RULING: This ruling was initially slated to be delivered on 12th day of March 2018, but could not be delivered due to multiple applications filed by counsel for both sides. The disposal of those application have now paved way for delivery of the ruling on the application for interlocutory order of injunction. The Claimants commenced this suit via a complaint filed on 28th day of October 2017. The Claimants filed a long with their complaint a motion on notice dated 26th day of October 2017 and filed on the same day praying for: 1. An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st Defendant/Respondent, his agents, employees appointees or any one acting through him from prescribing or declaring illegal the Claimant’s Trade Union pending the hearing and determination of this suit. 2. And for such further or other orders as this Honourable may deem fit to make in the circumstance of this case. The motion on notice is supported by a 33 paragraphs affidavit. The claimants placed reliance on the averments contained in the affidavit in support of the motion on notice. In line with the Rules of this Court, the Claimants filed a long with the motion on notice a written address which was adopted by Counsel as his argument on the motion on notice. In the written address Counsel distilled lone issue for determination to wit: ‘‘whether this is a proper application for the grant of an order of interlocutory injunction’’. Counsel for the Claimants/Applicant submitted that the grant or refusal of this application is at the discretion of the Court. Counsel further submitted that the discretion is to be exercised judicially and judiciously. It is the contention of Counsel that this application is not meant to determine the right of the parties but to seek to keep things in status quo, till rights of parties can be decided. Counsel relied on JAMES T. TUR V M. C. BELLO & 4 ORS. (2010) 4 WRN 106 @ 110-111. BAJELA OLAYEDE FADINA & 3 ORS. VVEEPEE INDUSTRIES LIMITED (2000) 5 WRN 131 @ 132-133. It is submitted by Counsel that by affidavit evidence there is a legal right for protection by an interlocutory injunction. Counsel referred to paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 21 of the affidavit in support and submitted that there is threat by the 1st Defendant/Respondent to proscribe the Claimants which will affect the Claimants legal right to freedom of association. Counsel further relied on paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 of the affidavit in support. It is the submission of the Counsel for the Applicants that vide paragraphs 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9, of the affidavit in support that the Claimants have established legal right to be protected as well as reasonable chances for success. Counsel further submitted vide paragraph 24, the Claimants have shown chances of success and vide section 40 of the constitution claimants have constitution right to freedom of association. Counsel referred to paragraph 27 and submitted that balance of convenience is in favour of the Claimants. Counsel also referred to paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 of the affidavit in support and submitted that damages cannot be adequate compensation. Counsel also submitted that Claimants have made an undertaking as to damages as per paragraph 29 of the affidavit in support. Counsel submitted the requirements for grant of interlocutory injunction as enunciated in FADINA V VIL (Supra) has been met by the Claimants. Finally Counsel submitted that this application is to assert the right of ordinary masses as against the dictatorial leaders. This is an action for enthronement of human rights as against a juxtapose style of leadership akin to a civilized society. This action is enthronement of justice as against injustice. It is only where there is justice that there could be peace. Counsel urged the court to grant this application as same deserve favourable consideration. COURT’S DECISION. In an application for interlocutory injunction, the applicant is seeking for exercise of discretionary power of the court. The discretion conferred on the court is not absolute as it is subject to its being exercised judicially and judiciously. The primary duty and objective of the court in the exercise of its judicial discretion must be to attain substantial justice. The interests of both parties must be considered along with peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in order to arrive at a just and fair decision. It is then the court can truly be said to have exercised its discretion both judicially and judiciously in accordance with established principles of law. See UNITED SPINNERS V CHARTERED BANK LTD (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt.732) 195, AKILU V FAWEHINMI (No.2) (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt.102) 122, ERONIN V IHEUKO (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt101) 46. The right of an applicant which can be protected by an order of injunction is the right existing with regard to the state of things prevailing before the acts complained of by the applicant. In deciding whether to grant injunction or not certain factors have to be considers. The factors are; 1. There must be a subsisting action. The subsisting action must clearly donate a legal right which the applicant must protect; 2. The applicant must show that there is a serious question to be tried i.e that the applicant has a real possibility, not a probability of success at the trial, notwithstanding the defendant’s technical defence; 3. The applicant must show that the balance of convenience is on his side, that is, that more justice will result in granting the application than in refusing; 4. The applicant must show that damages cannot be adequate compensation for the injury he want the Court to protect, if he succeed; 5. The applicant must show that there was no delay on his part in bringing the application; 6. The applicant must make an undertaking to pay damages in the event of wrongful exercise of the court’s discretion in granting the injunction. So no order of an interlocutory injunction should be made on notice unless the applicant gives a satisfactory undertaking as to damages save in recognized exceptions. Where the court of first instance fails to extract an undertaking as to damages; an appellate court ought to normally discharge the order of injunction. The pendency of a suit is not in doubt. The existence of legal right though crucial is not enough consideration for grant of an injunction. The issue of balance of convenience and damages not adequate compensation are equally very important consideration in deciding to grant or not to grant injunction. The principle governing determination of balance of convenience is that if the position is such that the applicant will suffer inconvenience more than the Respondent if the order for interlocutory injunction is refused then the court will make the order. But if the applicant will not suffer more inconveniences or if the Respondent to the application will suffer more inconvenience if the order is made, then in such a case the order will not be made. See ETER V OKOYE (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.755) 529. It is well established principle that hardship to the Defendant is a relevant consideration in the cases of injunction it is particularly of more insignificance and weight in cases of interlocutory injunctions than in those of final or permanent injunctions. Where hardship will be caused to the Defendant or indeed to third parties or to members of the public by the grant of the relief, this consideration will be taken into account by the court in determining whether it is just and convenient that an interlocutory injunction should issue and court of equity will not ordinarily and without special necessity interfere by injunction where this will have the effect of very materially injuring the rights of third persons not before the court. So even if there is no hardship to the defendant, an injunction may be refused if it would prejudice an innocent third party. See HEARTLEPOOL GAS AND WATER CO. V WEST HEARTLEPOOL HARBOUR AND RAILWAYCO. (1865). Taking into consideration the fact that the action of either the claimants or the defendants may have colossal impact on the students and general public, the grant of injunction in this case is not an appropriate option. Interlocutory injunction is concerned principally with the protection of the res and maintaining status quo. It is only where the subject matter will be permanently destroyed and cannot be recovered or replaced or be completely distorted or defaced that an order of interlocutory injunction will be appropriate to maintain the staus quo until the final determination of the substantive suit. From the facts as shown by the affidavit the threat of proscription was on or before 30th October 2017, with the passing of 30th October 2017 without the proscription, the need to issue interlocutory order of injunction has become otiose. The affidavit evidence is very clear to the effect that the defendants threatened to proscribe the claimants on or before 30th October 2017. However, having passed the period of threat without the proscription the need for an injunction is no longer tenable. It is imperative to appreciate that the onus of proof is on the applicant to establish that on the affidavit evidence presented by him, it is desirable in all the circumstances of the case that the interlocutory injunction being sought by him to issue. The applicant must present convincing facts which in themselves vindicate the well laid principles for granting the injunction as decided in KOTOYE V CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt.98) 419. The injunction is not granted as matter of grace, routine or course. On the contrary, the injunction is granted in deserving cases, based on hard law and facts. In view of the state of the affidavit evidence it is my view that this is an appropriate situation where granting of accelerated hearing of the substantive suit will be more meaningful than granting of an injunction. Therefore, I hereby ordered accelerated hearing of this suit. Sanusi Kado, Judge.