Court Refuses to Stay Judgment Reversing Unlawful Name Change of United Methodist Church in Nigeria

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday dismissed an application seeking to stay the execution of a judgement reversing what the court called an “unlawful” change to the name of the United Methodist Church in Nigeria (UMCN). The name change was carried out by a breakaway group, the Global Methodist Church in Nigeria (GMCN).

The judgement, delivered on 30 March by Judge Obiora Egwuatu, directed the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) to immediately reverse the church’s name from Global Methodist Church in Nigeria (GMCN) to UMCN. The judge also ordered the commission to reverse changes made on 19 October 2024 to the names of the church’s trustees on its certificate of incorporation. He described that action as unlawful, invalid, null and void.

On Monday, Mr Egwuatu delivered a ruling rejecting GMCN’s motion to stay execution of the judgement pending appeal, finding that the motion lacked merit. He reaffirmed the principle that a successful party is entitled to enjoy the benefits of a valid court judgement while an appeal is pending. The judge held that the court would not allow the applicants, who are members of the GMCN, to enjoy a stay when their act had been declared unlawful.

The GMCN, represented by Luka Haruna, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), had asked the court to restrain enforcement of the judgement and to preserve control over church properties, funds, accounts and institutional assets nationwide while the appeal was pending. Mr Haruna argued that refusing the motion could expose the church to instability, administrative confusion and possible irreparable damage. He said the appeal raised substantial legal and constitutional issues deserving consideration by the appellate court, and that the disputed assets included trust properties, bank accounts and church facilities spread across the country.

Chinedu Odura, who appeared for the respondent, UMCN, opposed the motion. He argued that the applicants had failed to establish the exceptional circumstances required for a stay of execution and that there was no credible evidence showing that church assets or properties were under threat or that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the judgement were enforced. Hearing both sides, the judge held that applications for a stay of execution must be supported by convincing evidence demonstrating special circumstances and a real likelihood of irreparable harm (Proverbs 18:17, a reminder that a case is best tested by hearing both parties before a verdict).

Source: Read the original report