Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

PRINCIPLES GUIDING THE GRANT OF OR REFUSAL OF INTERIM INJUNCTION

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Dictum

The principle of law regarding the right to grant or refuse interim injunctions are well stated in our Law books. The Supreme Court in Kotoye v. C.B.N. (supra) at page 440, the court per Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC, observed: “I think it is correct to say that ‘ex-parte’ in relation to injunctions is properly used in contradistinction to a motion on notice and both expressions, which are mutually exclusive, more strictly rather refer to the manner in which the application is brought and the order procured. An applicant for a non-permanent injunction may bring the application ex-parte, that is without notice to the other side or with notice to the other side as is appropriate. By their very nature, injunctions granted on ex-parte applications can only be properly interim in nature. They are made without notice to the other side, to keep matters in status quo to a named date, usually not more than a few days, or until the respondent can be put on notice. The rationale of an order made on such an application is that delay to be caused by proceeding in the ordinary way by putting the other side on notice would or might cause such an irretrievable or serious mischief. Such injunctions are for cases of real urgency. The emphasis is on ‘real’.”

— Abba Aji, J.C.A. Secondi Bogban & Ors. V. Motor Diwhre & Ors. (CA/B/88/2003, 20 MAY 2005)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

NATURE OF AN INTERIM INJUNCTION

Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Edition at page 814 defines “Interim” to mean “In the meantime, meanwhile; temporary; between.” By their very nature, injunctions granted on Ex-parte applications can only be properly interim in nature. They are made without notice to the other side, to keep matters in Status quo to a named date, usually not more than a few days, or until the Respondent can be put on notice. The rational for an order made on such an application is that delay to be caused by proceeding in the ordinary way by putting the Other Side on notice would or might cause irretrievable or serious mischief. Such injunctions are for cases of real urgency, with emphasis on ‘real.’ See KOTOYE v. CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (PT.98) 419. An injunction is a serious matter and must be treated seriously. See UNIBEZ (NIG) LTD v. CBCL LTD (2003) 6 NWLR (Pt.816) 402. It is a preservatory measure taken at an early stage in the proceedings. See AL CATEL KABEMETAL (NIG) PLC v. OJUEGBELE (2003) 2 NWLR (Pt. 805) 429.

— U.M. Abba Aji JSC. Agbomagbo & Anor. V. Oloku Okpogo & Ors. (CA/B/147/2000, 5 May 2005)

Was this dictum helpful?

JURISDICTION TO VACATE AN INTERIM ORDER IS ALWAYS VESTED IN THE COURT THAT MADE IT

The jurisdiction to vary or discharge an order made ex-parte is almost always vested in the Court that made it. It might be by the same judge or another judge of the same Court. S.A.P; (NIG) LTD v. C.B.N. (supra) at 688. The learned trial judge was therefore, right to intervene and his observation cannot be said to be perverse in the circumstances of the case.

— U.M. Abba Aji JSC. Agbomagbo & Anor. V. Oloku Okpogo & Ors. (CA/B/147/2000, 5 May 2005)

Was this dictum helpful?

FOR AN INTERIM INJUNCTION TO BE RIGHTLY ORDERED, SAME ORDER MUST BE GRANTABLE UPON CONCLUSION OF THE CASE

Where a Court is asked upon an interlocutory application to make an order, the Court must satisfy itself that it has the power to make, at the conclusion of the hearing the same order, it is asked to make upon the interlocutory application. See ARJAY LTD v. A.M.S. LTD (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt. 820) 577, meaning, for an interlocutory injunction to be rightly ordered, it must have connection with the subject matter in litigation. A Court could not have jurisdiction to grant an injunction, when the relief of injunction sought is not in respect of a claim before the Court or parties not joined in the Suit. In order to determine when an action is instituted for, all the Court is required to do is to look at the writ of Summons and the Statement of claim. This is because it is the claim of the Plaintiff, which determines the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain same. In the instant, case, the Appellant’s writ of Summons and the statement of claim do not contain the name of the 3rd and 4th Respondents as persons joined in the Suit, there is therefore, nothing before the Court in respect of which the Court can exercise its discretion over the 3rd and 4th Respondents.

— U.M. Abba Aji JSC. Agbomagbo & Anor. V. Oloku Okpogo & Ors. (CA/B/147/2000, 5 May 2005)

Was this dictum helpful?

Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Telegram

Humongouz Empire

© 2025

designed by Humongouz Ztudio. 

TO – 2544 | UO – 1 | GO – 2095 | BO – 448

External link(s)

BOOK: First 2-years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons.