Media
- Home
- Details
The National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division, presided over by Honourable Justice Buhari Sani, has set aside an ex-parte order restraining the implementation of the reinstatement of Cadet ASP Courses 18, 19 and 20 of the Nigeria Police Academy.
The ruling was delivered on Monday, September 28, 2026, in the case filed by Advocacy for Human Rights and Cultural Values for Development Initiatives against the Inspector-General of Police, the Nigeria Police Force and other defendants.
The Court had on September 22, 2026, granted an interim ex-parte injunction restraining the implementation of the reinstatement pending the determination of a motion on notice.
However, Justice Sani subsequently recalled the parties after it was brought to the Court’s attention that the decision sought to be restrained was not merely an administrative decision but was based on a subsisting judgment of the Court which had been affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
Counsel for the claimant argued that the earlier judgment was distinguishable from the present case and maintained that the claimant’s action concerned the interpretation of a section of the Police Act, 2020.
On his part, Chief Goddy Uche, SAN, representing (6th Defendant) -All Members/Officers of Courses (Force Entrants) 18, 19 and 20 of the Nigeria Police Academy argued that the earlier judgment had already dealt with Section 18(8) of the Police Act concerning maximum years of service and retirement age. He maintained that the ongoing training of the affected cadets was part of the implementation of the judgment and urged the Court to set aside the interim order.
In its well-considered ruling, the Court held that an ex-parte injunction is an extraordinary remedy that can only be granted where there is real and extreme urgency and an imminent danger of the subject matter being destroyed or irreparably altered before the opposing party can be heard.
Justice Sani held that the existence of the subsisting judgment fundamentally altered the circumstances of the case, noting that the implementation of a valid judgment could not properly be restrained as though it were an unlawful administrative decision.
The Court also found that the Advocacy for Human Rights and Cultural Values for Development Initiatives had failed to disclose the existence of the earlier judgment and its affirmation by the Court of Appeal when seeking the ex-parte order.
According to the Court, the non-disclosure was material because it affected the basis upon which the Court exercised jurisdiction during vacation and granted the interim injunction.
Justice Sani consequently held that the ex-parte order was made on a misapprehension of the true state of affairs and that the required urgency did not exist.
The Court therefore set aside the ex-parte order of September 22, 2026, and struck out the motion ex-parte dated September 18, 2026, for lacking merit and constituting an abuse of court process.
The case file was ordered to be remitted for reassignment, with a new hearing date and hearing notices to be issued and served on the parties. The Court ordered the parties to bear their respective costs.
Visit the judgment portal
