Injunction In Electoral Matters

Spread the love

By Damilola Obanijesu Oyawole

The inherent character of election petitions necessitates the invocation of the injunction remedy. The petitioner, who contests the triumph of the respondent in the election being challenged, invariably apprehends the respondent’s assumption of office and thus, earnestly seeks the grant of an injunction in their own favour. It is, therefore, surprising and ironic that in election petitions, injunctions are rarely granted. The rationale behind the denial of an injunction in electoral petitions is, in part, attributable to the courts’ apprehension of causing a vacuum in an elected political position, upsetting the status quo, and the notion that the subject matter/res under dispute is not a perishable asset. In political cases, not only are the courts reluctant to grant an interim injunction or interlocutory injunction to remove the sworn-in elected political office holder, they appear unwilling to restrain the swearing in of an elected person whose election is challenged on the consideration that the res is not perishable. In my humble view, this line of reasoning is flawed. The ‘res’ in political matters is indeed perishable if one considers the ‘res’ to be the term of a political office holder. With the exception of local government chairmen and councilors, the duration of an elective office holder’s tenure under the 1999 Constitution is four years. It is beyond cavil that four years is a perishable res. Even with the decision in Peter Obi v. PDP & Ors,[1] it is uncertain whether each victorious litigant, who challenges the electoral triumph of their adversary, is eligible to commence their term anew.


Respectfully, it is proposed that in instances involving democratized elective positions where there exists a genuine probability of a claimant with an unfavorable position succeeding in their legal action, a temporary or provisional injunction, if requested, should be awarded until the case is resolved. It is a source of great distress for a party who was defrauded in an election to witness an interloper enjoying an office that rightfully belongs to them, all the while enduring a protracted legal process. In circumstances such as this, it is recommended that an injunction be issued to prohibit the questionable victor from being sworn in until the case is finally determined. This judicial stance would discourage election manipulators from engaging in fraudulent activities, given that they would know in advance that they would be barred from being inaugurated.

The law, which is ensconced like the rock of Gibraltar, is that an interlocutory order by way of injunction is not a proper remedy for an act which has already been carried out. Also, in the case of Buhari v. Obasanjo,[2] an attempt was made to restrain, by injunction, the swearing in of the respondent, but the Supreme Court held that the injunction sought could not be granted. The court held that:

It is thus obvious from the facts before us that the object for which the injunction was asked for, namely to restrain the 1st and 2nd respondents from presenting themselves for swearing in as President and Vice-President respectively on the 29th May, 2003, had already been accomplished before this appeal was lodged. In other words, an interlocutory injunction was, and is no more a remedy for an act which has already been carried out.

Log in to and enjoy the best E-journals, textbooks, and many more

To subscribe to Primsol, go to

For further enquiries/assistance, send an email to or call 08050298729

Undoubtedly, by the time the Supreme Court heard the appeal, the respondent had already been sworn in as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Nonetheless, this fact is not pertinent for the Supreme Court to employ when deciding whether vel non the request for a temporary injunction is untimely. Respectfully, it is contended that the critical moment for the Supreme Court to examine in this regard is when the request for a provisional injunction was submitted to the Court of Appeal, which originally heard the petitioner’s case.

If the application for interlocutory injunction against the swearing in of the appellant was filed in the Court of Appeal before the respondent was sworn in, as was the situation in Buhari v. Obasanjo,[3] then the application for an interlocutory injunction was not directed at a finished action, as concluded by the Supreme Court, and thus should have been approved, assuming that the tardiness of the application was the sole criterion for consideration.

In a country where election rigging has become a democratic norm, the Supreme Court’s age long decision in Buhari v. Obasanjo[4] merely invests confidence in election riggers who will continue to rig election with impunity, and once they are sworn in, their opponents are faced with a fait accompli. This implies that every candidate running in an election must utilize any and all means at their disposal to secure a win, as there is limited, if any, legal recourse for them if they lose due to illegitimate means. This is what has predominantly transformed elections in Nigeria into a life-or-death matter, since if a candidate loses at the polls, their only remaining choice is to take their case to the streets as seen some few days back by the PDP, [5] or become so disheartened as to commit self-harm. This is a chaotic state of affairs that detracts from the nation’s standing in the global community.


Damilola Obanijesu Oyawole is a final year law student of the University of Ilorin. He has a panache for corporate finance, and litigation. He can be reached via


[1] (Unreported).

[2] (2004) 1 WRN 1.

[3] Ibid at page 20, lines 15-23.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Sahara Reporters, “I Was Drinking Whiskey While Atiku Led Protesters To INEC Headquarters Shouting ‘All We Are Saying’ – Governor Wike”,<> accessed on 12th March 2023.




Call Bridget Edokwe Esq on 08060798767 or send your email to

Price: ₦25,000.00 or £25 per copy [Hard Back– 10 chapters/637 pages] Contact Information Email:, WhatsApp only: 0803-703-5989 Voice Call – Mobile phones: 0817-630-8030, +234-909-965-1401, 0705-767-0347 Landline: 09-2913581, +234-9-2913499, Office Address: 50 Julius Nyerere Crescent, [Next To The World Bank], Asokoro, Abuja – Nigeria. Bank Account Details; Bank Name: UBA Plc.; Account Name: International Dispute Resolution Institute; Account Number: 1014072579

Get ‘Personal Property Law in Nigeria’ By Chief Mike A.A. Ozekhome, SAN (FREE)

Click below to download FREE

This topical new book engages fully the knotty areas of Lawyer/client, Lawyer/court and lawyer/lawyer relations.

Price: N7,000

Contact: 08036064470, 08183531785

CLICK HERE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS BOOK Call: 08038784639 to get a copy handy now @ N5,000. The book is also available at the Nigerian Law School Book Bookshop Lagos, call the number to pick your copy


BESTSELLER: Commercial and Economic Law in Nigeria By Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN [ORDER NOW] To ORDER click the link

Price – N20,000 only To Order – WhatsApp, text or call – 08037009616 Office – No 1 Dyaji Close, Rayfield, Jos

Buy the Book on Military Law, authored by a Veteran Military Lawyer, and launched personally by the then COAS.


To get a copy kindly Call 07044444777, 07044444999 & 08181999888 or visit us at: Investment House, 7th Floor, 21/25 Broad St., Lagos. Buy online @

Available at Frank Agbedo & Co. Crown Chambers. 5th floor, left wing, Nipost Building, Lagos Island, Lagos State. Tel: 08033254471, 09077950432 Email:

Steps To Subscribe To the Court of Appeal Reports Nigeria

%d bloggers like this: