RULING. The claimants vide motion on notice dated 4/10/18 and filed on the same day, ae seeking for: 1. An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants, their agents allies, and privies from entry, trespassing, accessing or forcefully entry into the premises, offices or precinct of the applicants or interfering disturbing creating labour unrest however whatsoever in the work place/office of the applicants or from parading themselves from as staff of the applicants pending the determination of this suit. 2. And for such further or other order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this suit as if same has been applied. The grounds for this application are as contained in the motion papers. The application is supported by a 4 paragraphs affidavit with exhibits attached therein. A written address was also filed along with the motion on notice. Christopher Oshomegie, Esq; counsel for the claimants in his oral submission before the court relied on the deposition contained in the affidavit in support. Counsel also adopted the written address as his argument. The affidavit in support disclosed that the defendants were variously employed by the claimants and there is a collective agreement that governed the relationship of the claimants with the defendants. That in disregards of the collective agreement the defendants embarked on an illegal strike without following due process. This was considered absence from duty and the defendants were accordingly dismissed from service. The defendants were paid all their entitlement. But despite payment of their entitlement the defendants are threatening the claimants with thunders and brimstone which led to workers fleeing their place of work. That the defendants if not restrained would cause irreparable damage to the claimants businesses. In the written address lone issue was formulated for determination, to wit: ‘‘Whether the applicants have not shown reasonable grounds to entitle them to the grant of the application having regard to the circumstances herein’’. In arguing the issue for determination counsel submitted that the claimants have satisfied the basic requirement for grant of interlocutory injunction as enshrined in the historic case of KOTOYE V CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (PT.98) 419 and restated in UTB V & ORS. VDOLMETCH PHARMARCY LTD (2007) LPELR 3413 SC. Counsel submitted by paragraph 3 of the affidavit in support the applicants have shown that they have legal right to be protected by the court. This is in that applicants rights to continue in economic activities unhindered and to have freedom from threat. The res is under attack and if not stopped. Counsel urged court to protect the claimants from further attack and invasion. It is submitted the claimants’ case is not frivolous or vexatious. The res need to be preserved. It is also argued that the defendants engaged in illegality which no amount of damage can adequately compensate. Counsel submitted there is triable issue and that balance of convenience is favour of the applicants. Counsel submitted from the facts the claimants would be perilous if the application is not granted. And would not recover the loss they may suffer. It is contended the defendants have nothing to suffer because their entitlements have been fully paid. In conclusion counsel urged court to grant the application. COURT’S DECISION. I have carefully perused the content of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction, the affidavit in support, the written address and as well attentively listened to the oral submission of counsel. The issue for determination is: ‘‘Whether from the facts as disclosed in the affidavit in support of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction, the claimants/applicants have made out a case for grant of interlocutory order of injunction against the defendants/respondents in this case’’. I shall commence consideration of this application by observing that the defendants/respondents in this suit despite evidence of being served with the originating process commencing this suit and the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction, failed and neglected to file response by way of counter-affidavit. This means that the defendants/applicants have accepted the facts deposed to in the affidavit in support as truth. They are in law also deemed to have admitted the facts deposed to in the affidavit in support. This is because there is nothing to show that any of the averments in the affidavit in support is inherently incredible. See NIGERIA UNION OF TEACHERS & ORS V CONFERENCE OF SECONDARY SCHOOL TUTORS (CSST) & ORS. (2006) NWLR (Pt.974) 590, AGBAJE V IBRU S. F. LTD (1972) 5 SC 50; NATIONAL BANK V AFE BROTHER (1977) 6 SC 97 AZEEZE V STATE (1986) 2 NWLR (PT.23) 541; SOFMONU V OCEAN STREAM SHIP NIG. LTD (1987) 4 NWLR (PT.66) 691; INAKOJU V ADELEKE (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt.1025) 423, IGBOKWE V UDOBI (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt.228) 214; OYEYIPO V OYINLOYE (1987) 1 NWLR (pt.50) 356; OMO V JSC DELTA STATE (2000) 12 NWLR (pt.682) 444. The grant of interlocutory injunction is predicated not on mere prayer for it, nor is it a matter of course, it must be based on the clear existence of a legal right likely to be violated, if it is not granted. It is an equitable remedy and whoever comes to court praying for it, must not only establish the existence of a legal right in him threatened with violation, but must also manifest all attributes of the person seeking equity. He must not have clean hands, he must do equity, he must be vigilant, for vigilantibus non dormientbus jura subveniunt. Being call for exercise of discretionary power of the court, it must be based on established principles. Authorities on relevant consideration are legend. It suffice to mention OJUKWU V GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.26) 39, OBEYA MEMORIAL SPECIAL HOSPITAL V A-G OF THE FEDERATION (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.60) 3251, KOTOYE V CBN (1989) NWLR (Pt.98) 419. A careful evaluation of the affidavit evidence which has not been contradicted clearly shows that the claimants/applicants have establish existence of legal right to continue in their business of oil exploration undisturbed unhindered without any justification. This right need to be protected in the interim. I am also satisfied that the evidence in the affidavit in support clearly shows that there is a real question to be tried in the substantive suit i.e whether the defendants having been laid off can engaged in strike action against the claimant that will disrupt the activities of the claimants/applicants. See OBEYA MEMORIAL SPECIALIST HOSPITAL supra. The claimants/applicants are in law required to show that balance of convenience is on their sides, that is, more justice will result in granting the application than refusing it. See MISSINI V BALODUN (1968) 1 ALL NLR 318. It is manifest from the averment in paragraph 3 of the supporting affidavit that the claimants are no longer members of staff of the claimants and they have all been paid their respective disengagement entitlement. Consequently, if the defendants are allowed to disrepute the business of the claimants such action will result in colossal loss that cannot be compensated in damages. The claimants have also by their paragraph 3(s) made an undertaking to damages. One of the most important factor in considering grant of interlocutory injunction is the preservation of res. It is the province of the law that the res should not be destroyed or annihilated before the judgment of the court, the res in this matter is the maintaining of status quo, so as to allow the claimants continue with their legal businesses without let or hindrance. See AKINPELU V ADEGBORE (2008) 4 SCNJ 238. It is to be noted that interlocutory order of injunction is not granted as a matter of course but to exercise its discretion judiciously and judicially based on the peculiar circumstances of the case. The discretion is not to be exercised to destroy the substratum in seeing that justice is not only done but must be manifestly done. See SOLUDO V OSIGBO (2009) 12 SCNJ 73. It is in the exercise of the discretionary power of this court judiciously and judicially that I hereby grant the application of the claimants/applicants for interlocutory order of injunction restraining the defendants/respondents, their agents, allies, and privies from entry, trespassing, accessing or forcefully entry into the premises, offices or precincts of the applicants or interfering, disturbing, creating labour unrest however whatsoever in the work place/office of the applicants or from parading themselves as staff of the applicants, pending the determination of this suit. The ruling entered accordingly. Sanusi Kado, Judge.