Download PDF
Representation: I. C. Achara for the Claimants/Applicants RULING By a Motion on Notice filed 3/11/2015 brought pursuant to orders 14(1)(1) and 11(1) of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, Section 16 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 and section 6(6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999(as amended); counsel for the claimants/applicants prayed as follows: 1. AN ORDER of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants/respondents, their servants, agents, officers or anybody acting howsoever for or through them from terminating or adversely dealing with the appointments of the claimants as Members of the Abia State Customary Courts pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit. OR ALTERNATIVELY 2. AN ORDER directing all parties to maintain status quo ante bellum until the final determination of this suit. The grounds upon which this application is brought are as follows: a. The claimants filed a substantive action to enforce their right to 4 years tenure as Members of the Customary Courts of Abia State. b. The defendants seek and are taking steps to end the claimants’ appointment on alleged 3 years tenure. c. Most of the claimants are about completing or have completed their third year in office. d. There is need to restrain the defendants from terminating or adversely dealing with the appointments of any of the claimants until final hearing and determination of all issues in controversy in the instant action. e. The honourable court has the requisite powers to grant the application. This motion was supported by an 18-paragraph affidavit deposed to by the 5th claimant/applicant. In the accompanying written address, counsel distilled a sole issue for determination as follows: Whether the discretion of the court should not be exercised to grant this application. It is the submission of counsel in this regard that the extant application is a proper case in which the Court’s discretion ought to be exercised in favour of the applicants judicially and judiciously on the facts placed before it. See EZEBILO vs. CHINWUBA (1997) NWLR (Pt. 511) 108 at 109. Counsel relied on the cases of KOTOYE vs. CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419, OBEYA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL vs. A.G FEDERATION (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 60) 325 and argued that there are certain principles which guide the court in granting interlocutory injunctions. These principles include: 1. Whether there is an existing legal right capable of being protected. 2. Whether the act complained of has been completed. 3. Whether there is a delay that may hamper the grant of the injunction. 4. Whether damages would be adequate compensation. 5. Conduct of the parties 6. Applicants’ undertaking as to damages 7. Whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant. Counsel relied on paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the supporting affidavit to contend that the factual circumstances of the present application establish an enforceable legal right in the claimants/applicants’ favour. The depositions in the above-stated paragraphs highlight the fact that the applicants are entitled to 4-year tenure as Abia State Customary Court Members, which the defendants/respondents seek to derogate from by terminating the claimants/applicants’ appointments on an alleged 3-year tenure. Thus, when the existence or otherwise of a legal right is put before a competent court; the court is obliged to preserve the res by ensuring the subsequent proceedings and judgment will not be rendered nugatory by the defendants/respondents’ acts. See AYORINDE vs. A.G. OYO STATE (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt. 434) 20 at 23. It is counsel’s contention that from the facts deposed to in the supporting affidavit; it is evident that in the event the defendants are not restrained from terminating the claimants’ appointments, the subject matter of the substantive action will be destroyed. Also, the defendants’ acts of withholding the claimants’ salaries and commencing a process of appointing new persons to replace the claimants necessitate a grant of the instant application. Counsel also stated that the balance of convenience is in the claimants/applicants’ favour who shall suffer greatly if this application is denied. See KOTOYE vs. CBN (supra). The argument of counsel at this juncture is, that the claimants have made out a prima facie case for the grant of and interlocutory injunction in addition to the fact that the applicants have undertaken to compensate the defendants/respondents if the application turns out to be frivolous. Finally, counsel submitted that litigants are obligated to maintain status quo pending the determination of the action. In adverse circumstances, the court is empowered to order parties to maintain the status quo. See the case of EZEGBU vs. F.A.T.B LTD (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 220) 699 at 725 where it was held: Once a party is aware of a pending court process, and whether the court has not given a specific injunctive order, parties are bound to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the court. They should not resort to self-help. See also REGISTERED TRUSTEES, APOSTOLIC CHURCH vs. OLOWOLENI (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 158) at 537. Counsel urged the court to grant this application in the interest of substantial justice. The defendants/respondents did not file any processes to oppose this application. I have however seen from the case file that the defendants were served with the various processes in this action were served on the defendants, including this Motion on Notice. They have however not filed any process in response. Court’s decision The facts to be considered in deciding this application are those presented by the claimants/applicants. This is owing to the fact that the defendants/respondents did not oppose this application. Thus, the facts presented by the claimants/applicants will be taken as correct and be acted upon. See Lawal vs. UTC (Nig.) Plc. (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 943) 601 at 622. Having said this, there is need to articulate an issue for determination; which is: Whether the facts in this application warrant a grant of interlocutory injunction? From the facts deposed to by the applicants, it is evident that the claimants/applicants are members of the Abia State Customary Court who were appointed for a 4-year tenure. Though the defendants/respondents are aware of the substantive action, they are commencing the process of appointing new members to replace the claimants/applicants whose tenures are still subsisting. Particularly, “exhibit A” annexed to the supporting affidavit in this application shows clearly that the tenure of the 5th claimant/applicant will expire on the 1st of September, 2016. This is a clear indication that there are legal rights to be preserved by this court. In paragraph 9 of the supporting affidavit, the applicants deposed to the fact that since the service of the originating processes on the respondents, the salaries of the applicants have been withheld as an indication of the respondents’ desire to overreach the substance of the main action. The applicants further deposed that the interlocutory injunction sought in this application is to protect their legal rights which are about to be infringed upon and to preserve the subject matter of this suit. To them, both the balance of convenience and interest of justice are in their favour and they also undertake to indemnify the respondents if the application turns out to be frivolous. The main order the applicant are seeking in this application is an interlocutory injunction restraining the Respondents from terminating or adversely dealing with the appointments of the applicants. In the alternative, they seek an order directing all parties in this suit to maintain status quo ante bellum. As submitted by the claimants/applicants’ counsel to in his written address, the principles upon which an order for interlocutory injunction is made are as laid down in the cases of OBEYA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL vs. A.G FEDERATION (supra) and KOTOYE vs. CBN (supra). See also ADEYEMI vs. OLADAPO (2003) FWLR (Pt. 155) 775; AGBA vs. B.H.I HOLDINGS LTD (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 535) 696. The principles 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. I have carefully considered the facts deposed in the applicant’s affidavit and I find that these requirements have been shown. The claimant is seeking in the substantive suit, amongst other prayers, an order of this court mandating the defendants to refrain from any act intended to determine the claimants’ appointments upon an alleged three-year tenure. The basis of the instant application is that the defendants are attempting to end the claimants’ appointments and have shown this attempt by even withholding their salaries. I am of the view that it will be proper for every other action be put on hold until the substantive matter is tried and determined. The grant or refusal of an application for interlocutory injunction by a court depends largely on the discretion of the court. See IDOKO vs. OGBEIKU (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt. 819) 275. Having gone through all the facts of this application, I find reasons to exercise my discretion in favour of granting this application. In the result, the application is granted. The respondents are hereby restrained from terminating or adversely dealing with the appointments of the Claimants/Applicants as members of the Abia State Customary Courts, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit. No order as to costs. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge