Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT OWERRI BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE O.Y ANUWE Date: October 09, 2015 Suit No: NICN/OW/22/2015 Between 1. Roche Imo Palm Ltd. 2. Roche Construction Nig. Ltd. - Claimants/Respondents And 1. Association of Agric & Allied Workers Union, Imo Palm Branch 2. Mr. Collins Meffor 3. (the defendants are sued for themselves Defendants/Applicants as representatives and on behalf of the of the members of the Association of Agric. & Allied Workers Union Imo Palm Branch) Representation K.K. Iheme with K.O.Olisa (Miss) and P.P. Nyitni for the Claimants Harold Opara with C.C. Echoke for the defendants RULING This is a consolidated ruling determining the defendants’ notice of preliminary objection and the claimants’ motion for interlocutory injunction; both applications will be considered together. The defendants/applicants filed a notice of preliminary objection on 22/04/2015, and sought an order of the Court to terminate this suit in-limine for want of jurisdiction. The grounds for this application are: 1. The entire suit as construed and constituted is incompetent for non-joinder of a necessary party. 2. The entire suit and the order that ensued therefrom are incompetent for misjoinder. No privity exists between the defendants and claimants. 3. The subject matter of the suit is outside the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. An affidavit of 3 paragraphs deposed to by Mr. Collins Mefor, supports this application. In the accompanying written address, counsel contended that, it is now established that for any suit to be competent and for the court to assume jurisdiction on any matter; there must be before the court necessary Party or Parties. These are persons against whom complaints are made, or against whom reliefs are claimed. See Agbekoni vs. Kareem 2008 All FWLR (Pt. 406) p. 1970. These are persons whose presences are necessary for an effective and effectual determination of the issues in controversy. In the Statement of Claim in this suit, facts are disclosed that make the Imo State Government a necessary party, in whose absence the issues raised in this suit cannot be determined, effectively and effectually. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25 and 26 of the Statement of Claim shows the relationship between the claimants and the Government of Imo State. Even paragraph 20 of the statement is to the effect that “…they have been directed and mandated by the Imo State Government to embark on their dastard and nefarious acts”. This is a direct allusion to Imo State Government being a disclosed principal. Even the reliefs claimed all relate to the Government of Imo State. It is therefore disheartening that the same government of Imo State is not a party in this suit. The Government of Imo State of Nigeria, counsel submitted, ought to be a party in this suit. See the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Yar’adua vs. Lado 2015 All FWLR (Pt. 605) at pg. 199. The effect of failing to join such necessary party in this action is fatal to the court’s jurisdiction. It has been held that: “It is important to note that for a court to be competent and have jurisdiction over a matter, proper parties must be identified. Before an action can succeed, the parties to it must be shown to be the proper parties to whom rights and obligations arising from the cause of action attach. The question of proper parties is a very important issue which would affect the jurisdiction of the court, as it goes to the foundation of the suit and it can be raised in limine. The appellants were correct when they applied to the court below for the striking out of the suit at the court below and it was proper and it well taken. See Best Vision Cent. Ltd. vs. U.A.C.N.P.D.C Plc (supra); Ikeme vs. Anakwe (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt. 669) 484 at 492 & Peenok Ltd. vs. Hotel Presidential (1983) 4 NCLR 122; Ehidimhem vs. Musa (2000) FWLR (Pt. 21) 930, (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt. 669) 540. The issue of jurisdiction being fundamental can be raised at any stage of a proceeding even in the Supreme Court for the first time. See Salati vs. Shehu (1986) 7 NWLR (Pt. 15) 198. Where the proper parties are not before the court, then the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the suit. Where a court purports to exercise jurisdiction which it does not have, the proceedings before it and its judgment will amount to a nullity not matter how well decided. See Madukolu vs. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; Sode vs. Attorney General, Federation (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 24) pg. 568. When the court has no jurisdiction, it is futile to go into the merits of the case. See Maidawa vs. Husaini (2000) 6 MULR (Pt. 662) 698. See Ikemefuna Amadiume & Anor vs. Solomon Ibok & ors (2006) All FWLR Pt. 321 Pg.1247 at pg. 1260-1261, paraF-B. On the second ground, counsel is of the view, that, the statement of claim does not disclose any nexus between the claimants and the defendants on record. In fact, there is no privity of contract or understanding between them. The Defendants are staff of Ada Palm Nigerian Ltd., a Limited Liability Company, a Juristic person. The Defendants occupy the premises of their employer Ada Palm Nigeria Ltd. On the other hand, the claimants have not shown reason for invading the premises of the defendants. The defendants are therefore at liberty to resist this unlawful invasion and the attempt to unlawfully eject them out of their legally occupied work place and factory. The defendants, who are still staff of Ada Palm Nigeria Ltd, have the right to open their factory for work every day and close same after work. This cannot amount to invading claimants’ premises. See paragraph 20 of the Statement of Claim. The names of the defendants should therefore be struck out of this suit for misjoinder of parties. On ground three, it is the submission of counsel that the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court is clearly set out in section 254(C) (1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution (Third Alteration) Act 2010 and Section 7(1) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006.The complaint of the claimants in this suit borders on non-performance of a alleged contract between the claimants and the Imo State Government. The claimants have also alleged that the defendants are not their employees and therefore there is no industrial relations per se, between the claimants and defendants. To that extent, the recourse of the claimants to Industrial Court is needless. The scope of the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court is generally speaking labour matters. The subject matter of this suit as clearly indicated in the statement of claim is not labour relationship but a misunderstanding that may have arisen out of a lease agreement between the claimants on the one hand and the Imo State Government on the other hand. Even the claimants did state clearly in paragraph 20 of the statement of claim that defendants are not their workers. Thus, the National Industrial Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear this case given the subject matter of the suit. See Madukolu vs. Nkemdilim(supra),counsel urged the Court to decline jurisdiction and to strike out this suit. In opposition to the notice of preliminary objection, the claimants/respondents on 13/5/2015, vide a motion for extension of time, filed an 11 paragraph counter affidavit deposed to by Kate Omoehi Olisa, upon which they placed reliance. In the accompanying written address, counsel proposed four issues for determination are as follows: 1. Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit. 2. Whether this suit is incompetent for non-joinder of a necessary party. 3. Whether the entire suit and the interim order ensued therefrom is incompetent for misjoinder. 4. Whether the depositions in paragraphs 2, 2(a), (b), (c) offend the provisions of section 115(1) – (4) of the evidence Act, 2011, (as amended). In arguing issue one, counsel submitted that it is settled law that the question of the validity of the jurisdiction of the court touches on the competence of the court to hear and determine a cause or matter before it. The existence or absence of jurisdiction in the court goes to the root of the matter and sustains or nullifies the decision of the court in respect of the relevant subject matter. See the cases of Dongtoe vs. Civil Service Commission, Plateau State (2001) 86 LRCN 1204 @ 1228 paras. F – I and Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All WLR Pg. 581 @ 589 – 590. To counsel, the instant case is one, in which this Court has jurisdiction to entertain/adjudicate upon, because the subject matter of this suit/action is within the jurisdiction of this court. Section 254(1)(a) – (c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), confers jurisdiction on the National Industrial Court and reads: “…the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil cause and matters. (a) Relating to or connected with any labour, employment trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from work place, the condition of service, including health safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith: (b) Relating to or connected with the grant of any order restraining any person or body from taking part in any strike, lock-out or any industrial action or any conduct in contemplation or in furtherance of a strike or lock-out or any industrial action or matters connected therewith or related thereto…” . Furthermore, Section 7 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, also confers jurisdiction on this Court. For ease of reference, the said section is reproduced hereunder: Section 7(1): “The court shall have and exercise exclusive jurisdiction in civil cause and matters (a) Relating to- (i) Labour, including trade unions, and industrial relations and (ii) Environment and conditions of work, health safety and welfare of labour and matters incidental thereto and; (b) Relating to the grant of any order to restrain any person or body from taking part in any strike, lock or any industrial action or any conduct in contemplation or as furtherance of strike, lock-out or an industrial action”. Counsel submitted that the question of jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the claimants’ case. See the case of Erhunmwunse sv. Ehawire (2003) 110 LRCN 1786 at 1803 paras. A – F. And the reliefs as couched by the claimants in the complaint and paragraph 27 of the Statement of Claim are labour related and only this court has the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon same. A close look at reliefs (a), (b) and (c) on the face of the complaint will show that issues of salaries, entitlements, remuneration and redundancy payments are repeatedly mentioned. While reliefs (d), (e) and (f) are urging upon this court to restrain the defendants from taking part in any industrial action or lock-out or any conduct in contemplation, or in furtherance of a lock-out or industrial action. Hence, the claims of the claimants are within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. This court has been enjoined in a plethora of cases, to restrict and confine itself within the walls of the reliefs a party approaches if for. See the case of Udenze & Ors. vs. Nwosu & Ors (2008) 154 LRCN 110 @ 154 para. Z. Counsel submitted further that the claimants claim does not border on non-performance of an alleged contract between the claimants and the Imo State Government. The case of the claimants is that they are not the employers of the defendants by reason of a Lease Agreement executed between the claimants and Imo State Government on 5/10/2011 and in particular, clause eight (8) thereof, which Lease subsists and the defendant and their members continue to harass, intimidate, impede, obstruct and inhibit the business activities, management and operations of claimants over claimants’ premises and/or Palm Plantation at Ohaji/Egbema Local Government Area of Imo State also well known as Adapalm. The claimants have no misunderstanding with the Imo State Government as to the terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement as same still subsists, having a life span of fifteen (15) years, with a rent free twelve (12) months moratorium period. Counsel urged the court to discountenance the defendants counsel’s submissions on the issue of jurisdiction and hold that, this court has jurisdiction to entertain this action. Issues 2 and 3 were argued together by counsel, in respect of which counsel submitted that, this suit is not incompetent for non-joinder of a necessary party. A necessary party has been defined by the Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition). Page 1232 as: “A party who being closely connected to a lawsuit, should be included in the case if feasible but whose absence will not require dismissal of the proceedings”. The claimants in this suit have no grouse against the Imo State Government, as the Lease Agreement between the parties still subsists. The claimants only have grievances against the defendants and their members who have continued to threaten to enter, further enter, shut-down, further shut-down and/or placing under lock and key the claimants’ premises for an alleged non-payment of their salaries, entitlements, remuneration and redundancy payments. It is for the afore-stated reasons that the claimants sued the defendants and not the Imo State Government as well as obtained an interim order restraining the defendants from doing anything that will impede, obstruct and inhibit the business activities, management and operations of the claimants. If the defendants had not been restrained by this court, the claimants would have suffered a corporate death. Imo State Government is not a necessary party to this suit, as the suit can be justly determined in their absence. We refer this court to Exhibit “KO”. The authorities cited by defendants’ Counsel tin arguing the issue of non-joinder of a necessary party, do not stand on all fours as the present case. The authorities cited by defendants’ counsel, border on non-joinder of the Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition) page 1232 defines a proper party as: “A party who may be joined in a case for reasons of judicial economy but whose presence is not essential to the proceedings”. According to Counsel, the defendants’ counsel talks about necessary party in one breath, and in another breath, talks about proper party. By this attitude, counsel expects this court to speculate, and this Court has been enjoined to refrain from doing so. Counsel on this point, cited the case of Olalomi Industries Ltd. vs. Nigeria Industrial Development Bank (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 266@303-304, paras H-B per Adekeye, JSC: “A court can make inferences or analytical deductions from certain established facts and situations before it. But the court must never speculate. Speculation is a mere imaginative guess which even when it appears plausible, should not be allowed by the court to fill any gap in the evidence before it.” The claimants being desirous of the court in exercising its discretion in their favour had to disclose the facts that led to the alleged salaries, remuneration, and entitlements etc. being owed the defendants. Need had to be made mention of Imo State Government, but that does not derogate from the fact that they are not a necessary party to this suit and non-joinder of Imo State Government, does not render this suit incompetent. See General and Aviation Services Ltd. vs. Thahal (2004) 119 LRCN 4357 at 4378 paras. E – F per Uwaifo, JSC where he held thus: “No discretion can be regarded as judicially and judiciously exercised, upon no factual disclosure or upon partial disclosure or upon misrepresented or suppressed facts”. It is the submission of counsel, that the non-joinder of the Imo State Government, either as a necessary party or proper party, does not negate the proceedings in this suit. Assuming but not conceding that Imo State Government is a necessary party to this suit, their non-joinder will not render proceedings in this suit a nullity. In Ayorinde & Ors v. Oni & Anor. (2000) 3 NWLR (Pt. 649) 348 @ 361, 368 – 369 paras. G – H & E – A per Karibi-Whyte, JSC held thus: “Where a necessary party to an action for one reason or the other was not joined, the non-joinder will not render the judgment a nullity. Failure to join a necessary party in on action… does not affect the competence or jurisdiction of the court to entertain the matter before it… it is a correct position of law that where an action is properly constitution, with a plaintiff with legal capacity to bring the action, a defendant with capacity to defend and a claim with cause of action against the defendants and the action has satisfied all pre-conditions for instituting the action, the fact that a necessary party to the action has not been joined, is not fatal to the action and will not render the action a nullity.” Counsel urged the court to resolve the two issues in favour of the claimants. With respect to issue 4, it is the contention of counsel that, the averments in paragraphs 2, 2(a), (b) and (c) of the affidavit in support of the defendants’ Notice of Preliminary Objection filed on 22/4/2015, offends the provisions of Section 115(1) – (4) of the Evidence Act 2011, (as amended) and same be struck out. It is trite law that, affidavit evidence like oral evidence must as a general rule, deal with facts and avoid matters of inference or conclusion which fall within the province of the court; or objection prayer or legal argument which must be left to counsel. See General and Aviation Services Ltd vs. Captain Paul Thahal (supra) @ 4374 para U. Also, the depositions in paragraphs 2, 2(a), (b) and (c) of the affidavit in support of the defendants; notice of preliminary objection filed on 22/04/2015, are not only matters which fall within the province of the court but also offend the provisions of Section 115(1) & (2) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended) and same must be struck out. See also the case of A. G. Adamawa & Ors vs. A.G. Federation & Ors. (2006) Vol. 135 LRCN 911 @ 952 para U. The said paragraphs of the Supporting Affidavit contains extraneous matters by way of objection, prayer, legal argument and conclusions which offend Section 115(1) & (2) of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended), and we urge this court to strike out the said paragraphs 2, 2(a), (b) and (c) of the affidavit in support of the defendants’ notice of preliminary objection filed on 22/4/2015. See General and Aviation Services Ltd v. Captain Paul Thahal (supra) @ 4374 para K – P. The said Section 115(3) and (4) of the Evidence Act provides: (3) - “When a person deposes to his belief in any matter of fact or his belief as desired from any source other than his own personal knowledge, he shall set forth explicitly the facts and circumstances forming the ground of his belief. (4)- when such belief is derived from information received from another person, the name of his informant shall be stated and reasonable particulars shall be given, respecting the informant and the time, place and circumstance of the information”. The deponent in paragraph 2 of the affidavit in support of the notice of preliminary objection stated that: “That our counsel, C.C. Echoke informed us and we verily believe her…” The deponent did not state the particulars of the counsel, he did not set forth the facts and circumstances forming the ground of his belief but rather made inferences, containing extraneous matters by way of legal argument and conclusions, he did not state reasonable particulars of the alleged counsel, neither did he state the time, place and circumstances of the alleged information. Thus, the said paragraphs 2, 2(a), (b) and (c) of the affidavit in support of notice of preliminary objection ought to be struck out, as they offend 115(1 – (4) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended).In the light of the foregoing, counsel urged the Court to dismiss the instant application and hold that this court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit. In the reply on points of law filed on 3/6/2015, the defendants’ counsel stated that the provisions of the constitution and the National Industrial Court Act cited by the claimants’ counsel is clear and unambiguous and applies to a situation where there is already in existence a work relationship, or an industrial relationship. These sacrosanct provisions are applicable to matters under 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, matters under the Trade Dispute Act 1996 and Trade Dispute (Amendment) Decree 47 of 1992. Section 47 of the Trade Disputes Act Cap 432 Laws of the Federation has defined a dispute as meaning: “Any dispute between employers and workers or between workers and workers which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment and physical conditions of work of any person” In the instant case, the suit brought by the appellants appertains to whether or not the provisions of the University of Ilorin Act were complied with by the defendants/respondent in the discharge of their statutory duties. Even if some of the Plaintiffs/appellants were employees of the 7th respondent, that did not change the nature of their suit connected with the employment and physical conditions of work of any person. (Ref: PP. 28-29;Paras. H – D). Also, the issue of distinction between the necessary party and proper party raised by the claimant’s counsel is not the case in the present suit. This is because in paragraph 2 page 5 of the reply where claimants stated “The claimant has no grouse against the Imo State Government” is incorrect as all principal claims in the suit are against the Imo State Government. And the settlement of claim arising out of the contract between the claimants and Imo State Government is outside the jurisdiction of the court. See reliefs a, b, and c. In Alhaji Bisimilahi vs. Yagba East Local Govt. & Ors. 2003 FWLR (Pt. 141) @ P. 1939 the court held: “A court is incompetent to proceed with litigation in the absence of a necessary party as a decision without such necessary party negates section S. 36(1) & (1) of the 1999 Constitution. No matter how well reasoned faces the risk of being declared null and void”. Counsel contended that the instant case deals with claimants and government of Imo State. Not joining of the said Government is fatal to the life of this suit. This is the decision in Amadiume vs. Ibok (2006) All FWLR p. 1247 where it was held that “absence of necessary parties (proper parties) will rob the court of jurisdiction. By a motion on notice dated the 16th day of March 2015 and filed on the 17th day of March 2015, and brought pursuant to Section 7(1)(b) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, Order 15 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court; the Claimant sought the following orders: 1. An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants/respondents by themselves, their servants, agents and/or privies from entering, further entering, shutting down, further shutting down and/or placing under lock and key the claimants/applicant’s premises and/or Palm Plantation at Ohaji/Egbema Local Govt. Area of Imo State also well known as Adapalm, and from doing anything that is inconsistent and/or inimical to the rights and interests of the claimants/applicants over claimants/applicants’ premises and/or Palm Plantation at Ohaji/Egbema Local govt. Area of Imo State pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit. 2. And order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants/respondents by themselves, their servants, agents and/or privies from impeding, obstructing and inhibiting the business activities, management and operations of claimants/applicants over claimants/applicants premises and/or Palm Plantation at Ohaji/Egbema Local govt. Area of Imo State also well known as Adapalm pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit. The grounds upon which this application is brought are as follows: 1. That claimant/applicants are not liable to pay to the defendants/respondents and their members any salaries, entitlements, remuneration and redundancy payments. 2. By the subsisting lease Agreement executed on 5/10/2011, the Imo State Govt. is obligated and liable to pay to the defendants/respondents and their members their salaries, entitlements, remuneration and redundancy payments. The defendants/respondents and their members are in the employment of the Imo State Government. 3. The activities of the defendants/respondents are inimical to the claimants/applicants who are not the employers of the defendants/respondents. The motion is supported by an affidavit of 15 paragraphs, deposed to, by Lawerence Ekeanya, A sole issue for determination was proposed in the written address accompanying this application, as follows: Whether the claimants/applicants’ have satisfied the court on the requirements of law for the grant of an application for interim injunction. Counsel argued that, an application for interlocutory injunction requires an exercise of the court’s equitable jurisdiction. The grant or refusal to grant same is largely dependent on the discretion of the court. Such discretion is however exercised judicially and judiciously using certain benchmark principles of law namely: a. The existence of a legal right. b. Presence of serious issue to be tried. c. Balance of convenience. d. Conduct of the Applicant which must not be reprehensible. e. Inadequacy of damages. These principles are well enunciated in the famous case of Kotoye vs. C.B.N (2000) 16 WRN pg. 71 at pg. 100 On the existence of the applicant’s legal right, it is counsel’s submission that the claimants/applicants have deposed authoritatively in paragraph 3(e)-3(f) of the supporting affidavit to the motion ex-parte that the claimants/applicants have been managing the former Adapalm Oil Plantation since October 2011, without any let or hindrance from anybody whatsoever and by whomsoever and thereby has legal right to same. It is this legal right that the claimants/applicants seek to protect by an order of court against the defendants/respondents. In line with paragraphs 3(e) – (x) of the affidavit supporting this application, the claimants/applicants have a legal right to be protected by an order of this Honourable Court without any interference, disturbance, invasion and/or violation by the defendants by itself, servants, agents and/or privies. Thus, the acts/conducts of the defendants/respondents in threatening to enter, further enter, shut down, further shut down and/or placing under lock and key, the claimants/applicants’ premises, constitute an infringement of the claimants/applicants’ existing legal right to the premises and Imo Palm. In Union Beverages Ltd. vs. Pepsicola Int. Ltd. (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 330) pg. 1 @ para. C-D, the Supreme Court held: “It is a fundamental rule of law that the court will grant an injunction only to support or protect a legal right”. Given the above position of the law and the affidavit evidence disclosed, counsel submitted that the claimants/applicants have shown the existence of a legal right requiring protection pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit and, have fulfilled the requirement of law as regards the grant of an interlocutory injunction. Also,in the case of Universal Trust Bank Ltd. & 2 Ors. vs. Dolmestch Pharmacy Nig. Ltd. (2008) 156 LRCN pg. 197 @ 214 para Z – EE. Onnoghen JSC held: “It is now settled law that the time relevant in determining urgency justifying the grant of ex-parte interim injunction is the time between the happening of the event which is sought to be restrained and the date the application for an injunction could be heard if taken after due notice to the other side”. Similarly, in Kotoye vs. C.B.N (2000) 16 WRN pg. 71 @ 29 para 40, the Supreme Court held: “The rationale for an ex-parte application is the prevention of imminent, irretrievable injury or damage to the right of one of the parties to the suit. Urgency is the necessary fulcrum on which the application rests. However the basis of granting the application is also the existence of special circumstances and the urgency to protect the destruction of the right involved in the suit”. In the instant case, the claimants/applicants have shown through affidavit evidence that they have a legal right to protect and the urgency requiring this Honourable Court to grant this application. Counsel submitted that there are serious issues to be tried in the substantive suit between the claimants/applicants and the defendants/respondents. These include but not limited to the following:- 1. Whether the nefarious acts of the defendants/respondents are not detrimental to the existence of the claimants/applicants. 2. Whether the actions and inactions of the defendants/respondents will not truncate and grind to halt the business and operations of the claimants/applicants. 3. Whether the rights and obligations of the claimants/applicants over the Imo palm Plantation still subsists. It is the submission of counsel that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the claimants/applicants who would suffer incalculable and irreparable damages if the defendants/respondents are not restrained, the defendants/respondents will lose nothing by the grant of this application. The defendants/respondents are fully aware that the claimants/applicants have a legal right the project, a breach of which will result in monumental damages. In Kotoye vs. C.B.N (supra) the Supreme Court held:- “Once the applicant gets over the initial hurdle of showing that there is a serious question to be tried, he must succeed in showing that the balance of convenience is on his side, that is that more justice will result in granting the application than refusing it”. Counsel contended that from the above facts, the claimants/applicants have substantively shown that the balance of convenience is in their favour and urged the court to so hold and grant this application. Furthermore, it is counsel’s submission referring to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the supporting affidavit that damages will not suffice to compensate the claimants/applicants if the defendants/respondents are not restrained. The claimants/applicants shall suffer untold hardship which cannot be assuaged by the grant of damages or any form of monetary compensation. More so, the conduct of the claimants/applicants is not reprehensible in any way. The claimants/applicants equally undertake to pay damages should the application turn out to be frivolous. Flowing from the above, counsel concluded by stating that this is an application in which this Court ought to grant the orders of interim injunction prayed for, as the claimants/applicants vide this application have fully satisfied the requirements of law for the grant of an application of this nature. In opposition, the defendants/respondents on 22/4/2015 filed an 18 paragraph counter affidavit deposed to, by Mr. Collins Mefor. In the accompanying written address, one issue was proposed for determination, thus: whether the applicants have made out a good case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction against the Respondents on record? Counsel for the defendants/respondents argued that this present application has nothing to do with “requirement of law for grant of an application for interim injunction”. Also, the status quo sought to be maintained is the state of things as at the 17/3/2015. This is the status quo ante bellum. What was the status quo immediately before the applicants came to court. According to the applicants’ paragraphs 3(s) of the founding affidavit and paragraphs 20 of the statement of claim, the respondents have closed down the factory. The order of this court in the circumstance ought to be a mandatory order to open and not a restraining order restraining the carrying out of a complete act. See the cases of: 1. Uwaifo v. Governor, Lagos State (2008) All FWLR pt. 417 @ 187 2. Tanimowo v. Odewoye (2008) All FWLR pt. 424 @ 1513 On existence of legal right, counsel submitted that if there is any legal right, it should be with the government and not with Ada Palm staff. The applicants have not shown a legal right in relation to the respondents. All the exhibits attached to this application relate to Imo State Government. Even the so called lease agreement of 2011, four years ago was not endorsed by the respondents or their representative in interest and certainly not by the respondent’s employer Ada Palm Nigeria Limited. Also, the issues in dispute raised in this application are outside the jurisdiction of this court. More so, the balance of convenience tilts in favour of refusing this application. In considering balance of convenience, the question usually is “who suffers more inconvenience if the injunction is granted? – Nnaemeka Aga JSC in Kotoye vs. CBN (2000) 16 WRN p17 stated that “the balance of convenience is usually in favour of a party in possession with an established enterprise thereon”. See also WAOS vs. Pelfaco Ltd. (1994) 1 NWLR (Pt. 319) 104 at 187. From the supporting affidavit and the counter affidavit, it is unanimously agreed that the defendants/respondents are on the land, premises or plantation. They earn their livelihood from there. It has not been demonstrated that over 400 persons and workers have been removed from the place they lived and worked for over thirty years. What happens to their children and their livelihood? This inhumanity cannot receive stamp of judicial support without any iota of evidence. On the contrary, the applicants have not even shown what inconvenience they will suffer, which they have not suffered since 2011 according to them, when they had their understanding with the Government of Imo State. On inadequacy of damages, counsel submitted that the applicants have not even stated what injury or damage they will suffer, for this court to determine the damages due to them before considering adequacy or inadequacy of such damages. On the other hand, how much will compensate over (400) four hundred persons (families) for loss of their living and livelihood? This is unquantifiable and the scale ought to tilt in favour of refusing this application. Furthermore, the conduct of the applicants is reprehensible. The applicants deliberately neglected to bring the proper party to court. The applicants are only after their economic gains with little or no regard to the plight of over four hundred Nigerian families. Injunction is an equitable remedy and will not avail a party who has not disclosed the facts as they are. Counsel urged the Honourable court to dismiss this application with substantial cost. In reaction, on 10/6/2015, the claimants/applicants filed a further affidavit of 16 paragraphs deposed to by K.O. Olisa (Miss), and counsel distilled one issue for determination in accompanying written address, as follows: whether the claimants/applicants have satisfied this court on the requirement for the grant of this application. Counsel adopted his earlier submissions in the Written Address in Support of this application filed on 17/3/2015, and submitted with respect that the contention of the defendants/respondents that the order ought to be sought for, is a mandatory one to and not a restraining order, restraining the defendants/respondents from carrying out a completed act, is misconceived and borne mala fide. The claimants/applicants in paragraph 3(s) of the Supporting Affidavit and paragraph 20 of the statement of claim stated that: “….on or about the 10th day of February, 2015 up to the 26th day of February, 2015, the defendants/respondents as well as other members of the 1st defendants/respondent, invaded the 1st claimant/applicant’s premises, disrupted the activities, the day and shut down the premises from further activities, for non-payment of salaries remuneration, entitlements and redundancy payments while asserting that they have been directed and mandated by the Imo State Government to embark on their dastard and nefarious acts.” The prayers/orders sought for, on the face of the motion paper are: 1. An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants/respondents by themselves, their servants, agents and/or privies from entering, further entering, shutting down, further shutting down and/or placing under lock and key the claimants/applicants’ premises and/or Palm Plantation at Ohaji/Egbema Local govt. Area of Imo State also well known as Adapalm, and from doing anything that is inconsistent and/or inimical to the rights and interests of the claimants/applicants over claimants/applicants’ premises and/or Palm Plantation at Ohaji/Egbema Local govt. Area of Imo State, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit. 2. An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants/respondents by themselves, their servants, agents and/or privies from impeding, obstructing and inhibiting the business activities, management and operations of claimants/applicants over claimants/applicants’ premises and/or Palm Plantation at Ohaji/Egbema Local govt. Area of Imo State also known as Adapalm, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit. It is the submission of counsel that, the defendants/respondents had shut down the business premises of the 1st claimant/applicant between the 10/2/2015 and 26/2/2015 and further threatened to re-enter, shutdown and place under lock and key the business premises of the 1st claimant/applicants, if their demands were not met. It was for the latter reason, the claimants/applicants obtained an order from this Honourable court to restrain the defendants/respondents and their members from carrying out their dastard and nefarious acts, so the claimants/applicants will not die a corporate death. Thus,the authorities of Uwaifor vs. Governor, Lagos State (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 417) 187 and Tanimowo vs. Odewoye (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 424) 1513, referred to by the defendants/respondents’ counsel in his written argument do not apply to the instant case. The position of the law in the aforementioned cases is that, the court would grant no injunctive order/relief to restrain an already completed act. But in the instant case, after the defendants had shut down the 1st claimant/applicant’s business premises between the 10/2/2015 and 26/2/2015, they continued with their threats to completely shut down the 1st claimant/applicant’s premises on or before the 23/3/2015, hence, the interim application to restrain the defendants/respondents, pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice and the substantive suit. The acts of the defendants/respondents as at 18/3/2015 when this court gave the order (Exhibit “A”) were not completed and if they had not been restrained, they would have impeded, obstructed and inhibited the business activities, management and operations of the claimants/applicants and this would have led to the complete annihilation of the claimants/applicants. Moreso, at the interlocutory stage of any proceedings, the law does not require the court to determine the merit of the claimants/applicants entitlement to the claim, but it places on the claimants/applicants and initial burden of showing that there is a serious question to be tried upon the affidavit evidence and the statement of claim as well as showing an existence of his right which needs to be protected in the interim. See the case of Adenuga & Ors. vs. Odumeru & Ors (2003) 110 LRCN pg. 1655 @ 1669 paras. Z – JJ. The claimants/applicants in obtaining the Ex-parte order of interim injunction on 18/3/2015 satisfied this court, from the affidavit evidence in support of the ex-parte application that there was the existence of a legal right to be protected (paragraph 3(e) – (x) by the court and that, there were serious and real questions to be tried in the substantive suit to wit: 1. Whether the nefarious acts of the defendants/respondents are not detrimental to the existence of the claimants/applicants. 2. Whether the actions and inactions of the defendants/respondents will not truncate and grind to halt the business and operations of the claimants/applicants. 3. Whether the rights and obligations of the claimants/applicants over the Imo Palm Plantation still subsists. The defendants/respondents’ counsel raised certain issues/questions in his written address that border on the existence of the claimants/applicants legal right, serious issues to be tried, balance of convenience, inadequacy of damages and conduct of the claimants/applicants. Counsel contended that a determination of the issues, as raised by defendants’ counsel will be tantamount to deciding the substantive matter at this interlocutory stage. Furthermore, it is trite law that affidavit evidence, like oral evidence must as a general rule deal with facts and avoid matters of inference or conclusion, which fall within the province of the court; or objection prayer or legal argument which must be left to counsel. See General & Aviation Services Ltd. vs. Captain Paul Thahal (2004) Vol. 119 LRCN 4357 @ 4374 para U. Counsel submitted that paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the counter affidavit in opposition to claimants/applicants’ Motion on Notice dated 16/3/2015 and file 17/3/2015 are not only matters which fall within the province of the court but also offend the provisions of section 115(1) & (2) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended) and same must be struck out. See the case of A.G Adamawa & Ors. vs. A.G. Federation & Ors. (2006) Vol. 135 LRCN 911 @ 952 para. U. The said paragraphs of the counter affidavit did not contain statement of facts and circumstances derived from the personal knowledge of the deponent but contain extraneous matters by way of objection, prayer, legal argument and conclusions which offend sections 115(1) & (2) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended) and counsel urged this court to strike out the said paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the counter affidavit. See of General & Aviation Services Ltd. vs. Captain Paul Thahal (supra) @ 4374 paras. K-P. In conclusion, counsel submitted this is an appropriate application, in which, this court ought to grant the orders of interlocutory injunction prayed for; because the Claimants/applicants vide this application have fully satisfied the requirements of law for the grant of an application of this nature. From the foregoing, two applications are under consideration in this ruling. They are the claimant’s motion for interlocutory injunction and the defendants’ preliminary objection. I shall consider them one after the other starting with the preliminary objection. This is because the preliminary objection challenges the jurisdiction of this court to hear and determine this suit. The issue of jurisdiction is very fundamental in the administration of justice. Any pronouncement made by court without jurisdiction is an exercise in futility. That is why once the issue of a court’s jurisdiction is raised, it must be settled first and timeously too before any other step is taken in the matter. I shall therefore consider and determine the preliminary objection first before going into the motion for interlocutory injunction, if at all it will still be necessary. Notwithstanding this view, the two issues which ought to be determined in these applications are: 1. Whether this suit is competent? 2. Whether the claimants have made out a case for the grant of interlocutory Injunction? ISSUE ONE In their preliminary objection, the defendants pray this court to ‘terminate’ the claimants’ suit on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction. The defendants set out the grounds of the lack of jurisdiction to be the following: i. Non-joinder of a necessary party. ii. Misjoinder of the defendants. iii. This court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit In a 3 paragraph affidavit, deposed to by the 2nd defendant, the defendants want this suit dismissed. The brief facts stated by the defendants to found their prayer is that the facts and issues in controversy that gave rise to this suit and the claims relate to the purported lease agreement between the government of Imo State of Nigeria and the claimants. Since the claimants admitted that the defendants have no relationship with them, they ought not to have been joined in the suit as defendants. In the claimant’s counter affidavit, the facts deposed in paragraphs 1, 2, 2(a), (b), (c), and 3 of the defendant’s affidavit in support of the Notice of Preliminary Objection were denied and the claimants aver also that their case disclose a reasonable cause of action against the defendants and this court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit. From the depositions in the affidavit in support of the Notice of Preliminary Objection, the defendants have not made out any case to support the reliefs sought on the face of the Notice of Preliminary Objection. The defendants have not shown how this suit has become incompetent for non-joinder or misjoinder nor how this court lacks jurisdiction on the subject matter of the claimant’s suit. The affidavit in support of the application is grossly deficient in facts to support the prayers sought. As it is, there are not enough facts upon which to decide the application. It would have been appropriate to dismiss the application here and now but I still think it is more appropriate to examine the issues the defendants have raised in the Notice of Preliminary Objection. The defendants contend in ground 3 of the Notice of Preliminary Objection that this court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. In his written address, the defendant’s counsel submitted, in issue 3 of the address, that there is no industrial relation between the claimants and the defendants and the complaint of the claimants in this suit borders on non-performance of an alleged contract between the claimants and the Imo State Government. Therefore, the subject matter of this suit, as clearly indicated in the statement of claim is not a labour matter but purely a misunderstanding that arose out of a lease agreement and which is not within the jurisdiction of this court as prescribed in Section 254C (1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution (Third Alteration) Act 2010 and Section 7(1) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006. As rightly submitted by the defendants counsel, the subject matters on which this court can exercise jurisdiction is as contained in section 254C of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Subsection 1 of the Section provide as follows: (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 251, 257, 272 and anything contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters- (a) relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the condition of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith; (b) relating to, connected with or arising from Factories Act, Trade Disputes Act, Trade Unions Act, Labour Act, Employees Compensation Act or any other Act or Law relating to labour, employment, industrial relations, workplace or any other enactment replacing the Acts or Laws; (c) relating to or connected with the grant of any order restraining any person or body from taking part in any strike, lock-out or any industrial action, or any conduct in contemplation or in furtherance of a strike, lock-out or any industrial action and matters Connected therewith or related thereto; (d) relating to or connected with any dispute over the interpretation and application of the provisions of Chapter IV of this Constitution as it relates to any employment, labour, industrial relations, trade unionism, employer's association or any other matter which the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine; (e) relating to or connected with any dispute arising from national minimum wage for the Federation or any part thereof and matters connected therewith or arising therefrom; (f) relating to or connected with unfair labour practice or international best practices in labour, employment and industrial relation matters; (g) relating to or connected with any dispute arising from discrimination or sexual harassment at workplace; (h) relating to, connected with or pertaining to the application or interpretation of international labour standards; (i) connected with or related to child labour, child abuse, human trafficking or any matter connected therewith or related thereto; (j) relating to the determination of any question as to the interpretation and application of any- (i) collective agreement; (ii) award or order made by an arbitral tribunal in respect of a trade dispute or a trade union dispute; (iii) award or judgment of the Court : (iv) term of settlement of any trade dispute; (v) trade union dispute or employment dispute as may be recorded in a memorandum of settlement; (vi) trade union constitution, the constitution of an association of employers or any association relating to employment, labour industrial relations or work place; (vii) dispute relating to or connected with any personnel matter arising from any free trade zone in the Federation or any part thereof; (k) relating to or connected with disputes arising from payment or non-payment of salaries, wages, pensions, gratuities, allowances benefits and any other entitlement of any employee, worker, political or public office holder, judicial officer or any civil or public servant he any part of the Federation and matters incidental thereto; (l) relating to- (i) appeals from the decisions of the Registrar of Trade Unions, or matters relating thereto or connected therewith ; (ii) appeals from the decisions or recommendations of any administrative body or commission of enquiry, arising from or connected with employment, labour, trade unions or industrial relations; and (iii) such other jurisdiction, civil or criminal and whether to the exclusion of any other court or not, as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly; (m) relating to or connected with the registration of collective agreements. The question now is: Does the claimants’ case fall into any of the above subject matters? The trite principle of law is that the claim of the claimant determines whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit or not. See ERHUNMWUNSE vs. EHAWIRE (SUPRA). The claimants’ cause of action against the defendants can be seen in paragraphs 20 to 25 of the statement of facts. The averments in these paragraphs are to the effect that in February, 2015, defendants and their members invaded the 1st claimant premises, disrupted the activities and shut down the premises from further activities for non-payment of salaries, remuneration, entitlements and redundancy payments. The claimants maintain that they are not liable to pay any salaries, entitlements, remuneration and redundancy payments to the defendants and their members and that such payment are strictly the responsibility and liability of the Imo State Government. It is upon these facts the claimants claim against the defendants the reliefs sought in this suit. Reliefs (a) to (c) are to determine whether it is the claimants’ responsibility to pay salaries and other entitlements to the defendants while reliefs (d) to (f) seek orders to restrain the defendants from taking part in any industrial action or lock-out. From the above averments and the reliefs sought by the claimants, it can be seen that their case against the defendants clearly fall under the subject matters in section 254C (1) (c) and (k) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The claims of the claimants are evidently within the jurisdiction of this Court. As to the issues of non-joinder or misjoinder in grounds 1 and 2 of the Notice of Preliminary Objection, when the defendant’s depose that they were not parties to the lease agreement between the claimants and the Imo State Government, it appears to me saying they are not proper parties to the suit as such, the suit is incompetent. Also, they appear saying the suit is incompetent for the non-joinder of the Imo State government, which is a necessary party to this suit. This contention became pronounced in the written address of the defendants counsel. He submitted that the defendants are not proper parties to the suit while the Imo State Government is a necessary party. The suit is incompetent having sued the wrong party, the defendants, and the Imo State Government not having been joined. Whether for reason of misjoinder or non-joinder, it is now settled law that no action shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties. See ABIA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs. QUORUM CONSORTIUM LTD (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 474) 1444 where the Supreme Court held that non joinder or misjoinder of parties will not defeat a claim nor lead to striking out of a claim. The apex court stated the principle more succinctly in AYORINDE vs. ONI (2000) 3 NWLR (Pt. 649) 348 as follows: “Where a necessary party to an action for one reason or the other was not joined, the non-joinder will not render the Judgment a nullity. Failure to join a necessary party in on action… does not affect the competence or jurisdiction of the court to entertain the matter before it… it is a correct position of law that where an action is properly constituted, with a plaintiff with legal capacity to bring the action, a defendant with capacity to defend and a claim with cause of action against the defendants and the action has satisfied all pre-conditions for instituting the action, the fact that a necessary party to the action has not been joined, is not fatal to the action and will not render the action a nullity”. The courts are further enjoined, in every cause or matter, to deal with the matter in controversy between the parties actually before the court. Therefore, failure to join a necessary party is not fatal to the proceeding. As held in the above cases, where an action is properly constituted with a plaintiff possessing the legal capacity to sue and a defendant with capacity to defend and a claim with a cause of action against the defendant, the fact that a necessary party to the action has not been joined is not fatal to the action and will not render the action a nullity. See also AGBEKONI vs. KAREEM (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 406) 1970; MALU vs. S.G. C NIG LTD (2003) FWLR (Pt. 165) 534. As to the defendants contention that they are not proper parties to the suit, the Supreme Court in MOBILE PRODUCING NIG UNLTD vs. LASEPA (2003) FWLR (Pt. 137) 1029 explained who is a proper party to a suit at page 1056 thus: “Any party whose interest will be directly affected if a relief claimed in the action were granted is a proper party to the suit.” In paragraphs 20, 21 and 24 of the statement of facts, the claimants categorically made allegations against the defendants. The claimants have a cause of action against the defendants. Also, save for relief (b), all the reliefs sought in this case are directed at the defendants. The defendants are therefore proper parties to this suit. I find no merit in the Notice of Preliminary Objection. Although it is trite that non joinder of the Imo State Government does not affect the competence of this suit, but I find a situation in this suit where the Imo State Government ought to be joined as a party to the suit. When the defendants contended that the Imo State Government is a necessary party, one would expect them to apply for the joinder of the Imo State to this suit instead of seeking to strike out the suit. A necessary Party is a person against whom complaints are made, or against whom reliefs are claimed. See AGBEKONI vs. KAREEM (SUPRA). Taking the claimants case from paragraphs 18 to 25 of the statements of facts, allegations were made therein against the Imo State Government. Relief (b) sought by the claimants is for a declaration which would invariably affect the interest of the Imo State government. The Imo State Government is entitled to be heard on those allegations and before a relief affecting her is made. The Imo State Government is no doubt a necessary party who ought to be made a party to this suit. Joinder of a party to a suit can be at the instance of the parties to the suit or at the instance of the party seeking to join or at the instance of the court. It is trite that the court has an inherent jurisdiction to suo motu order the joinder of any party to a suit. See GREEN vs. GREEN (2001) FWLR (Pt. 76) 795; NNORODIM vs. EZEANI (2001) FWLR (Pt. 40) 1696 at 1699. Consequently, I hereby order the joinder of the Imo State Government to this suit as the 3rd defendant. This order and the originating processes are to be served on the Imo State Government. The defendants’ preliminary objection is dismissed. I can now examine issue 2, which is whether the claimants have made out a case for the grant of interlocutory Injunction? ISSUE TWO The claimants application is for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants/respondents and their servants, agents or privies from entering or further entering or shutting down or obstructing and inhibiting the business activities, management and operations of the claimants’ Palm Plantation, called Adapalm, at Ohaji/Egbema Local Govt. Area of Imo State pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit. The claimants averred in the affidavit in support of the motion that they leased the Adapalm from the Imo State Government in October 2011. The lease was for the duration of fifteen (15) years, including twelve (12) months moratorium period which is to be rent free. By clause 7(d) & (g) and 8 of the Lease Agreement, the Imo State Government agreed to discharge all existing employment contracts and not hold the claimants liable for any responsibilities, obligations, entitlement, remunerations and redundancy payments existing prior to the execution of the lease agreement. However, because of the goodwill and in its effort to maintain a cordial and working relationship with the Imo State Governor, the claimant continued to pay the salaries of existing employees of Adapalm. Later on the Imo State Government directed the redeployment of existing employees of Adapalm to the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources with immediate effect vide a letter dated 11/08/2014. After the said directive by the Imo State Government, as a result of several other correspondences between the claimants and the Imo State Government, the claimants agreed to pay arrears of three (3) months salaries, to workers subject, among others, to reimbursement by the government and relocation of the 414 workers back to the Ministry of Agriculture. In spite of the agreed conditions, the Imo State Government later directed the claimants, by a letter dated 21/01/2015, to pay the salaries of former Adapalm Staff, which are members of the defendants, for the months of October and November, 2014. In their reply, dated 23/01/2015, the claimants informed the Imo state Government that under the lease agreement, it is not their responsibility to pay the workers. Sometimes between the 10th day of February 2015 and 26th day of February 2015, the defendants as well as other members of the 1st defendant invaded the Adapalm premises by disrupting the activities and shut down the premises from further activities for non-payment of salaries, remuneration, entitlements and redundancy payments. By the subsisting lease agreement between the Imo State Government and the claimants, the Imo State Government is liable to pay to the defendants and their members, their salaries, entitlements, remuneration and redundancy payments. The defendants have continued to threaten that they will completely shut down, truncate and grind to a halt the business premises and palm plantation, of the claimants if their salaries are not paid by the claimants on or before 23d of March, 2015. The claimants have suffered and are still suffering as a result of the activities of the defendants and their members in shutting down, placing under lock and key and the threat to shut down and to continue to shut down its business premises and Adapalm. The claimants further deposed in the supporting affidavit that if the defendants are not restrained, they will completely shut down the claimants’ premises, the plantation and its operations before the hearing and determination of the substantive suit. The claimant also averred that they have a legal right in the subject matter, which right is being violated by the defendants. To the claimants, there are serious issues to be tried at the hearing of this suit and the balance of convenience is in their favour of the claimants/applicants. The claimants also undertook to pay damages to the defendants should their application be found to be frivolous. In opposing the application, the defendants filed a counter affidavit in which they alleged that Adapalm is their employers and they have been in quiet and peaceful occupation of the entire premises and factory of Ada Palm where they also have their residential quarters. The defendants have never received any salary from the claimants as the claimants are not their employers and the claimants were at no time introduced to the defendants as their new employers. It was surprising to them received the restraining order from this court. The defendants also say that they are not aware of any lease agreement between the claimants, the Government of Imo State and Adapalm. The defendants contend that if at all this court will order status quo to be maintained, the status quo at the time of filing this suit is as exist since 26/2/2015,that is the defendants have shut down the premises and the status quo is that no work was going on in the premises. The defendants also averred that the balance of convenience is in favour of refusing this application; and that no amount of damages will compensate them for the injury to their lives and livelihood. In an application for interlocutory injunction, the court has the discretionary power to refuse or grant the relief sought by the Applicant. In order to merit the court’s discretionary power being exercised in favour of granting the application, an applicant for an order for interlocutory injunctive must satisfy the court of some facts or requirements, which have been laid down in plethora of judicial authorities. These requirements are - 1. The applicant must show that he claims a legal right in the subject matter for which protection he needs the injunction 2. The applicant must show that there is a serious question to be tried at the hearing. 3. The applicant must show that the balance of convenience is on his side or in favour of granting the application. 4. The applicant’s conduct is not reprehensible or that the applicant is not guilty of delay. 5. The applicant makes an undertaking as to damages. 6. Damages will not be adequate compensation for the injury that will result if the order is not granted. See- KOTOYE vs. CBN (2001) FWLR (Pt. 49) 1567; ADEYEMI vs. OLADAPO (2003) FWLR (Pt. 155) 775; AGBA vs. B.H.I HOLDINGS LTD (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 535) 696. I have gone through the facts deposed in the supporting affidavit to the claimants’ application and also the documents exhibited to the affidavit. I find that the claimants have satisfied the requirements for grant of interlocutory injunction. I am also satisfied that if not granted the claimants operations will be seriously affected and they will suffer irreparable damage. This is in view of the defendants admission in paragraph 14 of their counter affidavit that they have actually been doing the acts the claimants seeks to restrain in this application. The defendants’ deposition in paragraph 14 of their counter affidavit is to the effect that the defendants have shut down the premises and the status quo to be maintained is that the premises remain shut! While on the other hand, they wailed in the counter affidavit that they will suffer damages if they are restrained from shutting down the premises. While the court in not unmindful of the defendants deposition that they live within the premises of Adapalm, this court cannot help the defendants here because by their own admission, they have done a reprehensible act yet they want equity to assist them. If they have shut down the factory and have disallowed Adapalm, which they say is their employer and not the claimants, from carrying on business; I cannot see how the balance of convenience tilts in their favour. The balance of convenience in this application, as it appears to me, tilts proportionately in favour of granting the application. In his written address, the defendants counsel submitted that the respondents have closed down the factory and the order the claimants should have sought is a mandatory order to open and not a restraining order restraining the carrying out of a complete act. It appears to me the counsel has misread or misconceived the claimants’ application. The first reliefs sought is to restrain the defendants “from entering, further entering, shutting down, further shutting down and/or placing under lock and key the claimants/applicant’s premises” while relief 2 seeks to restrain the defendants “from impeding, obstructing and inhibiting the business activities, management and operations of claimants/applicants over claimants/applicants premises”. The claimants particularly made the following depositions in paragraph 3 of the affidavit in support of the application: (s) On or about the 10th day of February, 2015 up to the 26th day of February 2015, the defendants/respondents as well as other members of the 1st defendant/respondent, invaded the 1st claimant/applicant’s premises, disrupted the activities of the day and shut down the premises from further activities, for non-payment of salaries, remuneration, entitlements and redundancy payments while asserting that they have been directed and mandated by the Imo State Government to embark on their dastard and nefarious acts. ---------------- (x) The claimants/applicants have suffered and are still suffering monumental hardship as a result of activities of the defendants/respondents and their members in shutting down, placing under lock and key and the threat to shut down and to continue to shut down its business premises and Adapalm. Between now and the hearing and determination of the substantive suit, if the defendants/respondents are not restrained, they will shut down the claimants/applicants’ premises, plantation and operations. The claimants/applicants will die a corporate death if they are shut down. From the above particulars of the claimants’ application, their application is not seeking to restrain a completed act. Rather, it is obvious from the portions of the application set out above that the claimants’ complaint is about continuing acts by the defendants. I have no doubt that the claimants have sought the appropriate relief in this motion. On the whole, the claimants’ application is granted. The defendants, their members, servants, agents or privies are hereby restrained from shutting down or locking up the claimants’ premises and from impeding, obstructing and inhibiting the business activities, management and operations of the claimants’ Adapalm premises at Ohaji/Egbema Local government Area of Imo State pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit. No order as to cost. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge