The Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division, has rejected an attempt to terminate the appeal arising from the dispute over the 2026 Nigerian Bar Association national elections on the strength of the document issued by the Attorney General of the Federation, Prince Lateef O. Fagbemi, SAN, holding that the document, regardless of its title or contents, could not be equated with or substituted for Terms of Settlement recognised in law, and proceeding to hear the appeal on its merits after the respondents failed to produce any settlement agreement executed by the parties.
The appeal, CA/IB/110/2026, between Mr Aham Ejelam, SAN & Ors. (as appellants) and Ibrahim Lawal, Esq. & Ors. (as respondents), had been adjourned at the joint request of the parties at a previous sitting, when counsel informed the court that settlement discussions were ongoing. The understanding before the court was that upon resumption, parties would either present duly executed Terms of Settlement or proceed with the hearing of the appeal.
When the matter came up on Wednesday, July 8, 2026, counsel to the appellants, Yusuff Raimi, Esq., leading M.F. Ajao, Esq., and I.D. Oladimeji, Esq., informed the court that no settlement had been reached on the part of the appellants and that they were ready to proceed with the hearing of the appeal.
In response, counsel to the 1st to 4th Respondents informed the court that they had filed an Affidavit of Facts on July 7, 2026, attaching the document titled “Directions and Outcome of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation, Prince Lateef O. Fagbemi, SAN, on the Report of the Three-Man Committee Set Up to Look into the Causes of the Present Conflict Within the Nigerian Bar Association, Particularly on the Way Forward in Matters Relating to the Upcoming National Elections of National Officers of the Nigerian Bar Association.”
Counsel also exhibited a Notice of Discontinuance allegedly filed before the lower court and argued that by reason of the Attorney General’s intervention and the contents of the document, the appeal had become academic and ought not to proceed.
The court was not persuaded.
The justices reminded counsel that the matter had been adjourned specifically for either a final report of settlement or, in the absence of settlement, for the hearing of the appeal. The court repeatedly requested the respondents to produce the Terms of Settlement allegedly reached by the parties.
Rather than present any settlement agreement executed by the parties, counsel to the 1st to 4th Respondents continued to rely solely on the Attorney General’s document.
The court was unequivocal: the document titled “Directions and Outcome of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation,” regardless of its title or contents, could not be equated with or substituted for Terms of Settlement recognised in law.
When counsel was unable to place any Terms of Settlement before the court, the justices declined the invitation to terminate the appeal on the basis of the Attorney General’s directive.
Counsel for the 8th Respondent, T.A. Gazali, SAN, also relied on the same Attorney General’s document, submitting that the parties had effectively settled the dispute through the intervention of the AGF. However, when questioned by the court on the specific Terms of Settlement reached by the parties, counsel again referred only to the Attorney General’s directive.
The court maintained its position that a directive or administrative decision could not replace a valid Terms of Settlement executed by the parties.
In a notable development, counsel for the 5th and 6th Respondents aligned with the appellants, informing the court that they had not filed any Respondents’ Brief opposing the appeal.
In what was described as a significant development, counsel for the 1st to 4th Respondents declined to adopt their Respondents’ Brief of Argument that had already been filed before the court. Instead, they insisted that the appeal had become academic by reason of the Affidavit of Facts and the Attorney General’s document, adopting only the Affidavit while refusing to argue their substantive brief.
In what was described as a significant development, counsel for the 1st to 4th Respondents declined to adopt their Respondents’ Brief of Argument that had already been filed before the court. Instead, they insisted that the appeal had become academic by reason of the Affidavit of Facts and the Attorney General’s document, adopting only the Affidavit while refusing to argue their substantive brief.
No other respondent advanced arguments on the merits of the appeal.
Counsel for the appellants then drew the court’s attention to Order 19 Rule 9(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, urging the court to invoke its powers by deeming the Respondents’ Brief of Argument as duly adopted and argued notwithstanding the respondents’ refusal to adopt it in open court.
The provision empowers the court to treat a filed brief as adopted even where the party who filed it declines to adopt it at the hearing, ensuring that a party cannot frustrate appellate proceedings by filing a brief and then refusing to adopt it as a tactical manoeuvre.
After hearing the submissions of counsel, the court reserved judgment, indicating that the date for delivery would be communicated to all parties.
The proceedings represent a decisive judicial rejection of the attempt to convert the AGF’s administrative intervention into a binding legal instrument capable of disposing of pending litigation.