The Black`s Law Dictionary defined status quo as latin for ‘the situation that currently exists’.[1]

The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defined it as, ‘the situation as it is now.’2 Parties involved in a court case often apply to the court for an order for parties to maintain staus quo.

This application for parties to maintain status quo may come in form of motion exparte (for Order of interim injunction) or motion on notice (for Order of interlocutory injunction). The aim of this order is to preserve the res or the subject matter of the litigation from destruction pending the determination of the substantive suit. In Okwaraoka v. Offonze,[2] Muhammad JSC referred to the case of Oyeyemi v. Irewole Local Government Ikire,[3] and stated thus:

The whole purpose of an order to maintain status quo is to preserve the res in the litigation from being invested, damaged or frittered away with the result that if the appeal succeeds the result would be nugatory in that the successful party would reap an untimely judgment.

The issue:

Order 4 Rule 9 of the High Court of the FCT Civil Procedure Rules 2018 (2018 Rules) provides that, ‘Every Originating process shall contain an endorsement by the Registrar that parties maintain status quo until otherwise ordered by the Court. This endorsement shall be made on the general forms of writ of summons,[4] writ for service out of jurisdiction,[5] general form of originating summons,[6] originating summons under Order 2[7] and forms of Exparte originating summons.[8] It is important to note that, Order 4 Rule 9 is one of the innovations brought by the 2018 Rules, as such there was no need for such endorsement on originating processes filed under the 2004 Rules.

On the meaning of ‘endorse or endorsement’, Uwaifo JCA (as he then was) in Ogboni v Ojah referred to the Oxford Universal Dictionary Illustrated, 3rd edition to define ‘to endorse’, ‘as to write on the back of (a document)’ and ‘endorsement, ‘as a signature, memorandum, or remark endorsed upon a document.’[9] In Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v The M.V. Dancing Sister & Anor, Rhodes-Vivour, JSC stated, ‘The primary meaning of, to endorse is to write on the back’.[10] Resolution of issue:

The implications of Order 4 Rule 9 of the 2018 Rules are:

That the Registrars must always ensure that every originating process brought before him or she is endorsed that parties maintain status quo.
The service of every originating processes automatically serves as a notice to all parties to maintain status quo pending the determination of the substantive suit.
The provision of Order 4 Rule 9 impliedly makes the applications for interim or interlocutory injunction unnecessary, save for those pending appeal.
Although the Rule provides that it is the duty of the Registrar to endorse on the processes. For convenience and tidiness, it is advisable that the legal practitioner preparing the originating processes includes the endorsement while preparing his processes.
Defendant’s Counsel who may be seeking for every available opportunity to delay the course of justice may find recourse by raising unwarranted preliminary objections. This is because since the Rules make it mandatory that every originating process shall contain the endorsement. A preliminary objection may not be out of place if raised, for the court to determine whether or not the non- endorsement of an originating process by the Registrar that parties maintain status quo makes the originating processes incompetent, null and void.[11]
[1] Bryan A Garner (ed) (8th edn, West Publishing Co 2004) 841. 2 A S Hornby, (9th edn, OUP 2015).

[2] (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 361) 1771 at 1784 Paras. F-G (C).

[3] (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 270) 462.

[4] Appendix to the 2018 Rules, Form No 1.

[5] Ibid Form No 2.

[6] (n 5) Form No 3.

[7] (n 5) Form No 4.

[8] (n 5 ) Form No 5.

[9] (1989) 1 NWLR (Part 100) [15]Paras B-G.

[10] (2012) LPELR-7848(SC) [24] paras. F-G.

[11] Fcda & Anor V. Kuda Engineering and Construction Company Ltd & ors (2014) LPELR-22985(CA).