Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

EX PARTE INJUNCTIONS ARE FOR CASES OF REAL URGENCY

Dictum

Megarry, J., as he then was, put the principle rather succinctly in the case of Bates v. Lord Hailsham of Marylebone (1972) 3 All ER. 1019 at p.1025 where he stated: An injunction is a serious matter, and must be treated seriously. If there is a plaintiff who has known about a proposal for ten weeks in general terms and for nearly four weeks in detail, and he wants an injunction to prevent effect being given to it at a meeting of which he has known for well over a fortnight, he must have a most cogent explanation if he is to obtain his injunction on an ex-parte application made two and a half hours before the meeting is due to begin. It is no answer to say, as counsel for the plaintiff sought to say, that the grant of an injunction will do the defendants no harm, for apart from other considerations, an inference from an insufficiently explained tardiness in the application is that the urgency and the gravity of the plaintiffs case are less than compelling. Ex-parte injunctions are for cases of real urgency, where there has been a true impossibility of giving notice of motion.

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

MOTION EX PARTE FOR SUBSTITUTED SERVICE

A motion ex parte is the legitimate process to employ to seek for a Court’s order of substituted service. – E.A. Agim, J.S.C. Odey v. Alaga (2021) – SC.9/2021 Was this dictum helpful? Yes 0 No 0...

This content is for PAYMENT - 1-DAY and PAYMENT - 1-MONTH members only.
Login Join Now

THE NATURE OF EX PARTE INJUNCTIONS

Kotoye v. C.B.N. (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419: Nnaemeka Agu, JSC stated the distinction between “ex parte” & “injunction”: I think it is correct to say that “ex-parte” in relation to injunctions is properly used in contradistinction to, “on notice” – and both expressions, which are mutually exclusive, more strictly rather refer to the...

This content is for PAYMENT - 1-DAY and PAYMENT - 1-MONTH members only.
Login Join Now