JUDGMENT: 1. This action was commenced via Originating Motion dated 8/7/2019 and filed on the same day, by the Judgment Debtors/Applicants. The Originating Motion was brought pursuant to section 12 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006, Order 58 Rules 24, Order 3 Rule 3 (c), Order 17 Rule 3(c) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. In the Originating Motion two questions were submitted for determination. They are:- 1. Whether having regard to the nature and circumstances of this case, a direction of the court is not required to enable the judgment Debtors/Applicants comply with the judgment in the spirit and terms of the same and whether the court ought not to exercise jurisdiction to do so in the overall interest of administration of justice. 2. Whether this Honourable court ought not to restrain the enforcement of the said judgment pending the determination of the application seeking decision in respect of the self same judgment. 2. In anticipation of favourable consideration of the questions for resolution, the judgment Debtors/Applicants, prays for:- 1. An order of this Honourable court for direction as to the methodology/parameters for the computation and assessment of the sum which the Respondent is bound to pay to the Judgment Creditor/Respondent under the judgment of Honourable Justice E. N. Agbakoba made on the 24th day of October 2017 and affirmed by the Court of Appeal in its Judgment delivered on the 11th April 2019. 2. An order of injunction restraining the judgment Creditor/Respondent from enforcing of Honourable Justice E. N. Agbakoba made on the 24th day of October 2017, and affirmed by the Court of Appeal in its Judgment delivered on the 11th April 2019, in any manner whatsoever whether by way of writ of Fieri Facies, Garnirshee proceedings, charging order, a writ of Sequestration, an order for committal on judgment summons or any order (sic) means whatsoever until final determination of this application by the court. 3. And for such further order or other orders as this Honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. 3. The grounds for seeking the above reliefs are; a) The applicant is bound to honour and obey the judgment of the Honourable Justice E. N. Agbakoba made on the 24th day of October 2017 and affirmed by the Court of Appeal in its Judgment delivered on the 11th April 2019. b) The judgment of this Honourable court did not state clearly how much the judgment Debtors/Applicants is to pay to the judgment Creditor/Respondent but merely directs the judgment Debtor/Applicant to assess and pay full pension to the respondent. c) The judgment of this Honourable court which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal does not contain any methodology/parameters for the computation of the full pension to be paid to the judgment creditor. d) This Honourable court stated as follows; the claimant has not put before the court his entitlement to pension or the basis to which he made the claim’’. e) The Judgment Creditor is desirous of obeying the order of the court but is constrained by the lack of methodology/parameters for the computation of same. f) The claimant has already been paid his contributory pension in terms of exhibits D3 and D4, which fact is acknowledged in the judgment. g) There is lacuna and gap as to what yardstick to be used in assessment/computation of the pension. h) There is need for direction of this Honourable court as to what should constitute parameters of assessment. i) This application is brought in good faith. 4. The Originating Motion is supported by a 23 paragraphs affidavit sworn to by one Ahmed Rufai Khalid, the Manager in charge of Litigation and Property law Department of the 1st Judgment Debtor/Applicants. The averments in the affidavit in support are rehash of the grounds for the application. 5. In compliance with the rules of this court the Originating Motion was accompanied by a written address. Uye Okon, Esq; counsel for the Judgment Debtors/Applicants in adumbration informed the court that he is relying on averments contained in the affidavit in support as well as the reply affidavit. Counsel also adopted the written address filed along with the motion on notice as his argument. 6. In arguing question one, counsel contended that the judgment Debtors/Applicants are not seeking for a judicial review of the judgment delivered by this court on 24/10/2017. Counsel argued that it is trite law that parties are bound to obey court orders that are clear and unambiguous, notwithstanding the fact that the order may be wrong. According to counsel in the case at hand the judgment Debtors/Applicants are praying the court to make order giving directions on the modality or parameters for the assessment of the judgment creditors pension benefit having regard to the failure of the court to make specific pronouncement in respect thereof. This is because the court itself had found that there is nothing before the court to base the assessment. For if there was the court would have done so by itself. Counsel referred to pages 14 and 15 of exhibit one where in the judgment it was stated ‘’there is nothing before the court and which to base such a relief likewise at page 16, the court held ‘’the claimant has not put before the court his entitlement to pension or the basis on which he makes the claim. He was however, quick to add that the court of Appeal under section 16 of the court of Appeal Act has power that it could have invoked had it seen any evidence on record for the computation of the said pension. 7. Counsel admitted absence of specific rules of court allowing bringing an application of this nature for assessment of sum due on a judgment, there are several provisions both in the Enabling Act and the rules that vests the court with power to do substantial justice in every matter before it. 8. Section 12 of the national Industrial Court Act and Order 58 Rule 24 of the rules of this court provides that where a matter arises in respect of which no provisions or adequate provision is made in these rules or any other written law, the court may adopt such similar procedure as will in its view do substantial justice between or amongst parties. 9. By Order 17 Rule 3 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, provides:- 10. ‘’Any other application for directions that may be sought from the court’’. 11. It is submitted by counsel that there are innumerable authorities in English law showing that all orders of the court carry with them inherent liberty to apply to the court to seek clarification. On this submission counsel relied on the cases of Fritz V Hobson (1880) 14 ChD 542 @ 561, per Fry J. following Viney V Chaplin (1858) 3 De G & J 282; Chandless-Chandless V Nicholson (1942) 2 KB 321, (1942) 2 ALL ER 315 @ 317, See Keven V Crawforfd (1877) 6 ChD 29 at 42 Pawley V Pawley (1905) 1 Ch 593. Counsel also recommended the position of the learned Author of Halsbury Laws of England at page 30, paragraph 1228 in its 4th Edition Volume 37: 12. Counsel also argued that the rule on court becoming functus officio after delivery of judgment admits of an exception where an application is brought to the same court for the review of the same judgment for purposes of making it clear and enforceable. The directive being sought is needed on the modality in which the computation of the judgment creditors pension benefits is to be made so as not to occasion miscarriage of justice since the judgment creditors terminal benefit have long been paid with his pension contributions. 13. In arguing question two, on injunction, counsel submitted that there is uncertainty as to the parameter for assessment of what has been adjudged due to the Judgment Creditors/Respondent. As at date there is no fixed judgment sum due to the judgment Creditor/Respondent as the judgment itself did not put any particular sum or the parameters for arriving at any sum. The application seeks the determination and direction as to those parameters in other to fill the lacuna created. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the ‘’res’’ must be preserved to enable the court give that direction. This court possesses jurisdiction and powers to preserve the ‘’res’’ of a matter pending the determination of this application. 14. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to grant the application as refusal will not be in the interest of justice. 15. In reaction to the Originating Motion, the Judgment Creditor/Respondent filed a 20 paragraphs affidavit sworn to by one Cynthia Ukwu, one of the counsel in the law firm of Baldwin & Company representing the Judgment Creditor/Respondent, wherein it was stated that there exist a clear methodology or parameters for computing the pension benefits accruing to the judgment Debtor/Applicant called the NNPC Corporate Policy & Procedure Guide (CPPA) tendered by the same Judgment Debtors/Applicants which was admitted as exhibit D-2 during the trial of the suit. Both the sum payable and the method applicable for assessing same are all well known to the Judgment Debtor/Applicant having been performing these obligations to their qualified retired staff over the years. The corporate policy and procedures of the 1st defendant is clear in the methodology for assessing the pension benefits of retired staff including the Judgment Creditor/Respondent. 16. There are also averment as to what the pension benefit of the Judgment Creditor/Respondent is, his contributions which are for investment on behalf of Judgment Creditor/Respondent. 17. The office of the counsel for the Judgment Creditor/Respondent contracted Ernest O. Abegbe & Co, Chartered Accountants & Consultants to compute his pension benefits so far in line with the condition of service and the judgment of this court and the computed pension benefit was attached as exhibit DAN 5. 18. That there is no lacuna or gap as to the yardstick for computing the pension benefits of the Judgment Creditor/Respondent rather the Judgment Debtors/Applicants have refused to accept the judgment of this court and the Court of Appeal to the effect that Judgment Creditor/Respondent is entitled to full pension benefit under the condition of service. 19. In oral adumbration counsel relied on the depositions contained in the 20 paragraphs counter affidavit and the five documents attached to the counter affidavit as exhibits. Counsel also adopted the written address filed along with the counter-affidavit as his argument. 20. In arguing question for resolution counsel contended that the judgment of this court which was affirmed by the court of Appeal, is not ambiguous as the orders made by the court via judgment is express and clear and actually require no further direction. 21. Counsel submitted that the Judgment Debtors/Applicants are only being economical with the truth when they stated in the grounds of this application and affidavit supporting their Originating Motion that ‘’they are desirous of obeying the order of the court but is constrained by the lack of methodology/parameters for the computation of same’’. According to counsel this can never be the truth as all that the Judgment Debtors/Applicants are required to do is to compute the pension benefits of the Judgment Creditor/Respondent which is readily at their disposal as expressly stated in the statement of this court. As the Judgment Debtors/Applicants were ordered to immediately assess and pay Judgment Creditor his full pension benefits pursuant to the contract of employment from approved date of retirement in the letter of 4th April 2016. According to counsel the contract of employment is the letter of employment and conditions of service both admitted in evidence during the trial of this case as exhibits C3 and D2, respectively. All these documents emanated from the Judgment Debtors/Applicants. Counsel submitted the relevant paragraph of the condition of service is paragraph 44.1.1 and 44.1.3 which deal with pension. 22. It is submitted by virtue of the judgment of this court which reinstated the letter of 4th April 2016 and also approved pension benefits for the Judgment Creditor/Respondent the Judgement Creditor served for 10 years and is entitled for life to 30% of his terminal base salary in line with the contract of employment which is spelt out in paragraphs 44.1.1 and 44.1.3 of the NNPC Corporate Policy & Procedure Guide. 23. It is contended that exhibit DAN 1 which is the last pay certificate has shown the total terminal base salary of the Judgment Creditor/Respondent and exhibit DAN 5 has shown annual entitlement of the judgment creditor/respondent fir life. 24. Counsel also contended that the Judgment Debtors/Applicants maintain a pension scheme for its staff in line with the conditions of service where it invests the pension contributions of the staff for their benefits and have always computed and paid these pension benefits to qualifying staff after retirement. However, it does appear that even after the judgment of this court and the affirmation by the Court of Appeal, the Judgment Debtors/Applicants have refused to accept the reality that the Judgment Creditor is entitled to full pension benefits and rather chose to continue to operate in delusion that the Judgment Creditor/Respondent is not entitled as declared. 25. It is the contention of counsel that Judgment Creditor is not entitled to any pension contributions refund but rather to the payment of his full pension benefits for life as ordered by the court. 26. It is the submission of counsel that this application is not one of the applications contemplated by section 12 of the National Industrial Court Act and Order 58 Rule 24 of the rules of this court. Counsel argued there cannot be provisions in the law establishing this court or the rules of this court for computation or assessment of pension benefits entitlements of a retiree when the contract of employment of such retiree has expressly provided for same. The English authorities cited are not applicable. The judgment of the court is meant to be obeyed and not toyed with as the Judgment Debtors/Applicants are doing in this application. To support this contention counsel relied on the cases of Honourable Minister of FCT & Anor. V Mononi Hotel (Nig.) Ltd (2010) LPELR-4257. 27. It is also the contention of counsel that there must be an end to litigation. Newswatch Communications Ltd V Alhaji Aliyu Ibrahim Atta (2006) LPELR-1986, Fayose V State (2010) LPELR-8658. 28. Counsel urged the court to hold there is nothing to direct as regarding methodology or parameters for assessing the pension benefits of the Judgment Creditor/Respondent as the said parameters are all clearly spelt out in the contract of employment which emanated from the Judgment Debtors/Applicants. 29. Counsel argued in the alternative that if the Judgment Debtors/Applicants do not know how to compute the pension benefits of the Judgment Creditor/Respondent the court should direct the Judgment Debtors/Applicants to go by the computation in exhibit DAN 5. 30. On question two; counsel submitted that it is not in the habit of court to retrain a successful party from reaping fruit of his judgment. Appeal against decision of court showing special circumstances is the only ground for stay of execution of judgment of court. In support of this contention counsel relied on the decision in the case of Julius Oba Fatoyinbo n& ors. V Michael Dada Osadeyi & Anor. (2002) 10 MJSC 140 @ 146. The applicants have exhausted their right of appeal but are still unwilling to obey the judgment of the court to retrain the Judgment Creditor/Respondent from enforcing the judgment of the court. 31. Counsel contended judgment creditor is entitled to cost, as cost follow event and judgment creditor has been made to suffer unnecessarily since exiting the service of the judgment debtors/applicants. 32. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court dismiss this application with substantial cost or ordered the applicants to adopt the computation of the judgment creditor/respondent with cost and pay him forthwith. COURT’S DECISION: 33. I have considered the Originating Motion, the Counter-affidavit in opposition, the Reply Affidavit and the written and oral submission of counsel for both parties for and against the Originating Motion. 34. Before delving into the substantive suit, I shall endeavour to thrash out one or two very salient preliminary issues raised in the addresses of counsel which borders on competency of this action. 35. The counsel for the Judgment Debtors/Applicants has in his argument raised doubt as to the procedure he adopted in bringing this action before the court. Counsel has at paragraph 4.6 of the written address adopted as his argument in this suit, submitted that whilst there seems not to be any specific provisions in the rules of this court allowing for an application for assessment of sum due on the judgment, there are several provisions both in the enabling Act and the Rules that vest the court with powers to do substantial justice in every matter before the court. Counsel referred to section 12 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 and Order 58 Rule 24 of the rules of this court, where it provides where a matter arises in respect of which no provisions or adequate provisions is made in these rules or any other written law, the court may adopt such similar procedure as will in its view do substantial justice between or amongst the parties. 36. Counsel also cited and relied on Order 17 Rules 3 of the Rules of this court which provides ‘any other application for direction that may be sought from the court. Counsel also placed reliance on English decision to press home his point that though no specific provisions is made for this kind of reliefs he is seeking, the court never the less has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this action as commenced by Originating Motion. 37. The counsel for the Judgment Creditor/Respondent on his part at paragraph 3.8 of his written address has argued that this application by the Judgment Debtors/Applicants is not one of those contemplated by section 12 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 and Order 58 Rule 24 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017. According to counsel there cannot be provision in the law establishing this court or the rules of this court for computation or assessment of pension benefit entitlements of a retiree when the contract of employment of such retiree has expressly provided for same. Counsel also contended the English Authorities cited by the counsel for the Judgment Debtors/Applicants to support this application are of no moment as they are inapplicable to the case at hand. 38. The argument put forward by counsel has raised the appropriateness of the commencement of this action by way of Originating Motion. The reliance placed on Order 3 rule 3 (c), Order 17 Rule 3, and Order 58 Rule 24 of the Rules of this in commencing this action has shown how confused counsel for the Judgment Debtors/Applicants is on the way forward regarding the case of his clients. It has also brought to fore the lack of appreciation of the distinction between Originating Motion and ordinary motion on notice. An originating motion and motion on notice are not the same. There is a difference between an originating motion and a motion on notice. This is clear from order 3 of rules of court which provides Originating Motion as one of the ways by which an action is commenced before this court. While motion on notice is an application made during the pendency of an action commenced before the court. 39. The law is well settled that once a statute or rules of court are put in place for commencement or institution of an action or proceedings, such prescribed mode must be followed in commencing the action, otherwise the action will be incompetent. See Agip Nigeria ltd v Agip Petro international & Ors. (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt.187) 348. An action cannot be competent under the rules, inter alia, unless it has come before the court by due process of law and upon fulfilment of any condition precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction as held in Madukolu V Nkemdlim; Porbeni V B.F & Investment Co. (2002) 3 NWLR (Pt.754) 452. 40. Generally, the final judgment of this court once delivered is binding on all the parties and cannot be subject to review or amendment by the court. The judgment once pronounced will remain valid. Any alteration or substitution of the contents of the judgment, will be render null and void and of no effect whatsoever. This is in line with the well-known principle of law termed as functus officio. Once a court has delivered its judgment order or decision it has becomes functus officio, it cannot reopen the case by way of making amendment or alteration to the judgment already delivered. 41. However, this court like every other court of superior record is permitted by the rules of court in certain limited circumstances to revisit its own judgment or orders. For instance this court has been empowered to correct any clerical mistake or error in any order arising from an accidental slip or omission at any time upon an application by the party to the proceedings by a motion or summons. See Intra Motors Nig. Ltd v Akinloye (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt.708) 61. It should however be noted that such power does not in any way extend to the substance of the judgment, but is strictly limited to correcting erratum, typographical or sentence errors that do not substantially alter the import of the judgment or amount to an alteration of the judgment itself. 42. Being a specialized court is empowered to interpret its own judgment upon an application to it by a party on motion on notice when the judgment does not convey the real intention of the judge/court. See section 15 of Trade Dispute Act, Order 47 Rules 23 and 24. See also Lagos Sheraton Hotel & Towers V Hotels and Personnel Service senior Staff Association (HPSSSA) (2011) 22 NLLR (pt.61) 184. This power is not an avenue created for the court to embark of sitting on appeal on its own judgment. The power of the court is limited to clarifying the order and content of the judgment rather than review or reconsideration of the issue already decided in the judgment. 43. Apart from the above instances, the court is also empowered by Order 47 rule 22 stipulates that the court may suo motu or on application of any party affected correct, rescind or vary its order or ruling in the following instances; (a) erroneously sought or erroneously granted in the absence of any party affected by it ; (b) in which there is an ambiguity or patent error or omission, but only to the extent of such ambiguity, error, or omission ; (c) granted as a result of a mistake common to the parties. 44. It is to be noted that the powers of the court under Rule 22 of Order 47 of the rules of Court is limited to orders made in the course of proceedings before it, and does not extend to a final judgment of the court, after consideration of the case of both parties. It cannot apply to final judgment of the court that can only be set aside under the inherent power of the court where the judgment is a nullity on the ground of fraud, non-service of process or lack of jurisdiction. See Osakwe v Federal college of education Asaba (2010) 12 NWLR (pt.1201) 153, UBA ltd v Taan (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt.287) 368. 45. Having regard to the Originating Motion and the reliefs being sought by the Judgment Debtors/Applicants, I am of the humble view that this court does not have the vires to entertain the Originating Motion as it is presently constituted as the action has not been commenced by due process of law. The rules of this court are very clear and unambiguous, this kind of application can only be brought before the court via motion on notice see Order 47 Rule 24. Therefore, the provisions of Order 3 Rule 3 (c) of the Rules of this Court are inapplicable. 46. It is clear as the day light that the present application is self-defeating, the Judgment Debtors/Applicants have relied on Order 47 Rule 24, of the rules of this court and the said provision has set time within which an application under the said rule can be brought. The application must be filed not later than thirty days after the delivery of the judgment or ruling. 47. The judgment of this court which is the subject of this application is attached to the affidavit in support and marked as exhibit 1. The judgment was delivered on 24/10/2017. The present suit was filed on 8/7/2019. From 24/10/2017 to 8/7/2019, is a period of one year Eight Months. This shows that the Judgment Debtors/Applicants cannot rely on Order 47 Rule 24 to have this application determined by the Court. 48. Having established that this case was not filed by use of due process and the application cannot be brought or determined under Order 47 rule 24 because it was not filed not later than thirty days after the delivery of the judgment subject matter of the application. The Judgment Debtors/Applicants’ suit is incompetent and same is hereby struck out. 49. The second issue was raised at paragraph 3.14 of the written address of the Judgment Creditor/Applicant where counsel argued for an alternative relief. Counsel urged the court to rely on exhibit DAN 5 which is computation of benefit done by the Judgment Creditor/Respondent. Counsel urged the Court to order the Judgment Debtors/Applicants to pay the Judgment Creditor/Respondent as per paragraphs 3.14 and 3.15 of the written address. 50. It appears counsel for the Judgment Creditor/Respondent is oblivious of the fact that the Judgment Debtors/Applicants approached this court via Originating Motion which is one of the recognized ways of commencing action before the court. The law is well settled that the case before the court is circumscribed by the relief sought. See Gabriel Ativie v. Kabelmetal (Nig.) Ltd  LPELR-591(SC);  10 NWLR (Pt. 1095) 399;  5 - 6 SC (Pt. II) 47. The Judgment Creditor/Respondent’s duty is to respond to the case put forward by the Judgment Debtors/Applicants. If counsel intends to argue in the alterative, it has to be by way of counter claim which has not been done. Therefore, the alternative submission goes to no issue and must be discountenanced for being incompetently before the court. In the circumstances all the evidence and submission of counsel made in the alternative and exhibits on computation are hereby discountenanced for the purpose of this judgment. 51. However, this court being a court of first instance, I shall proceed to determine the suit on the merit, in case on appeal my finding on the incompetency of the suit is reversed. RESOLUTION OF ISSUE ONE: 52. The counsel for the judgment Debtors/Applicants has contended that the applicants are not seeking for a review of the judgment of this court delivered on 24/10/2017. But asking for a direction on modality or parameters for assessment of the pension benefits of the judgment Creditor/Respondent, having regard to the failure of the court to make specific pronouncement in respect thereof. 53. Counsel also relied on section 12 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006, Order 58 rule 24 and Order 17 Rule 3(c) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 and some English Authorities to support his contention that he has the liberty to apply to the court to seek clarification. The leaned counsel for the judgment Debtors/Applicants also relied on Halsburys Laws of England. 54. To counsel for the judgment Creditor/Respondent the judgment of this court which was affirmed by the court of Appeal is not ambiguous as the orders made by the court are express and clear and require no further direction. 55. The judgment Debtors/Applicants are praying for direction as to how to make assessment of the entitlement of the Judgment Creditor/Respondent as per the judgment of 24/10/2017, as according to counsel for the Judgment Debtors the court has refused to make specific pronouncement to that effect. 56. I think it is apt at this juncture to reproduce the orders of the court which are the subject of this Originating Motion, they are:- ‘’For the avoidance of doubt at page 16 of the judgment it was stated as follows:- a. ‘’It is hereby declared that the Claimant is entitled to Pension from his employment with the defendants. b. By order of this court the defendants’ letter to the claimant dated 4th April 2016 is hereby reinstated. c. By order of this court the defendants are hereby directed to immediately assess and pay the claimant his full pension benefits pursuant to the contract of employment from approved date of retirement as conveyed in the letter of 4th April 2016. d. Cost of this suit is put at N2000,000.00 only. e. All sums due by this judgment are payable within 30 days thereafter interest thereon of 10% per annum will attach.’’ 57. The above orders are what triggered filing of this suit. The orders of this court as encapsulated in the body of the judgment and as enumerated at page 16 of the judgment of 24/10/2017, quoted above are very clear, lucid and without any iota of ambiguity to make it difficult to comprehend. Albeit, the generally settled position of the law is that a judgment of a Court of law once delivered is final and binding on parties and the court thereby becomes funtus officio, there is limited exception where this court as a specialized court is empowered by the provisions of Order 47 Rule 24 to interpret its own judgment on application for purposes of clarifying ambiguity if any so as to make implementation not difficult. 58. A careful perusal of the averments in the affidavit in support of the Originating Motion will show that the evidence therein, contained convincing averments to show that the reliefs being sought from this court are not meant to clarify any ambiguity. It is my view that the direction being sought by the Judgment Debtors/Applicants if granted will amount to this court sitting on appeal on its own judgment to review same, which is not allowed. This court does not have such vires. The judgment of 24/10/2017 is not ambiguous to require any clarification. By asking for direction the Judgment Debtors/Applicants are asking for this court to make fresh pronouncement on the area in which it has failed to do. This can only be done by an appellate Court. The counsel has reiterated both in the affidavit in support of this application and the written address that this court has stated that the Claimant has not put before the court his entitlement to pension or the basis to which he made the claim. So if this is true, is counsel asking me to manufacture basis of the entitlement and changed the judgment of 24/10/2017, I cannot do that. 59. It must also be noted that the judgment of 24/10/2017 has been affirmed by the court of Appeal in the circumstances any direction to be given as per this application will amount to this court sitting on appeal to vary and alter and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on April 2018 affirming the judgment of this court. The Judgment Debtors/Applicants by this application are abdicating the duty imposed on them by the orders contained in the judgment of 24/1/2017 and shifting it to this court. 60. In view of the foregoing, I lacked the competence to subject the judgment of 24/10/2017 affirmed by the Court of Appeal on April 2018, to make or issue direction as to how the Judgment Debtors/Applicants should assess entitlement of the Judgment Creditor/Respondent. To accede to the request of the applicants is to sit on appeal on the judgment of this court and that of the Court of Appeal the power of which I do not have. RESOLUTION OF QUESTION TWO: 61. The Judgment Debtors/Applicants are by question two seeking to determine whether this court ought to restrain the Judgment Creditor/Respondent from enforcing the judgment of this court pending the hearing and determination of this suit. On his part the Judgment Creditor/Respondent contended that it is not in the habit of court to restrain a successful party from enjoying the fruit of his judgment. 62. It is to be noted that question two is aimed at determining whether this court can restrain the Judgment Creditor/Respondent from enforcing the judgment obtained in his favour until determination of this suit. The relief of injunction ought to have been brought at interlocutory stage since the relief being sought is to last pending hearing and determination of this suit. This court having determined the main substantive question one. Question two has become otiose, it has become an academic issue which court are admonished not to engage into as it serve no purpose. The decision reached on question one has obviated the need for the dissipation of judicial energy on question two. The question is no longer live. See Baare v ACB (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.26) 47; Nzom V Inadu (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt.51) 537; Lawal V Morohunfola (1998) 1 NWLR (Pt.532) 111; Badejo V Federal Ministry of Education (1996) 9-10 SC 51; (1996) 8 NWLR (Pt.464) 15. 63. On the whole, I find no merit in this suit for not having been commenced by due process of law and on the merit there is lack of ambiguity in the orders of the court as any attempt to give any direction will amount to rewriting the Judgment of 24/10/2017 or siting on appeal on the judgment of this Court and that of the Court of Appeal affirming the judgment of this court. The Judgment Debtors/Applicants are only trying to run away from their duty of computing the entitlement of the Judgment Creditor as all that it takes to do the computation is at the disposal of the Judgment Debtors/Applicants. Accordingly, this suit lacks merit and same is hereby dismissed. 64. Judgment entered accordingly. Sanusi Kado, Judge. REPRESENTATION: Okon Uye, Esq; for the Judgments Debtors/Applicants. Onyebuchi Obeta, Esq; for the Judgment Creditor.