STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

ORDER OF INJUNCTION CAN BE VARIED BY SUPREME COURT

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

I agree with the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the order of injunction granted by the learned trial Judge against the appellants is vague and does not correspond with the relief sought. And that this court in the exercise of its powers which are conferred upon it by Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, 1960 should vary the order. Accordingly, I endorse the varied order as contained in the judgment of my learned brother Wali, J.S.C.

— Uwais JSC. Onwuka & Ors. V. Ediala & Anor. (SC.18/1987, 20 January 1989)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

injunction

A PRAYER FOR INJUNCTION COULD BE A PRAYER FOR TITLE

The argument that she claimed only rent and enjoyment of the property without claiming title cannot hold water since the prayer for injunction effectively means a prayer for title not withstanding that there is no specific prayer for declaration of title.

— H.M. Ogunwumiju JCA. Osakwe V. Nwokedi & Anor. (CA/E/168/2014, 13 July 2018)

Was this dictum helpful?

DISCRETION FOR INJUNCTION NOT TO BE MADE TECHNICAL BY RULES

In Obeya Memorial Hospital v. A.G. of the Federation (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 60) 325 at p.338 E-G; Obaseki, JSC held as follows:- “In cases where the legal rights of the parties depend upon the facts that are in dispute between them, as in the instant appeal, the evidence available to the Court at the hearing of the application for an interlocutory injunction is incomplete. It is given on affidavit and has not been tested by oral cross-examination. The supporting affidavit of John Ede and Obande has not been tested in oral cross-examination. Neither has the counter-affidavit of Bernard Iyorbyam Hom, the Attorney General of Benue State been tested in oral cross-examination. The purpose sought to be achieved by giving to the Court Discretion to grant such injunctions would he stultified if the discretion were dogged by a technical rule forbidding its exercise if upon that incomplete untested evidence the Court evaluated the chances of the plaintiff’s ultimate success.”

Was this dictum helpful?

BALANCING INCONVENIENCES BEFORE INJUNCTION IS GRANTED

In Hilton v. Earl of Granville (1841) Cr. Ph. 238 where an interim injunction was sought by owners of houses to restrain the working of mines because it was feared that the houses would be totally destroyed or irreparably damaged; Lord Cottenham, L.C. said:- “I have to determine, whether balancing, the question between these two parties, and the extent of the inconvenience likely to be incurred on the one side and on the other, it is the most proper exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court to grant the jurisdiction or to withhold it.”

Was this dictum helpful?

NATURE OF AN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

“It has been held in a legion of cases that an interlocutory injunction which is usually granted at the discretion of the court is an equitable remedy granted before or during trial to prevent an irreparable injury from occurring before the court has the opportunity to finally determine the case before it. Its main purpose is to keep the parties to an action in status quo in which they were before the judgment on the act complained of; to protect the applicant against injury which damages cannot be adequate compensation if at the end of the trial the applicant succeeds in obtaining judgment in the suit. See Globe Fishing Industries Limited and Ors V. Chief Folarin Coker (1990) LPELR-1325(SC), Chief Samuel Adebisi Falomo V. Oba Omoniyi Banigbe and Ors (1998) LPELR-1237(SC) and Dekit Construction Co. Ltd. & Anor. V. Musibau Adebayo & Ors. (2010) LPELR-4030(CA). The onus is therefore on an applicant(s) seeking an injunctive relief from the court to satisfy the court by way of affidavit evidence and other relevant materials that he/they is/are entitled to the injunctive relief(s) being sought from the court. See The Attorney-General of Anambra State V. The Attorney-General of the Federal Republic of Nigeria & 35 others (2005) 9 N.W.L.R (Part 931)572 at 634 paras. C – E.”

— P.I. Hamman, J. per paras. 2.8 – 2.9. FRN v ASUU (2022) – NICN/ABJ/270/2022

Was this dictum helpful?

INJUNCTION ACTS IN PERSONAM

It is settled law that an injunction is a judicial process or mandate operating in personam by which upon certain established principles of equity, a party is required to do or refrain from doing a particular thing. An injunction is also a writ framed according to the circumstances of the case, commanding an act which the court regards as essential to justice or restraining an act which it deems contrary to equity and good conscience – see Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 19 NWLR (pt. 1226) 172 at 228.

— Onnoghen, JSC. Kubor v. Dickson (2012) – SC.369/2012

Was this dictum helpful?

ORDER OF INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT BE UNCERTAIN

An order of injunction should neither be vague nor uncertain. It should be clear and precise and it should inform the defendants what the opinion of the court is as to the limits of their rights and/or privileges in and over the land in dispute. The order should not, as in this case, be such as to expose the defendants/appellants to the consequences of violating a vague and imprecise injunction: Cother v. Midland Railway Co. 41 E.R. Ch. 1025; Karama and ano. v. Aselemi and ors. 4 W.A.C.A. 150. Chief Onyeama for the Plaintiffs/Respondents rightly conceded that the injunction granted in this case was vague and that it will thus be difficult to enforce.

— Oputa JSC. Onwuka & Ors. V. Ediala & Anor. (SC.18/1987, 20 January 1989)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.