RULING. On 25/9/18 the defendants/applicants filed this motion on notice praying for: 1. An order of this Honourable Court scheduling this application for hearing a head of the determination of the claimant/respondent’s motion for interlocutory injunction earlier slated for ruling in the interest of justice. 2. An order of this Honourable Court ex debito justiciae discharging and vacating the interim orders of this Honourable Court made on 11th July 2018. 3. An order granting the applicant leave to file its counter affidavit and the written address in respect of the claimant/respondent’s motion on notice for interlocutory injunction dated the 6th day of June 2018, but filed on the 12th day of June 2018 out of time. 4. An order deeming the applicant’s counter-affidavit and written address as properly filed and served the necessary fees having been paid. 5. An order granting the applicant leave (in the interest of justice) to participate in the argument representing the 1st and 2nd defendants/applicants in respect of the application for interlocutory injunction brought by the claimant/respondent which is dated the 6th day of June 2018 but filed on the 12th day of June 2018, by way of adoption of their written address. 6. An order staying the execution of the interim orders of this Honourable Court pending the determination of this application. 7. And for such further order or orders as this Honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. The motion on notice was brought pursuant to order 17 Rule 2(3), 14 (6)-(9) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The application is supported by a 22 paragraphs affidavit with exhibits attached therein. A written address was also filed along with the motion on notice. Solomon Umoh, SAN, counsel for the defendants/applicants, in arguing the application relied on all the grounds for the application stated on the motion papers. Counsel also relied on all the deposition contained in the affidavit in support and the exhibits attached therein. The learned silk also adopted the written address filed as his argument. In the written address single issue was distilled for determination, to wit; ‘‘Whether the applicants’ application is meritorious and ought to be granted in the overwhelming interest of justice?. In arguing the issue for determination counsel submitted that the applicants’ application is meritorious and same ought to be granted. Counsel further argued that justice of this case requires that the applicants’ present motion on notice be scheduled for hearing by this Honourable Court prior to the determination of the respondent’s motion for interlocutory injunction already slated for ruling. In making this submission counsel relied on SECURITIES SOLUTIONS LIMITED & 2 ORS. V MRS. BIODUN IDOWU ADAMU-OLADIRAN & 2 ORS. (2016) ALL FWLR (PT.836) 520. Counsel also argued that Order 17 Rule 12(3) of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, allows granting of this kind of application. It is argued that though the present application and other processes filed by the defendants/applicants are belated, the reasons given for the delay in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of the affidavit in support of this application, will reveal that it will tantamount to throwing away the baby with the bath water, if this applicants’ present application is not accommodated and scheduled for hearing in the overwhelming interest of justice ahead of the determination of the respondent’s motion for interlocutory injunction already slated for ruling. It is the submission of counsel that the law remains inviolate that a court of law must at all-time be interested in where the justice of every case lies and it is not in doubt that this Honourable court can only come to the just determination of this case if the applicant is granted the leave to participate in all the processes and arguments involved in this case, especially the respondent’s motion for interlocutory injunction. On this submission counsel relies on BARRISTER ORIKER JEV & ANOR. V SEKAV DZUAIYORTOM & 2 ORS. (2016) ALL FWLR (PT.837) 760. On prayer two counsel submitted that the orders granted must have granted because only one side of the story was before the court, so there was no other way of evaluating the other side of the story. The applicants seek to discharge the order because the applicant was economical with the truth while seeking court’s intervention. It was further argued that paragraph 12 (u-V) of the applicants’ affidavit in support that the money that was deducted and the deduction were running before the respondent came to court. Counsel contended that was the status quo ante bellum. Counsel argued that grant of injunction has determined the substantive grievances in the substantive suit as well as application for interlocutory injunction. MRS. VIOLET OGUNRO & 4 OORS. V MRS. BLESSING DUKE (2006) ALL FWLR (PT.308) 1287. Counsel further contended that substantive issues bordering on the substantive suit, ought not to be determined at the interlocutory state as it was done where payers 1 and 2 in the respondent’s application for interlocutory injunction were granted. On this contention counsel relied on MRS. VIOLET OGUNRO & 4 ORS. V MRS. BLESSING DUKE (supra), UCHENNA AGBOGU & ANOR. V BENEDICT OKOYE (2008) ALL FWLR (PT.414) 1494, KOTOYE V CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (PT.98) 419, LEEDO PRESIDENTIAL MOTEL LTD V BANK OF THE NORTH LTD (1998) 7 SCNJ 328. It is argued by counsel that the claimant who retired voluntarily does not have the locus standi to obtain interim injunction against her former employers from deducting salaries that were paid to her while on retirement in error. Counsel maintained that this is a clear case of an abuse of court process as the action is wanting in good faith. Counsel contended that it will serve the interest of justice for this court to vacate and or discharge the orders earlier made on the 11th day of July 2018. This is because the orders made have the effect of determining the issues in in the substantive suit and the application for interlocutory injunction. This court has power to vacate the interim orders on ground of non-disclosure of some facts or has made misrepresentation in the course of securing the injunction. On prayers 3 and 4 counsel argued that by Order 17 Rule 1(10) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, (Civil Procedure) Act 2017, the applicants are entitled to file counter-affidavit to the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction as well as written address within 7 days. The applicants have failed to do so on this occasion and the explanation is that counsel was briefed after argument had been taken as per paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the affidavit in support of this application. Counsel submitted the delay in briefing counsel was as a result of the need to follow the bureaucratic procedures in appointing a counsel (an external solicitor) to represent the corporation in any case. Counsel prays the court for leave to file counter-affidavit already filed before the court and deemed same as properly filed and served. On this submission reliance was placed on the case of EJORKEKE V NWAFOR (2005) 15 NWLR (PT.1110) 418. Counsel urged the court to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicants and grant the application in the interest of justice. Counsel while relying on the cases of JOHN OLUKAYODE FAYEMI V OLUSEGUN ADEBAYO ONI & 16 ORS, (2009) ALL FWLR (PT.472) 1122 and the case of ATIKU ABUBAKAR V YAR’ADUA (2008) ALL FWLR (PT.404) 1409, and submitted that the court the trend is for court to forgive non-compliance in the interest of justice. Counsel also submitted that where good and cogent reasons are adduced court is obliged to grant the application. On this submission counsel cited the case of LAWAL V UBN PLC (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt.1102) 704. On prayer 5 counsel submitted that the claimant will not be prejudice, rather it will, serve interest of justice, being that the court will have the opportunity of hearing from both parties. It is argued all the applicants wants is exercise of their constitutional right to be heard before the determination of the respondent’s application for interlocutory injunction. On prayer 6 counsel submitted granting same will preserve the status quo ante bellem. Counsel further submitted that though there is no appeal the applicants have in their affidavit evidence shown existence of special and exceptional circumstances necessitating the grant of stay of execution of the interim order. In support of this contention counsel place reliance on the case of INCAR NIG. PLC V BOLEX NIG. LTD (1996) 8 NWLR (PT.469) 687. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to resolve the lone issue in favour of the applicants and grant the application in its entirety and in so doing discharge and or vacate the interim orders of this court made on 11/7/18. Counsel also urged the court to grant leave to the applicants to participate in the application for interlocutory injunction. RESPONSE BY THE CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT. In reaction to this application the claimant/respondent filed a 14 paragraphs affidavit with 6 annexures marked as exhibits A – F. A written address was also filed along with the counter-affidavit. Desiree Erugoh, Esq; counsel for the claimant/respondent in adumbration before the court relied on all the depositions contained in the affidavit in support and the exhibits attached therein. Counsel also adopted the written address as his argument. In the written address lone issue was formulated for determination, to wit; ‘‘Whether the instant application does not constitute an abuse of court process considering the fact that the claimant’s earlier application for interlocutory injunction dated 6th day of June 2018. Desiree Eruguh, Esq; replying argues per contra and submitted that having regards to the fact that the claimant/applicant’s application for interlocutory injunction had been argued and adjourned for ruling, the defendants/applicants’ application is an attempt to arrest the ruling of this Honourable court scheduled and reserved for ruling on the 4th of October 2018. Counsel further submitted that the procedure adopted by the defendants is unknown to the rules of this court and the jurisprudence of Nigeria. On this contention counsel placed reliance on the case of UKACHUKWU V PDP (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt.1435) 134, BELLVIEW AIRLINES LTD V CARTER HARRIS (PROPRIETARY) LTD (2016) LPELR-40989(CA), NEWSWATCH COMMUNICATIONS LTD V ATTA (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt.933) 144. Counsel submitted that the failure of the defendants to appear before the court after being aware of the case amount to abuse of court process. Counsel submitted reasons given for indolence in challenging the application are not compelling and unsubstantiated. Counsel also submitted order 17 rule 12(3) of the rules of this court being relied in bringing this application pending the delivery of ruling on interlocutory injunction application is inapplicable in the circumstances of this case and misconceived. The internal management operation of the defendants is not the business of the court and therefore cannot warrant the exercise of the court’s discretion in their favour. Counsel urged the court to discountenance this application. It is the submission of counsel that this court cannot discharge, vacate and/or stay the interim order of injunction made on 11/7/18, which restraint the defendants from further deducting the claimant’s pension. Counsel submitted once court has given an order the court no longer has jurisdiction or competence to give another decision order on the same matter as it becomes functus officio and no longer has power of self-review on the issue already decided. This court cannot sit on appeal to set aside, vacate or discharge the order already made. The court cannot or reopen its order for any purpose save for correction of typographical errors or clerical mistakes. UKACHUKWU V UBA (2005) 18 NWLR (pt.956) 1, OGBARU V IBORI (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt.942) 319, SUN INSURANCE V LMBS LTD (2005) 12 NWLR (940) 608. It is argued that a party can only apply to court to set aside an order if it was made without jurisdiction, existence of fraud and lack of service of process on the party. TECHNIP V AIC LTD & ORS. (2015) LPELR-25386 (CA). it is trite court cannot has no power under any application in an action to alter or vary a judgment or order after it has been uttered or drawn up, except so far as is necessary to correct errors in expressing the intention of the court or under slip rule’ ANATAGO V IWEKA (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt.415) 547. Counsel also submitted an order can only be stayed if there is a valid appeal against the order. T. S. A. IND LTD V KEMA INV LTD (20046) 2 NWLR (pt.964) 300. Counsel argued that grant of this application is not in the interest of justice. Counsel contented interest of justice is not a magic wand, one way traffic that can be bandied upon by the party. Justice is three way traffic. Counsel submitted equity does not aid the indolent. The defendant filed a reply on points of law wherein it was contended by counsel that all the argument of the claimant are misconceived, misleading, pedestrian, speculative and tenuous. Counsel submitted that this application is not an abuse of court process which aimed at arresting the ruling of this court. Counsel submitted that this application is aimed at giving the defendants opportunity to present their side of the story. COURT’S DECISION Having regard to the prayers being sought on the motion papers, the lone issue formulated by the applicant will adequately dispose of this application. I therefore adopt the lone issue in determination of this application. However, before resolving the issue for determination, I shall start by disposing of certain misconception regarding the whether the present application is unknown to law or the jurisprudence of this country. The claimant/respondent argued strenuously that the procedure adopted by the defendants is unknown to the rules of this court and the jurisprudence of Nigeria. On this contention counsel placed reliance on the case of UKACHUKWU V PDP (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt.1435) 134, BELLVIEW AIRLINES LTD V CARTER HARRIS (PROPRIETARY) LTD (2016) LPELR-40989(CA), NEWSWATCH COMMUNICATIONS LTD V ATTA (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt.933) 144. Counsel also submitted that Order 17 rule 12(3) of the rules of this court being relied in bringing this application pending the delivery of ruling on interlocutory injunction application is inapplicable in the circumstances of this case and misconceived. It is pertinent at this juncture to make a quick points. The counsel for the claimant/respondent has in support of his submission that this application is unknown to law cited the case of UKACHUKWU V PDP (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt.1435) 134,where counsel came up with a quotation attributed to his Lordship Honourable Justice Onnoghen, J.S.C (as he then was) now C. J. N. A careful perusal of the said judgment reveals that His Lordship Honourable Justice Onnoghen, CJN never sat in the panel that decided the case of UKACHUKWU V PDP. In fact, the justies of the Supreme Court that sat in that appeal were Mahmud Muhammed, J. S. C. (Presiding), Christopher Mitchel Chukwuma-Eneh, J. S. C., Clara Bata Ogunbiyi, J. S. C., Kumai Bayang Akhaas, J. S. C., and Kudirat Motomori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, J. S. C. (Read the lead Judgment). I am at a loss, therefore, where counsel to the claimant/respondent got the quotation cited from. This smacks of an attempt to mislead the court. This is unethical, unprofessional and unacceptable; and so must in strong terms be condemned. Having made this point I now turn to the proposition that this application is unknown to law or jurisprudence of Nigeria. The position taken by the counsel for the claimant/respondent on this application clearly shows deliberate negation of well settled principle of law that permit bringing of this kind of application. See Order 17 of the Rules of this court. The rules of this court having allowed bringing of this application is a pointer to the fact that the application is known to law and jurisprudence of this country. I now turn to the merit of this application. In prayer one of the motion on notice, the respondents/applicants is seeking for scheduling of this application for hearing. The prayer being a request for hearing of this application is overtaken by event with hearing of this application on 11/10/18, the prayer has therefore become otiose, moot and considering it will be an academic exercise, which courts are enjoined not to embark upon. Prayer one having been found to be otiose due to the hearing of this application is hereby dismissed. The applicant has also urged this court to grant prayers 2, of the motion on notice, i.e discharge or vacate the interim order of injunction made on 11/7/18 on the ground that it was made after hearing only one side of the story and that the claimant/respondent was economical to truth while seeking court’s intervention. Counsel submitted the order operates to effectively substantially determine the respondent’s grievances in the substantive suit/complaint as well as the application for interlocutory injunction. The respondent on the other hand argued that the defendants deliberately refused to appear before the court. It need to be stated here that this court and indeed all superior courts of record have inherent jurisdiction to grant an interim order of injunction. See section 6(6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended). The rationale behind granting of interim order of injunction is for the preservation of the res from being damaged or loss. An interim order of injunction is a temporary order of non-permanency, pending hearing of application for interlocutory injunction or to last for a specified named date. The rationale is that if the order is not made the delay may cause irretrievable or serious mischief. The feature that distinguished this order with interlocutory order is that it is made for preservation of status qou until a named date, or until further order or until an application on notice can be heard. Therefore it is not in violation of the right of the party affected since the party will be accorded right of hearing in determining interlocutory application for the injunctive order. See LAWRENCE S. U. AZUH V UNION BANK PLC ((2014) LPELR-22913(SC). The rules of this court have clearly provided that an application to vacate or discharge an interim order of injunction should be made within 7 days from the date of service of the order. From the record of the court the interim order of injunction was on 18/7/18, served on the defendant/applicants and this application was brought on 25/9/18, from the date of service of the order on the defendants/applicants to the date of filing of this application is a period of two Months eight days which is more than 7 days allowed for the defendants/applicants to apply to have the order discharged or varied. See Order 17 Rule 14(6) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, (civil Procedure) Rules 2017. The prayer for discharge or variation having been made after the period of 7 days have elapsed is incompetent it is hereby struck our accordingly. The respondents/applicants vide prayers 3, 4 and 5 are seeking for leave to file counter-affidavit and written address in respect of the claimant/respondent’s motion on notice for interlocutory injunction dated 6/6/18, and to also allow the defendants/applicants argue their response. The counter-affidavit and the written address were filed out of time on 12/6/18. The defendants/applicants are also praying for deeming the respondents/applicants counter-affidavit and written address as properly filed and served. As rightly submitted by the defendants/applicants vide Order 17 Rule 1(10) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure Rules, 2017, the defendants/applicants have 7 days within which to file counter-affidavit to the claimant/respondent’s motion on notice for interlocutory injunction from the date of service. From the record of the court the defendant/applicants were served on 3/7/18 with the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction. But, the respondents/applicants having filed their counter-affidavit and written address on 25/9/18, did not file their processes within the 7 days period as required by law. By virtue of Order 57 Rule 4(1) and (2) of the rules of this court, this court has the requisite power to grant extension of time or abridge time for filing of counter –affidavit on good cause shown. The question to be asked now is has the defendants/applicants vide their affidavit evidence shown good cause to warrant exercise of discretionary power of this court in their favour. Counsel relied heavily on paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 as the reasons why there was delay in filing of counter-affidavit. The law is well settled that reasons for delay to warrant exercise of discretionary power in favour of an applicant must be substantial enough. By the averments in the paragraphs being relied upon for grant of this application, it was stated that the legal department of the 1st defendant/applicant after review of the processes sought for approval to engage Solomon Umoh (SAN) & Co; as external solicitors to defend the interest of the applicants in this matter. This to my mind is not sufficient good reasons for the defendants/applicants not to have at least appeared in court on the 11/7/18 when the claimant’s motion on notice for interlocutory injunction was heard or send a letter explaining their absence in court due to the alleged issue of engagement of counsel. The legal Department being manned by lawyers ought to know the importance of appearance before the court when a matter was slated for hearing. The law is well settled that an affidavit filed after commencement of an application should be disallowed and discountenanced. See MAJORAH V FASASSI (1985) 5 NWLR (PT.40) 39, RAMON V JINADU (1985) 5 NWLR (PT.39) 1000, NWADIOGBU V A. I. R. B. D. A. (2010) 19 NWLR (PT.1226) 364. However, the court may use its discretionary power to allow such affidavit depending on the prevailing circumstances of the case. See NWEKE V ORJI (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt.140). In my view the defendants/applicants having failed to convince this court that the process of securing approval to engage caused was the reason for failure to file counter-affidavit and coupled with the facts that argument had been concluded and ruling had been fixed, clearly shows that the interest of justice will not allow for granting of this application because doing so will overreach the claimant/respondent. The defendants/applicants were given ample opportunity to be heard by being served with the originating processes commencing this suit, the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction as well as hearing notices for the hearing of the application for interlocutory injunction. But, did not deemed it necessary to act within time. In the circumstance prayers 3 4 and 5 are not meritorious and are hereby dismissed. The respondents/applicants have also applied for stay of execution of the order made on 11/7/18, pending the determination of this application. This prayer like prayer one above has been overtaken by event with hearing of this application. It has now become moot and academic. Courts are enjoined not to engage in academic exercise but deal with live issues. See D. E. N. R. V TRANS INT’L BANK LTD (2008) 18 NWLR (PT.1119) 388, ADEOGUN & ANOR. V FASHOGBON & ORS. (2008) 17 NWLR (PT.1115) 149, , FRN V DAIRO & ORS (2015) LPELR-24303(SC), courts having been advised not spend precious time judicial time on issues that are academic. This pray fails and is hereby dismissed. At the end the sole issue for determination is resolved against the respondents/applicants, as the claimants have not been able to convince this court of their entitlement to the prayers contained in this application. The application is hereby dismissed for lacking in merit. Sanusi Kado, Judge.