Introduction
Imagine that you are involved in a dispute over a parcel of land.
The matter is before the Court. An originating process has been served. The parties are expected to maintain the existing state of affairs. Perhaps there is also an interim or interlocutory order restraining construction on the property.
But despite the proceedings, construction continues.
More sand is brought to the property. Workers remain on site. The foundation is extended. Columns are erected. Walls go up. Eventually, a structure that did not exist, or was not as extensive, when the dispute began is standing on the disputed land.
What happens?
Can the person simply say that the land belongs to him or her?
Can the person argue that an appeal has been filed?
Can the person say that substantial money has already been invested in the construction?
Can the completed building create rights in favour of the person who built it?
The answer is that continuing to develop disputed land in the face of a subsisting court order, or in circumstances where the applicable Rules require the status quo to be maintained, can create serious legal consequences.
Depending on the circumstances, those consequences may include further injunctions, preservation orders, orders restraining further construction, contempt proceedings, committal proceedings and, where appropriate, orders affecting structures erected on the land.
There may also be consequences for directors or company officers where the construction is being undertaken through a corporate entity.
Most importantly, a person does not ordinarily acquire a better legal position in respect of disputed land simply because the person has continued to spend money developing it.
A court order must be obeyed
The starting point is fundamental.
Once a competent Court makes an order, the order must be obeyed unless and until it is properly set aside or varied.
The Supreme Court recently restated this principle in BPE & Anor v. BFI Group Corp (2024) LPELR-62011(SC).
The Court held:
“It is a well-established principle of our constitutional law that a Court order must be obeyed unless and until it has been set aside or varied by the Court, this principle has been repeated time and again even by this Court in a plethora of decisions. Therefore, subject to being overruled by a higher Court or conceivably by a statute, the decision of a Court is binding as between the parties, and cannot be ignored or set aside by anyone, including (indeed it may fairly be said, least Of all) the executive. See R (EVANS) V. A-G (UK) [2015] AC 1787, 1818 [52] (Lord Neuberger PSC, Lords Kerr and Reed JJSC agreeing). The duty to obey a Court order which has not been set aside is a rule of law, and not merely a matter of good practice, and this duty persists even where it is perceived or contended that the Court order is a nullity. Therefore, for all intent and purposes, it is mandatory for the parties herein to ensure that the orders and state of affairs declared by this Court in Appeal No: SC/12/2004 and the consequent enforcement orders of the Court below in Appeal No. CA/A/637/2014 are enforced.”
Per TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, JSC (Pp. 37-38, Paras. B-A), BPE & Anor v. BFI Group Corp (2024) LPELR-62011(SC).
The principle is particularly important in land litigation.
If a Court orders a party to stop construction pending the determination of a suit, the party cannot simply decide that the order is wrong and continue building.
The appropriate response is to challenge the order through the proper legal process.
It is not to ignore it.
What if the person believes that the court order is wrong or even a nullity?
This is where the decision in BPE & Anor v. BFI Group Corp (supra) becomes particularly significant.
The Supreme Court stated that the duty to obey an order that has not been set aside persists even where the order is perceived or contended to be a nullity.
This does not mean that every court order is immune from challenge.
A party who believes that an order is wrong may have grounds to apply for it to be discharged or varied, appeal against it, or seek a stay where appropriate.
What the party should not ordinarily do is unilaterally decide that the order has no effect and proceed to act contrary to it.
What if construction continues after the originating process has been served?
The law does not permit parties to substitute their own judgment for that of the Court while an order remains subsisting.
What if the writ itself says that the parties must maintain status quo?
There is an important point that should not be overlooked in proceedings before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.
The requirement to maintain the status quo does not always arise because a Judge has separately made an injunction or status quo order.
Under the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules 2025, the prescribed originating process itself contains a status quo endorsement.
For example, Form 1, General Forms of Writ of Summons, contains the following notice:
“TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that parties shall maintain status quo.”
The prescribed Form 1 therefore places the parties on notice of the requirement to maintain the status quo.
This is different from saying that the Judge has made a separate interlocutory injunction.
The significance of this provision was considered by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in Barr. Mike Nathan Nwankwo v. Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) & 5 Ors., Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/325/2025, Motion No. M/1256/2025, ruling delivered on 7 February 2025.
The Court considered the originating summons before it and referred to the applicable provision requiring the originating process to contain an endorsement that the parties maintain status quo until otherwise ordered by the Court.
The Court stated:
“Every originating process shall contain an endorsement by the Registrar that parties maintain status quo until otherwise ordered by the Court.”
The Court further observed:
“Parties are therefore in consequence of the submission of the learned Counsel to the Applicant and the provisions of Order 4 Rule 9 of the Rules of this Court admonished to be aware of that provision. Any party who acts in contravention of that provision in the instant suit may be doing so at his or her own peril.”
Per S. B. Belgore, J.
The distinction is important.
The status quo requirement appearing on the originating process is not the same thing as a separately granted interlocutory injunction.
It is a requirement arising from the applicable Rules of Court and incorporated into the prescribed originating process.
What does this mean for a person who wants to build on the disputed land?
Consider a simple example.
A claimant commences an action over a parcel of land in the FCT.
A writ of summons is issued in the prescribed form. The writ contains the notice:
“TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that parties shall maintain status quo.”
The defendant is served with the writ.
At the time the action was commenced, the defendant had not begun constructing on the disputed land.
The defendant then decides to begin construction.
The defendant may say:
“There is no injunction against me. The Judge has not ordered me to stop building.”
That response may not adequately address the status quo issue.
The question is whether commencing construction changes the relevant state of affairs that the Rules require the parties to preserve.
The opposing party may therefore approach the Court for appropriate relief, including an injunction or other preservative order.
The precise legal consequence will depend on the facts of the case, the state of affairs that existed when the proceedings were commenced, the wording of the process and any subsequent order made by the Court.
What does maintaining status quo mean?
The Court of Appeal explained the meaning and purpose of a status quo order in NERC & Ors v. Tebite & Ors (2022) LPELR-58321(CA):
“An order to maintain status quo simply means that the situation of things or the state of affairs (res) is to be maintained/preserved until the determination of the substantive suit. This is mainly to prevent further loss and damages and security issues bearing on social issues for both parties before the conclusion of the matter.”
Per ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, JCA (P. 41, Paras. E-F).
The concept is particularly significant in land disputes.
If the relevant state of affairs is a vacant parcel of land, commencing construction may materially change that state of affairs.
If there is an existing building, demolishing it or substantially altering it may equally change the state of affairs.
If a party is in possession, removing that party may change the status quo.
The purpose of preserving the status quo is therefore to prevent one party from unilaterally changing the subject matter of the dispute before the Court has determined the parties’ rights.
What if construction continues despite a status quo requirement?
This situation requires some care.
Where the originating process contains the prescribed status quo endorsement, the parties are placed on notice that the existing state of affairs is to be maintained until otherwise ordered.
If construction would materially alter that state of affairs, the opposing party may seek appropriate relief from the Court.
However, it is important not to automatically equate every breach of the status quo requirement with contempt.
The better approach is to distinguish:
Alteration of the status quo: the party changes the state of affairs that the proceedings require to be preserved.
Breach of an express injunction: the party does something specifically prohibited by a court order.
Contempt: the conduct satisfies the applicable legal requirements for contempt.
Committal: the appropriate contempt procedure is followed and the Court determines that the contemnor should be committed.
These concepts may arise from the same conduct, but they are not interchangeable.
Status quo and injunctions are therefore related but distinct
The distinction can be illustrated simply.
The Rules say: maintain the status quo.
The writ says: “TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that parties shall maintain status quo.”
The Court may subsequently order: do not construct on the property.
If that specific order is deliberately disobeyed: contempt proceedings may arise, provided the requirements for contempt are established.
This distinction makes the legal position much clearer.
It also prevents the common mistake of treating every breach of the status quo requirement as though it automatically amounts to contempt.
Why is this particularly important in construction disputes?
Construction can fundamentally alter the subject matter of a land dispute.
A person who starts with vacant land may, within months, create:
- a foundation;
- a structural frame;
- walls;
- roofing;
- a completed building;
- separate apartments;
- tenancies; or
- other third-party interests.
The physical situation before the Court may therefore become substantially different from the situation that existed when the proceedings commenced.
That is precisely why preservation of the status quo can be important.
As the Court of Appeal explained in NERC & Ors v. Tebite & Ors (supra), the purpose is to preserve the situation of things pending determination of the substantive suit and to prevent further loss and damage.
Similarly, in Onwe & Ors v. Oge & Ors (2017) LPELR-42779(CA), the Court explained the purpose of interlocutory injunctions in these terms:
“Generally speaking, interlocutory injunctions are granted to preserve the property in dispute from acts or further acts of trespass, destruction or injury, etc, upon terms that are just, pending the determination of the substantive suit.”
Per JOSEPH TINE TUR, JCA (Pp. 27-28, Paras. F-A).
The explanation is particularly relevant to disputes over land and buildings.
If a dispute concerns possession, ownership or development of a parcel of land, allowing one party to continue changing the property while the case is pending may create additional complications that did not exist when the case commenced.
A vacant parcel may become a foundation.
A foundation may become a completed building.
A building may be leased to tenants.
An existing structure may be demolished or substantially altered.
The purpose of preserving the status quo is therefore to prevent one party from creating a substantially different factual situation before the Court has determined the substantive dispute.
Suppose a claimant commences an action concerning a parcel of land in the FCT.
The originating process is served on the defendant and carries the prescribed endorsement requiring the parties to maintain the status quo.
At the time the proceedings commenced, the land was vacant.
The defendant then decides to begin construction.
The defendant may argue that no separate interlocutory injunction prohibiting construction has yet been granted.
That does not necessarily end the matter.
The opposing party may contend that the construction itself changes the state of affairs that the Rules require the parties to preserve and may approach the Court for appropriate relief.
The legal consequence will depend upon the precise circumstances, the nature of the existing status quo, the wording of the originating process and any other order made by the Court.
It is therefore safer not to state that every act of construction after service of an originating process automatically amounts to contempt.
Rather, the construction may constitute an alteration of the status quo and may provide grounds for the opposing party to seek appropriate preservative or injunctive relief.
If the Court subsequently makes a specific order restraining construction and the person continues building, the matter may then move into the more serious territory of disobedience of a specific court order and contempt.
Is maintaining status quo the same thing as an injunction?
Not necessarily.
This distinction is important.
A status quo requirement under the Rules and an interlocutory injunction may have a similar practical objective, but they are not necessarily the same legal mechanism.
A status quo requirement seeks to preserve the existing state of affairs.
An interlocutory injunction is a specific equitable remedy granted by the Court to restrain particular conduct pending the determination of the substantive proceedings.
The Court of Appeal in Onwe & Ors v. Oge & Ors (2017) LPELR-42779(CA) emphasised that economic factors and benefits attached to the disputed property may be considered in determining an application for interlocutory injunction. The Court stated:
“Economic factors/benefits attached to the property in dispute may be taken into consideration in granting an interlocutory injunction pending the determination of the substantive suit. See Adesina vs. Arowolo (2005) FWLR (Pt.245) 1123 at page 1140-1141 paragraphs “F”-“G”
Per JOSEPH TINE TUR, JCA (Pp. 45-48, Paras. C-G),
Thus, where construction is continuing on disputed land, the Court may be asked to intervene to preserve the property and prevent the situation from becoming more complicated before trial.
What if the Court makes a specific order restraining construction?
This is different from merely having a general dispute pending.
If the Court expressly orders a party to stop construction, the party is under a direct obligation to obey that order.
The Supreme Court’s decision in BPE & Anor v. BFI Group Corp (supra) makes clear that the duty to obey a subsisting order is a rule of law.
Therefore, if a party is expressly restrained from constructing and knowingly continues construction, the conduct may amount to disobedience of the Court’s order.
That can expose the person to contempt proceedings.
What amounts to contempt of court?
Contempt is not limited to conduct that occurs physically inside a courtroom.
The Court of Appeal explained this in APC v. APM & Ors (2025) LPELR-81695(CA).
The Court held:
“What constitutes contempt of Court cannot be exhaustively defined and compartmentalized as it involves any conduct aimed at disrespect to the dignity and authority of the Court which is easily manifested in disobedience to the orders of Court. In SHUGABA v. U.B.N. PLC (1999) LPELR-3068(SC) at page 39 para. E, Achike, JSC, on purpose of contempt stated thus: “We are only to remind ourselves that the Court jealously guards its powers to punish for ridicule or contempt of its orders, whether committed in facie curiae or ex facie curiae.””
Per PETER CHUDI OBIORAH, JCA (P. 13, Paras. B-E).
Where a party has been specifically ordered not to build and nevertheless continues constructing, the conduct may therefore raise a serious issue of contempt.
But the fact that someone has alleged disobedience does not automatically mean that the person is guilty of contempt.
The legal and procedural requirements must still be satisfied.
Who is a contemnor?
The Court of Appeal considered this question in Polaris Bank Ltd & Ors v. Aminu & Ors (2024) LPELR-62299(CA).
Relying on Abeke v. Odunsi & Anor (2013) LPELR-20640(SC), the Court stated:
“In the case of ABEKE v ODUNSI & ANOR (2013) LPELR-20640(SC), the Supreme Court, per Ariwoola, JSC (as he then was), defined a contemnor as “…a person who is guilty of contempt before a government body such as a Court or legislature.” In other words, a contemnor is one who by his conduct defies the authority or dignity of a Court or legislature. Therefore, a contemnor is one to whom an order of Court or legislature is directed to do or refrain from doing and act and who in defiance has refused or neglected to comply with the order.”
Per ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, JCA (Pp. 36-37, Paras. E-A).
This is directly relevant where an order restraining construction has been made against a particular party.
However, the Court will still have to determine whether the necessary elements of disobedience have been established.
Does continuing construction automatically mean committal or imprisonment?
No.
This is an important qualification.
Contempt and committal proceedings can have serious consequences, including deprivation of liberty. Consequently, the law requires compliance with the applicable procedural safeguards.
The Supreme Court explained this in INEC & Anor v. Oguebego & Ors (2017) LPELR-42609(SC).
The Court held:
“It is even settled that contempt or committal proceeding no doubt is quasi-criminal proceeding which has the likelihood of affecting the liberty of a citizen. Against this background therefore, the person setting up contempt proceedings must therefore ensure that every step that is necessary is taken and the entire requirements are complied with strictly, Opobiyi v. Muniru [2008] All FWLR (pt. 408) 380; Nya v Edem [2005] All FWLR (pt. 242) 576; F.C.D.A. v. Koripamo – Agary (2010) 14 NWLR (pt.1213) 377, 391-392; Aina v. Jinadu (1992) 4 NWLR (pt.233) 90; Ogaji v. Igonikon – Digbani [2010] 10 NWLR (pt.1202) 298, 306; and Uhunmwangho v. Okojie [1989] 5 NWLR (pt.122) 471, 487. Since contempt outside the precincts of the Court is quasi-criminal in nature, every procedural step (the vega modus prosequiandl must ex necessitate) be followed strictly and strictly complied with. Accordingly, the appellants ought to have been arrested, charged before the Court and full trial conducted and the offence proved beyond reasonable doubt and if found guilty, punished in accordance with the Law,Omoijahe v. Umoru (2000) FWLR (pt. 29) 2401, 2406; Ogboni v. Ojah (1989) 1 NWLR (pt.100) 725; Alesinloye v. Oyediran (1999) 12 NWLR (pt.63) 491; Ojeme & Ors. v. Momodu II (1995) Chief Tom Ikimi v. Godwin Omamuli (1995) 3 NWLR (pt.387) 335; Military Governor of Kwara State v. Rufus Afolabi (1991) 6 NWLR (pt.196) 212; Oyeyinka v. Osague [1994] 2 NWLR (pt.328) 612; Awobukun v. Adeyemi (1968) NWLR 299; Gloria Nya v. Madam Eme Bassey Edem (2005) 4 NWLR (pt.973) 345 at 367 -369; Deduwa and Ors v. The State (1975) 1 All NLR (pt. 1) 1; Boyo v. Attorney General Mid-West State (1971) 1 ALL NLR 342, 352.”
Per CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, JSC (Pp. 12-14, Paras. D-A).
The implication is important.
Disobedience can be serious, but contempt proceedings must themselves comply with the law.
A person should therefore not be described as automatically guilty of contempt merely because an allegation of breach has been made.
What if the person has appealed?
Filing an appeal does not, by itself, necessarily authorise a party to continue acting in breach of a subsisting court order.
The Supreme Court addressed this principle in JEV & Anor v. Iyortyom & Ors (2014) LPELR-23000(SC).
The Court held:
“It is now well settled that a person who is in contempt of a subsisting Court order is not entitled to be granted the Court’s discretion to enable him continue with the breach. See Shugaba V Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt. 627) 459, Governor of Lagos State V Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621.”
Per JOHN INYANG OKORO, JSC (Pp. 56-57, Paras. F-A).
Thus, where a party appeals against an order restraining construction, the party should consider whether an application for stay or other appropriate relief is necessary.
The appeal itself should not be treated as a licence to ignore the order.
What if construction began before the court order?
This requires an important distinction.
If construction began before the Court made a restraining order, the construction carried out before the order cannot ordinarily amount to disobedience of an order that did not yet exist.
The question becomes what happened after the order was made.
For example, suppose a defendant had already laid the foundation before an injunction was granted.
If the order then expressly restrains further construction and the defendant proceeds to erect columns, walls and floors, the Court may have to determine whether those subsequent acts amount to disobedience of the order.
The fact that construction started before the order does not provide a general licence to continue after the Court has ordered the person to stop.
What if construction continues despite a status quo requirement?
This situation requires some care.
Where the originating process contains the prescribed status quo endorsement, the parties are placed on notice that the existing state of affairs is to be maintained until otherwise ordered.
If construction would materially alter that state of affairs, the opposing party may seek appropriate relief from the Court.
However, it is important not to automatically equate every breach of the status quo requirement with contempt.
The better approach is to distinguish:
Alteration of the status quo: the party changes the state of affairs that the proceedings require to be preserved.
Breach of an express injunction: the party does something specifically prohibited by a court order.
Contempt: the requirements for contempt are established in respect of disobedience of a subsisting court order or other conduct falling within the Court’s contempt jurisdiction.
Committal: the appropriate procedural requirements for committal are followed and the Court determines that the person should be committed.
These concepts may arise from the same conduct, but they are not interchangeable.
Can the Court make further orders to preserve the land?
Yes.
One of the principal purposes of interlocutory relief in a land dispute is to preserve the subject matter of the litigation pending the determination of the substantive suit.
This is especially important where construction is continuing.
A building project can change the physical character of land considerably.
The longer the construction continues, the more complicated the dispute may become.
A court may therefore be asked to make appropriate orders to preserve the property, prevent further development or otherwise protect the subject matter of the litigation.
What is the purpose of preserving the status quo?
The decision in NERC & Ors v. Tebite & Ors (supra) provides the answer.
The purpose is to preserve the situation of things or the state of affairs pending the determination of the substantive suit.
This prevents further loss and damage and helps preserve the subject matter and surrounding circumstances of the dispute.
In a land case, the principle is particularly important because land is not simply a monetary asset that can always be restored to its original condition without difficulty.
A vacant plot can become a construction site.
A construction site can become a completed building.
A completed building can be occupied by tenants or third parties.
Each new development may create additional factual and legal complications.
Preserving the status quo is therefore intended to prevent one party from unilaterally changing the factual landscape while the Court is still determining the legal rights of the parties.
Can the builder argue that the building now gives him or her a stronger claim?
Ordinarily, the mere expenditure of money on disputed land does not create title to the land.
A person cannot ordinarily improve his or her proprietary position simply by developing land that is already the subject of litigation.
This becomes even more significant where the person knows that the land is disputed and proceeds with construction notwithstanding the proceedings or a court order.
The person may spend money on:
- architectural plans;
- building materials;
- labour;
- foundation work;
- structural works;
- roofing;
- finishing;
- fencing;
- infrastructure; and
- other improvements.
But those expenditures do not automatically translate into ownership of the land.
What happens to improvements made on the land?
The principle expressed by the maxim quid quid plantatur solo solo cedit may become relevant.
In Infinity Trust Saving & Loans Ltd & Anor v. El-Ladan & Anor (2022) LPELR-57433(CA), the Court of Appeal stated:
“…with the admitted complete development of the property in dispute by the 2nd Respondent and letting it out to tenants but that is the law as it and not as it ought to be. In and by virtue of operation of law therefore, everything on the land in dispute, found to belong to the 1st Respondent, becomes automatically belonging and vested in the 1st Respondent under the land law maxim of ‘quid quid plantatur solo solo cedit’ and so be it. See Orianwo V. Okene (2002) 14 N WLR (Pt. 786) 156 @ P. 164.”
Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, JCA (Pp. 56-57, Paras. F-B).
The practical consequence is important.
If a person builds on land while a case concerning the ownership of that land is pending, and the Court ultimately determines that the land belongs to the opposing party, the builder loses the land. The builder does not acquire ownership of the land merely because the builder constructed a building on it.
More importantly, where the principle of quid quid plantatur solo solo cedit applies, the permanent improvements attached to the land ordinarily follow the land. Thus, the person who ultimately wins the land dispute takes the land together with the permanent structures and improvements attached to it, subject to the applicable law and any relief or order made by the Court.
In simple terms, the builder cannot ordinarily say, “I lost the land, but the house is mine because I paid for its construction.” Where the building has become part of the land, the legal consequence of losing the land can extend to the permanent improvement attached to it.
This is why building on disputed land is such a significant risk.
A person may spend millions of naira constructing a house, office, shop, fence or other permanent structure during the pendency of the litigation, only to discover that if the Court ultimately awards the land to the opposing party, the builder has lost both the land and the benefit of the permanent improvement attached to it.
The fact that the builder spent the money does not, by itself, convert the builder into the owner of the land or necessarily entitle the builder to retain the structure.
The larger the construction project, therefore, the greater the potential financial exposure if the builder ultimately loses the land dispute.
This is one reason why a person who develops disputed land during litigation does so at considerable risk.
What if the person completes the building before the case is decided?
Completion of the building does not necessarily end the dispute.
The builder may have created a more complicated factual situation, but that does not necessarily mean that the builder has acquired title to the land.
If the person ultimately loses the substantive land dispute, the fact that the person has completed a building may not produce the proprietary advantage the person expected.
Indeed, the investment may become a substantial liability.
The person could have spent millions of naira developing property that the Court ultimately determines belongs to someone else.
Where the development was also carried out in breach of a subsisting court order, the person may have the additional problem of answering for the alleged disobedience.
Can a company continue construction through its directors or agents?
A company acts through human beings.
Where a company is involved in a land dispute and an order is made against it, the company’s directors, officers, employees, agents and contractors may be involved in implementing the company’s decisions.
The corporate structure should therefore not be regarded as a mechanism for circumventing a court order.
Where the relevant legal requirements are established, persons who knowingly participate in conduct intended to defeat or disobey a court order may face personal consequences.
However, it would be wrong to say that every director automatically becomes personally liable simply because a company has disobeyed an order.
Personal liability will depend on the terms of the order, the persons bound by it, the individual’s knowledge, involvement and conduct, and the applicable law and procedure.
What if the company director says, “The order was against the company, not me”?
That argument may not necessarily resolve the matter.
The Court will examine the circumstances in which the alleged disobedience occurred.
If a company is restrained from carrying out construction and a director knowingly causes the company to continue the prohibited construction, questions may arise concerning the director’s own conduct.
The issue is therefore not merely whether the individual person’s name appears on the face of the order.
It may also involve whether the individual knowingly participated in conduct designed to cause or facilitate the company’s disobedience.
Again, however, personal liability is not automatic. The applicable contempt procedure and evidential requirements must be satisfied.
What if the person eventually wins the land case?
Winning the substantive land dispute does not necessarily mean that the person was entitled to disobey an earlier court order while it remained in force.
These are two different questions.
The first question is:
Who ultimately has the legal right to the land?
The second question is:
Was the Court’s order obeyed while it was in force?
The answer to the first question does not automatically determine the answer to the second.
A party may ultimately succeed in the substantive case and yet have been required to obey an order while the case was pending.
The proper course where an order is considered wrong is to challenge the order through the appropriate legal process.
What if the person loses the land case?
The consequences may be considerably more serious.
Suppose:
- the land is disputed;
- the Court orders the parties to maintain the status quo;
- the defendant continues construction;
- the Court subsequently makes a specific order restraining further construction;
- the defendant continues building; and
- the defendant eventually loses the substantive land case.
The defendant may then have to confront several separate issues.
There is the substantive question of ownership or possession.
There may be the question of the structures erected on the land.
There may be applications for appropriate restorative or mandatory relief.
And, where the requirements have been satisfied, there may be contempt proceedings arising from the disobedience of the court order.
The expenditure incurred on construction does not necessarily protect the builder from these consequences.
What if the party says an appeal has been filed?
The filing of an appeal does not, by itself, necessarily suspend the operation of a court order.
A party who has appealed against an order restraining construction should therefore consider whether a stay of execution or other appropriate relief is required.
An appeal is not a licence to continue violating a subsisting court order.
If a party requires permission to continue acting in a manner prohibited by the order, the party should seek that relief from the appropriate Court.
What should a landowner do if construction continues despite an order?
A person who discovers that construction is continuing in alleged breach of an order should act promptly.
Depending on the circumstances, it may be necessary to:
- obtain photographs and videos of the construction;
- document the dates on which construction occurred;
- identify the persons supervising or directing the work;
- obtain evidence of service or knowledge of the order;
- obtain a certified copy of the relevant order;
- examine the precise wording of the order;
- determine whether the construction falls within the prohibited conduct;
- consider an application for further injunctive or preservative relief;
- consider appropriate contempt or committal proceedings; and
- consider whether additional mandatory or restorative relief is required.
Evidence is important.
An allegation that “the defendant is still building” is not necessarily sufficient.
The applicant may need to establish the relevant order, the obligation imposed by it, knowledge or service as required by law, and the conduct alleged to constitute disobedience.
Why continuing construction is particularly risky
Construction is not an ordinary act that can always be reversed easily.
A party who enters disputed land and builds a structure may create:
- a physical alteration of the property;
- financial interests in the property;
- occupation issues;
- third-party interests;
- tenancy issues;
- questions concerning demolition or restoration;
- additional claims for damages; and
- potential contempt issues if a specific court order has been disobeyed.
The construction may therefore make the litigation more complicated for everyone involved.
This is precisely why courts may seek to preserve the subject matter of litigation pending the determination of the parties’ rights.
The builder may end up with a bigger building but a bigger legal problem
Consider the practical scenario.
A person is claiming ownership of a parcel of land.
The other party disputes the claim.
The case is filed.
The parties are required to maintain the status quo.
The defendant begins constructing a building.
An injunction is subsequently granted restraining further construction.
The defendant ignores the injunction.
Construction continues.
The defendant then argues:
“I have already spent ₦50 million on this building.”
That expenditure does not necessarily solve the problem.
The money spent does not automatically create title.
It does not automatically validate construction carried out in breach of a court order.
It does not automatically prevent the Court from making appropriate orders concerning the property.
And it does not automatically prevent contempt proceedings where the legal requirements for contempt are established.
The person may therefore end up having invested substantial money in creating a much more complicated legal problem.
A court order is not a suggestion
The central lesson is simple.
If a Court orders you to stop building, stop building.
If the originating process requires the parties to maintain the status quo, take that requirement seriously.
If you believe the order is wrong, challenge it.
If you have appealed, consider whether a stay is necessary.
If you believe the order is a nullity, seek appropriate legal relief rather than simply deciding to disregard it.
The Supreme Court’s decision in BPE & Anor v. BFI Group Corp (2024) LPELR-62011(SC) is particularly instructive because the Court described the duty to obey an order that has not been set aside as a rule of law, and not merely a matter of good practice.
Conclusion
Continuing to build on disputed land after a court order has restrained construction can expose a party to serious legal consequences.
In the FCT, there is an additional issue that parties should be aware of: the originating process is required to contain an endorsement that the parties maintain the status quo until otherwise ordered by the Court.
The Court of Appeal has explained that maintaining status quo means preserving the situation of things or state of affairs pending determination of the substantive suit.
Where construction alters that state of affairs, the opposing party may seek appropriate preservative or injunctive relief.
Where the Court has gone further and made a specific order restraining construction, deliberate disobedience may amount to contempt, subject to the applicable legal and procedural requirements.
The Supreme Court has also made clear that the obligation to obey a subsisting court order does not disappear merely because a party believes the order is wrong, or even contends that it is a nullity.
At the same time, contempt proceedings are serious and quasi-criminal in nature. The procedural requirements must therefore be strictly followed.
Finally, spending more money on a disputed property does not necessarily create a stronger legal right to the land.
A person who continues construction during litigation may therefore discover too late that the additional building has not strengthened the person’s legal position at all.
It has simply created a bigger structure, a larger financial exposure and potentially a much bigger legal problem.
If a court order says stop building, stop building. If you disagree with the order, challenge it through the proper legal process.
Disclaimer:
This article is for general information and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice from a qualified legal practitioner familiar with the facts of a particular case. Laws, Rules of Court and judicial decisions may change, and the legal position may depend on the specific circumstances of each case.
If you found this helpful, please share it on social media — it only takes a click.