RULING. This deals with an application for Interlocutory Injunction brought pursuant to Order 22 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, and under the inherent jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. The application is supported by an 11 paragraphs affidavit and ehibits attached therein. The Applicant also filed a written address along with the application for interlocutory injunction. In the written address Counsel for the Applicant submitted lone issue for determination to wit: ‘‘whether from the facts placed before your Lordship, the Applicant is entitled to the grant of the orders sought herein’’. ARGUMENT In arguing the sole issue for determination, Desiree Eruguh, Esq; counsel for the Claimant/Applicant submitted that an interlocutory injunction is an equitable remedy which is made to preserve the res pending the determination of a suit or to prevent a breach. The Courts have re-iterated that an interlocutory injunction serves to protect the plaintiff against injury or harm done to him for which he cannot be adequately compensated in damages. The National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, contemplated the need to protect the subject matter of a suit in the event of a looming destruction, when the Rules made provisions for Applicant(s) to restrain Respondent(s) from inflicting further injury on the res. The implication thereof is that this Honourable Court has the competence to protect the Applicant's lawful retirement benefits pending the determination of the substantive suit. To support this contention counsel relied on A. G. & COMMISSONER FOR JUSTICE ANAMBRA STATE & ORS V. OKAFOR & ORS (1992) LPELR-SC.172/1988 It is contended that in the instant case, the Applicant has declared in paragraph 4(b) of the her Affidavit that the 2nd Respondent deducted the sum of N1,200,000.00 from the Applicant's pension for the month of April and May 2018, as evidenced in Exhibit 4 which is annexed to the affidavit in support of the application. Counsel submitted that it is in respect of the 2nd Respondent's deduction of the sum of N1,200,000.00 which is heinously aimed at financially traumatizing the Applicant, that the Applicant herein has commenced this action and has brought this application to restrain the 2nd Respondent from further deducting the N43,009,593.13 or any other sums whatsoever from the lawful retirement benefits of the Applicant pending the determination of the substantive suit. It is the contention of Counsel that the conduct of the 2nd Respondent as can be gleaned from the Applicant's affidavit in support of this application has caused the Applicant serious financial trauma, grave inconvenience and considerable distress. It is the submission of counsel that the courts have in a plethora of cases laid down the principles guiding the grant of an interlocutory injunction. On this issue reliance was placed on the case of ACHEBE V. MBANEFO & ANOR (2017) LPELR- 41884 (CA), MUHAMMADU BUHARI & ORS V. CHIEF OLUSEGUN AREMU OBASANJO & ORS (2003) 17 NWLR (pt.850) 587. Counsel contended that the Claimant/Applicant has satisfied the requirements for the grant of an interlocutory injunction in her favour. Legal Right Counsel submitted that from the supporting affidavit, more particularly paragraph 3(f) and also paragraph 36 of the Statement of Claim that the Applicant is a retiree of the 1st Respondent whose retirement benefits/pension has been maliciously deducted by the 2nd Respondent without any justification whatsoever. The Applicant has established that there is a pending suit before this Honourable Court wherein the Applicant and Respondents are parties. The Applicant has also averred that 2nd Respondent's sole intent of deducting the sum of N43,009,593.13 is to financially disorganize the Applicant and also to cause the Applicant grave inconvenience and financial distress. The Applicant opines that if the 2nd Respondent is not restrained, the Applicant's retirement benefits will be adversely affected, and the Court's eventual judgment may be rendered nugatory. On this proposition Counsel relied on the case of A.-G., Lagos State v. A.-G., Fed (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt.904)1. In view of the above, we humbly submit that the Applicant has established the existence of a legal right which she seeks to protect before your Lordship. Balance of Convenience It is the submission of Counsel that in determining the balance of convenience, the court looks at who will suffer greater harm or hardship if the application is refused or granted. In the case of EDOSOMWAN V. EREBOR (2011) 13 NWLR (pt.730) 265 at 290-291, the Court of Appeal held that in determining where the balance of convenience is, the trial court is expected to pose a question-"Who will suffer more inconvenience if the application is not granted?" It is contended that from the facts of the case before the Court the 2nd Respondent's continuing deductions from the Applicant's retirement benefits will cause the Applicant grave financial loss, inconvenience and considerable distress. Counsel submitted that it is a necessity that this Honourable Court should protect the Applicant's retirement benefits from the 2nd Respondent's continuing financial torment. It is contended that the balance of convenience is in favour of the Applicant and indeed granting this application will not prejudice the 2nd Respondent in any manner. Urgency. It is settled law that for an interlocutory injunction to be granted, the Applicant must satisfy the court that there is an urgent need to prevent the res from further harm or injury. We refer your Lordship to the case of MUHAMMADU BUHARI & ORS V. CHIEF OLUSEGUN AREMU OBASANJO & ORS (2003) 17 NWLR (pt.850) 587. The 2nd Respondent has deducted the sum of N1,200,OOO.00 from the Applicant's retirement benefits and there is urgent need to restrain the 2nd Respondent's from further deducting the sum of N43,009,593.13 from the Applicant's retirement benefits. The 2nd Respondent's malicious deduction has caused the Applicant continuing financial trauma, grave inconvenience and considerable distress. Thus, by this application, the Applicant is seeking to restrain the 2nd Respondent from deducting the sum of N43,009,593.13 from her retirement benefits/pension. Damages We humbly submit that if the Honourable Court does not grant this interlocutory injunction, the Applicant's retirement benefits/pension will be adversely affected. My Lord, if the 2nd Respondent is not restrained by the grant of this interlocutory injunction, the Applicant will lose her retirement benefits/pension. It is submitted that the harm done to the Applicant's retirement benefits/pension cannot be adequately compensated in damages. It is based on this premise that we urge your Lordship to restrain the 2nd Respondent before the situation degenerates. It is argued that the 2nd Respondent's continuing deductions of the Applicant's retirement benefits/pension would be irredeemable, may cause the Applicant's loss of accommodation, loss of asset, ill health and loss of life. Establishment of Substantial Issue to be tried The position of the law is that the Applicant is not supposed to establish the fact that he will attain success but rather, that he has a legal right to seek redress and there is a triable issue. It is submitted that the Supreme Court re-emphasized this principle in the case of SARAKI VS. KOTOYE (1990) NWLR (pt.144) 281. Flowing from above, and based on documents placed before your Lordship, it is submitted that the Applicant has established a right to seek redress against the 2nd Respondent before your Lordship and the Applicant has placed triable and germane issues before this Honourable Court. Conduct of Parties It is submitted that the Applicant has not delayed in bringing this application. The 2nd Respondent's unscrupulous act of deducting the sum of N43,009,593.13 from the Applicant's retirement benefits/pension. Before bringing this action, the Applicant attempted to persuade the 2nd Respondent to desist from tormenting and/or harassing the Applicant or making deductions from her retirement benefits/pension to no avail. Please see Exhibit 5. Thus, by bringing this application, the Applicant is seeking to protect retirement benefits/pension from the 2nd Respondent malicious deductions and financial torment. It is argued that the Applicant cannot be accused of delay in bringing this application. Undertaking as to Damages In paragraph 7 of the Applicant's affidavit in support of this application, the Applicant gave an undertaking as to damages, in line with the authority of the Supreme Court in Kotoye Vs. CBN & Ors, (1989) 1 NWLR (pt. 98) at 419. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to protect the res pending the determination of the suit before it. Furthermore, it is submitted that based on the facts placed before the court the Applicant has established the conditions for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. Consequently, counsel urged the Court to grant the instant application as prayed. COURT’S DECISION This ruling was earlier fixed to be delivered on 4/10/18, but it was postponed due an application by the defendants seeking to be granted leave to argue in opposition. With the disposal of the said application, the ruling on the interlocutory application for injunction can be delivered. This application is being considered based on the case and argument put forward by the Claimant/Applicant. The reason being that the Defendants/Respondents have failed or neglected to respond to the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction within the time permitted by law, despite evidence showing that they have been served with the processes so far filed in this suit. From the record in the case file the defendants were on 13/6/18 served with the originating processes commencing this suit. Likewise hearing notice of the 11/7/18, sitting of the Court was served on the defendants/applicants on 3/7/18. The present application is calling for the exercise of discretionary power of the court and like every other discretionary power it has to be exercised judicially and judiciously in line with well established guidelines/principles. The circumstances that are relevant to the exercise of discretion to grant an interlocutory injunction are those that shows that the Applicant has a legal right in the res that is entitled to legal or equitable protection, that there is an urgent need to preserve the status quo antebellum pending the determination of the case to prevent an irreparable damage of the res, that the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant, that there is a live and serious question to be tried in the suit, that the conduct of the applicant is not reprehensible in any respect, that damages would not adequately compensate any destruction of the res that would have occurred at the final determination of the case and that the applicant has given satisfactory undertaking to pay damages should his suit fail. The above have through the cases evolved as the judicially recognized and established valid reasons for the grant of an order of interlocutory injunction. See AKAPO V HAKEEM-HABEEB & ORS (1992) 7 SCNJ 119, MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR F(1987) 3 NWLR (PT.60) 325HA V ARO (10991) 1 SCNJ 154, BUHARI V OBASANJO & ORS (2003) 11 SC 74, KOTOYE V CBN (1989) 2 SC (PT.1) 1 AND OBEYA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL V A-G OF THE FEDERATION (1987) 3 NWLR (pt.60) 325. It is trite law that interlocutory injunction is not granted as a matter of grace, routine or course. On the contrary the injunction is granted only in deserving cases, based on hard law and facts. The decision granting an order of interlocutory injunction must include as the reasons for it, that the applicant has a legal right or interest in the res of the case that is entitled to legal or equitable protection, that there is a serious and live issue to be tried in the case, that unless the status quo ante bellum is urgently preserved, the res would suffer injury that cannot be compensated by an award of damages, that the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant and the reasons must be supported by the facts in the record of the court. The decision must through a sound reasoning process demonstrate a rational connection between the facts before the court, the reasons given for the decision and the decision. From the prayers in this application the claimant is seeking for grant of an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from further deducting N1,200,000.00 from the claimant’s pension account with Stanbic IBTC Bank. At this juncture, an examination of the affidavit evidence the facts relevant to the determination of this application is necessary. The Claimant/Applicant was employed by the 1st Defendant vide letter dated 21/11/1991, as a catering Assistant the claimant’s appointment was confirmed after serving for 12 month vide letter dated 25/3/1993. The claimant also aver that she was given approval of study with to acquire Advance Higher diploma in hotel management at the West London College, UK. However, after completion of the advanced higher diploma and notification of the additional qualification, the 1st defendant refused to advance the claimant with her newly acquired qualification, thereby denied the claimant opportunity of being upgraded. The claimant aver that the 1st claimant unlawfully and constructively terminated the claimant’s employment by compelling the claimant to resign under duress. On 16/2/15. Vide exhibit 3 the 1st defendant informed the claimant of system error that led to the payment of salaries and allowances from 17/5/15 to 30/9/17 to the tune of N43,009,593.13 through the claimant’s Stanbic IBTC Bank account no. 9202336370. The claimant was advised to remit the money back to the 1st defendant and obtain receipt. From the above facts as contained in the affidavit evidence in support the claimant contended that the claimant has established legal right to pension and balance of convenience is in her favour and refusal to grant injunction will affect the claimant financially in taking care of her accommodation and children. It is clear from the facts as disclosed in the affidavit evidence what triggered this application exhibit 3 attached to the affidavit in support wherein the 1st defendant claimed that the claimant was erroneously due to system error paid salaries and allowances from 17/5/15 to 30/9/17, amounting to the sum of N43,009,593.13. The 1st defendant advised the claimant to make refund or the said amount will be deducted from her pension. The claimant alleged that the sum of N1,200,000.00 each was deducted from her account for the months of April and May 2018. The statement of account was attached to the affidavit evidence as exhibit 4. It may be correct to say there is triable issue to be trashed at the substantive hearing of the suit. However, that is not enough reason for granting injunction. The claimant must by facts convince the court that balance of convenience is in her favour and that payment of damages cannot be adequate compensation if at the end of trial the case turns out in favour of the clamant. In determining issue of balance of convenience, I have taken a hard look at exhibit 4 the statement of account of the claimant, I have not been able to find deduction of N1,200,000.00 which the claimant alleged deducted for April and May 2018 by the 2nd defendant. What emerges from the examination of the statement of account is the fact that there are payment made for the claimant’s pension up to May 2018. In view of this finding I am of the view that the balance of convenience is not in favour of the claimant. Furthermore, it is evident from the facts as disclosed in the pleadings of the claimant and the affidavit in support that the claimant resigned her appointment with the defendant with effect from 17/5/15, as from 17/5/18, the claimant will not be entitled to receive monthly salary. The sum of N43,009,593.13, which was the salaries of the claimant from 17/5/15 to 30/9/17, raises a triable issue before the court regarding the person entitled to the said amount in controversy. To my mind there is yet to be establish by the legal right to the said money. There is therefore doubt as to the legal right of the claimant to the said sums of money which is the subject of the alleged deduction. On damages, I am of the firm belief that payment of damages will be adequate compensation if at the end it was found out that the claimant is entitled to her claims. This view is fortified by the fact that in labour and employment cases have ascertained damages payable in case of breach. In the light of the above discussion the claimant’s application for injunction fails and is hereby dismissed for lacking in merit. Sanusi Kado, Judge.