S.A. Somiari, SAN; Jonathan Gunu Taidi, SAN; A.A. Malik, SAN; Emeka Obegolu, SAN; Olanrewaju Akinsola, SAN; Ejembi Eko, SAN; Chukwudi Adiukwu, SAN; as well as Dr. Liborous Oshoma, among others.
During proceedings, counsel to the Claimants informed the court of processes filed on April 10, 2026, as well as additional affidavits filed by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. The court noted that the issues raised in the newly filed processes had substantially been addressed in earlier filings already before it.
The court thereafter directed all parties to address it on the appropriate course of action in circumstances where an appeal has been entered and a motion for stay of proceedings is pending before the Court of Appeal.
In their submissions, counsel to the Defendants argued that the appeal raised fundamental issues touching on the jurisdiction of the trial court. They urged the court to refrain from taking further steps in the matter, stressing that judicial discipline requires a trial court to defer to the appellate court once such jurisdictional issues are pending.
They further warned that continuing proceedings could place the court on a collision course with the Court of Appeal.
On the other hand, counsel to the Claimants contended that the appeal was limited to the interlocutory order earlier granted by the court and did not affect the substantive suit. They argued that the court retained jurisdiction to proceed with the main case and urged it to continue hearing the matter in order to preserve the subject matter of the litigation, particularly the forthcoming NBA elections.
After considering the arguments from both sides, Justice Opayinka ruled that in view of the fact that the appeal had already been entered and records transmitted to the Court of Appeal, the trial court would not proceed further with the case.
Accordingly, the matter was adjourned sine die pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
Notably, the court did not vacate its earlier interim orders made on March 4, 2026. Those orders restrained the 5th to 9th Defendants from parading themselves as members of the ECNBA or taking any steps towards conducting the NBA 2026 National Officers’ Election. The orders also restrained the NBA President from taking further steps relating to the constitution and composition of the Electoral Committee pending the determination of the motion on notice.
However, legal arguments have emerged regarding the status of the interim ex parte order. Under Order 49 Rule 3(3) of the Oyo State High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2022, an ex parte injunction automatically lapses after seven days unless extended by the court upon a valid application made within its lifespan.
In this case, the initial seven-day lifespan reportedly elapsed on March 11, 2026, with no clear indication that an application for extension was made within the required timeframe. By operation of law, such an order would cease to have effect without the need for it to be formally set aside, meaning it cannot continue to bind parties or ground allegations of disobedience.
The implication is that any subsequent actions taken in relation to the NBA electoral process may not have been subject to a subsisting restraining order, a point that could become central in the appellate proceedings.
The ruling marks a significant turning point in the ongoing legal dispute over the constitution of the ECNBA and the broader issue of internal electoral processes within the Nigerian Bar Association.
With proceedings now halted at the trial court, attention shifts to the Court of Appeal, where key issues including jurisdiction, the validity of the interim orders, and the legality of the ECNBA constitution process are expected to be determined.