Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"">Representation</span></u></b><b><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Damian Uneze for the Claimant/Respondent.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">T. K. Okere for the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Applicants<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Jeremiah Adama for the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Applicant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">RULING</span></u></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">This action was commenced by way of complaint filed on the 11<sup>th</sup> day of May 2015 wherein the Claimant sought the following reliefs against the defendants:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo3"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">The sum of <s>N</s>5,453,000.000 representing thus:<o:p></o:p></span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">a.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">The sum of <s>N</s>900,000.00 being the value of the Passat Wagon vehicle.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">b.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><s><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">N</span></s><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">73,000.00 being the value of the HP laptop.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">c.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><s><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">N</span></s><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">280,000.00 being the value of the Hyalgan drugs.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">d.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><s><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">N</span></s><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">4,200,000.00 being profit tag for 12 months.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">By a Motion on Notice filed 12/4/2016 brought pursuant to orders 11(1), and 14(1)(1) of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, and section 35(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended); counsel for the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> defendants/applicants prayed as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">“An order of injunction restraining the claimant/respondent, and/or his agents, privies, subordinates, officers/men of the Nigerian Police Force working with or for the claimant/respondent from threatening to arrest, detain, intimidate or interfere with the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> defendants/applicants in any manner whatsoever or in any other matter connected to or related to this suit pending the determination of this suit.”</span></i><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""><o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">This motion was supported by a 19-paragraph affidavit deposed to by the 2nd defendant/applicant. In the accompanying written address, counsel distilled a sole issue for determination as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS"">Whether the applicants are entitled to the reliefs sought in this application.</span></i></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> i. e. considering that the matter the claimant/respondent reported to the Police is the same matter pending before this Honourable Court. In counsel’s argument, he referred the court to paragraphs 10 -17 of the supporting affidavit and asserted that the applicants are entitled to their reliefs sought in this application. It is counsel’s further argument that the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant/applicant has a constitutional right to their liberty as provided for in </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">section 35(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999(as amended). See <b>UZOUKWU vs. EZEONU (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 200) 708</b>. See also Section 34 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999(as amended). In conclusion, counsel urged the court to grant this application.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">The 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant/applicant on 16/2/2016 filed a motion similar to the application of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> defendants/applicants pursuant to Orders 11(1), and 14(1)(1) of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, and section 35(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999(as amended); seeking<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">An order of injunction restraining the claimant/respondent and/or his agents, privies, subordinates, officers/men of the Nigerian Police Force working with/for the claimant/respondent from further harassment, intimidation, hounding, arrest, or detention, or interfering with the 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant/applicant in any manner whatsoever or in any matter connected to or relating to this suit pending the determination of this suit.</span></i><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""><o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">This application was supported by an affidavit of 18 paragraphs deposed to by the 3<sup>rd</sup> </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">defendant/applicant. In the accompanying address, the 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant’s counsel raised one issue for determination as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Whether the 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant/applicant can be subjected to incessant harassment, intimidation, arrest and detention by the claimant and cohort while the pendency of this suit or thereafter with respect to the circumstances of this case.</span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Counsel argued that the 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant/applicant has enumerated the instances of her arrest and harassment she has been subjected to by the claimant/respondent who engaged the services of the Police and other paramilitary agencies during the pendency of this suit. It is counsel’s further submission that the </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">3<sup>rd</sup> defendant/applicant’s constitutional right to liberty as guaranteed in </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Section 35(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) was defined in <b>UZOUKWU vs. EZEONU (supra)</b> to be the right not to be subjected to imprisonment, arrest and any other physical coercion. Similarly, counsel submitted that the applicant’s continuous harassment has made the 3<sup>rd</sup> applicant apprehensive of her safety, psychologically unstable to work and fend for her family. It is counsel’s submission that this Court is duty bound to protect the applicant. In the same vein, counsel urged the court to hold that the applicant’s right to liberty is sacrosanct and should be highly respected, and grant this application.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 8.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">In opposition on 13/4/2016, the Claimant filed a counter affidavit of 20 paragraphs deposed to by Miss Dorathy Onyeali, a litigation clerk in the Claimant counsel’s Law Office. In the accompanying address, counsel submitted that the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant’s conversion of the Claimant’s official car and her failure to remit the proceeds of the drugs worth <s>N</s>280,000; were facts the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant failed to depose to, but rather deposed only to the fact that the police came to whisk her away on an unknown allegation. Again, counsel submitted further that the issue of whether the constitutional liberties of the applicants being threatened or tampered with is a matter outside the jurisdiction of this court and squarely the jurisdiction of the States’ or Federal High Courts. See <b>GRACE JACK vs. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, MAKURDI (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 200) 1506</b> and <b>TUKUR vs. GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 617</b>. Also, counsel submitted relying on the authorities of <b>IYERE vs. DURU (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 44) 665</b> and <b>EJEFOR vs. OKEREKE (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 665) 363</b>; that the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant/applicant is duty bound to show this court that her arrest is unlawful to succeed in this application. More so, it is counsel’s argument that the Police is free to investigate any allegation made by a person against another. See <b>FAJEMIROKUN vs. CB (C.I) NIGERIA LTD (2002) 10 NWLR (Pt. 774) 95.</b> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">In the instant case, counsel stated that it was the applicant that wrote the petition that is being investigated by the Police. Counsel argued further that a party in an action should not be allowed to benefit from his/her wrongdoing. In counsel’s opinion, the complaint of police harassment by the 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant is an aberration of the equity maxim “he who comes to equity must do equity” because the 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant told the police that the claimant is a kidnapper. See <b>ALADE vs. ALIC NIGERIA LTD (2011) 46 NWLR (Pt. 2) 927 at 946</b>. Further, counsel contended that for the applicants’ motions to succeed, there must be in existence, a legal right, which is absent from the instant applications before the court. The court was urged by counsel to refuse the injunctions sought because to hold otherwise would amount to an individual benefitting from his wrong.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 8.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">On 11/5/2016, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant filed a further affidavit of 11 paragraphs, in the Reply on points of law filled alongside; counsel submitted that the purpose of an injunction is to keep the parties at status quo pending the determination of the suit. It is counsel’s submission that an injunction is an equitable relief, in which case the applicant coming to equity must come with clean hands by making disclosure of facts to enable the court to do equity. It is the opinion of counsel that the 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant has shown all it takes to be granted an injunction against the claimant. See the following cases of:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">DPCC LTD vs. BPC LIMITED (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 414) 1420<o:p></o:p></span></b></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">ADENUGA vs. ODUNEWU (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt. 696) 184<o:p></o:p></span></b></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Again, counsel contended that there is a triable issue to be disposed of in the substantive suit, and on the other hand the claimant’s use of police harassment is such that if not restrained by this application, cannot be stopped timeously at a later date. Counsel contended further that the averments of the claimant/respondent in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit were not backed by any document. Thus, the absence of such documentary evidence discredited the depositions and renders them false. See <b>CHIESHE vs. NICON HOTELS LTD (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 388) 1152</b>. Similarly, counsel argued that the deposition in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit appeared to have been derived from another person and the deponent failed to furnish the details of the time, date and place the other person imparted the information. Therefore, it is counsel’s opinion that the failure to furnish these details means that the affidavit is rendered nugatory and liable to be dismissed. See <b>TARAKU MILLS LTD vs. SANT ENGINEERING LTD (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 430) 798</b>. Further, counsel submitted that paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit are merely outlined statements, weightless and liable to be struck out for vagueness or non-particularization of facts. See <b>BEDDING HOLDING LTD vs. NEC (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 260) 428</b>. Counsel urged the court to grant all the reliefs in this application, in order to prevent a party from foisting on the court a helpless situation or render the final decision nugatory.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">The 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> defendants on 11/5/2016, filed a 14-paragraph further affidavit. In the accompanying Reply on points of law, counsel submitted that the claimant/respondent gave conflicting information in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 14 of its counter affidavit and an injunction application is not the time to resolve conflicting evidence in affidavit. Similarly, counsel asserted that the claimant failed to provide evidence to show that the contrary evidence in its affidavit is enough to prevent the court from exercising its equitable jurisdiction of granting this application. <b>TOTAL NIG PLC vs. I. I. R. A. (2004) 7 NWLR (Pt. 873) 446</b>. In the same vein, counsel contended that the applicants whose personal liberty is threatened have the legal right to approach the court for protection and the court’s duty at that point is to examine their affidavits to ascertain whether the applicants have established a serious question to be tried and they have legal rights to be protected. In response to paragraph 3.00 of the claimant counsel’s address in support of the counter affidavit, counsel submitted that the applicants are entitled to ask for the court’s protection, in light of the fact that all the parties have submitted to the court’s jurisdiction and the applicants are seeking to restrain the contemptuous conduct of one of the parties before the court. It is the contention of counsel that an order of injunction is one that is granted at the court’s discretion; which ought to be exercised judicially and judiciously. Counsel relied on the following cases of:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a"> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">COMMISSIONER FOR WORKS BENUE STATE vs. DEVCON LTD (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 83) 407<o:p></o:p></span></b></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">ONYESOH vs. NNEBEDUM (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 229) 315<o:p></o:p></span></b></li> <li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">EZEBILO vs. CHINWUBA (1997) 7 NWLR (Pt. 511) 108 <o:p></o:p></span></b></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Counsel submitted that parties to a case pending before a court of competent jurisdiction must conduct themselves in a manner that would not interfere with the pending action. In conclusion, counsel urged the court to discountenance the erroneous counter affidavit and the address of the claimant’s counsel and grant this application in the interest of justice.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <b><u>COURT’S DECISION<o:p></o:p></u></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><a name="_GoBack"></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">The reasons advanced by the Defendants in the affidavits in support of the two applications for seeking the order of injunction against the Claimant are that after the Claimant had instituted this suit and the Defendants had entered their defences to the action, the Claimant went to report the same matter to the police consequent upon which the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant was arrested and detained a couple of times by the police while the police have harassed and threatened to arrest and detain the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants. The police are still threatening to arrest and detain the Defendants not withstanding explanations and solicitors letters to them on the fact that a suit on the same subject matter is already pending in court. In the counter affidavit of the Claimant, it was averred that while the matter was pending in this court, the Defendants wrote a petition to the Commissioner of Police alleging that the Claimant was planning to kidnap and kill them. The Defendants subsequently mobilized about 25 policemen who arrested and detained the Claimant for 5 days on an allegation of kidnapping. On concluding investigation, the police discovered that the complaint of the defendants was false. The police started to search for the Defendants when they failed to show up at the police station. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">It is clear from these facts that while this case is pending in this court, the parties, fully aware of the matter, went about harassing themselves through the use of the police on the very subject which is before this court. While the Defendants allege that it was the Claimant who instigated the police to arrest and detain them or threaten to do so, the Claimant said it was the Defendants who mobilized the police to arrest and detain the Claimant. I however find the claimant’s story to be somewhat odd. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, it was deposed that <i>“the defendants mobilized some policemen numbering up to 25 who came, arrested and detained the claimant for 5 days...”</i> The claimant in this case is a company. I wonder how the police are able to arrest and detain a company! <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">In any case, it is the law that while parties are before the court none of them should take any step which will alter the due process of the law or inimical to the just determination of the matter they have submitted to court. In <b>ABIA vs. CROSS RIVER STATE PROPERTY & INVESTMENT LTD (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 339) 955 at 975</b>, it was held that during litigation, nothing new should be introduced. His Lordship, <b>IBIYEYE JCA</b>, commented further that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">“It is reprehensible conduct for any party to an action pending in court to proceed to take the law into his hands without any specific order of court and to do any act which would pre-empt the result of the action. The court invariably frowns at such conduct and would always invoke its disciplinary power to restore the status quo”.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">See also <b>REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF MISSION vs. ALL STATES TRUST BANK (2003) FWLR (Pt. 172) 1804</b> where the court held that parties who have submitted their dispute to court should not take any step outside the court which would alter the due process of the law.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">One of the purposes of injunction is to keep matters in status quo until the question in issue between the parties is determined. See <b>ADENUGA vs. ODUMERU (2001) FWLR (Pt. 37) 1056 at 1069</b>. Accordingly, since the parties are already before this court for the determination of claims of the claimant against the defendants, they ought not to take any step outside this court in respect of the same matter. Until the final determination of this matter, all the parties in this case, including their agents, privies or subordinates, are ordered to maintain the status quo and to stay all steps taken since the pendency of this suit. They are further restrained from any act prejudicial to the just and effective determination of this suit. A restraining order is also directed to the Nigerian Police Force from entertaining, acting on or further taking any action on any complaint relating to the subject matter of this suit from any of the parties to the suit pending the determination of this suit. No order as to cost.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Ruling is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:8.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:8.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:13.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Judge</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>