Download PDF
This is a motion on notice brought pursuant to Order 11 Rule 1(11) and Order 14 Rule 1(1) of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 and under the doctrine of LIS PENDIS. The application is dated 16th April 2013 and filed on the 19th April 2013, and is praying this honourable court for: An order of Interlocutory Injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents, their agent, servant, workers or privies from retiring the claimant the Claimant/Applicant now or before 2/2/2017 from his job/employment or from ejecting him from the Senior Service Government Quarters he is occupying by virtue of his employment or from withholding or seizing the Applicant’s salary and other benefits pending the hearing and determination of the substantive complaint/suit. And for such further order(s) as the honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstance. In support of the application is a 20 paragraph affidavit deposed to by the Claimant/Applicant himself, and Exhibits numbering A to G, as well as a written address. The Defendants/Respondents in reply, have filed a 20 paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Prisca Okoye, a litigation officer in the department of civil litigation, Ministry of Justice, Owerri. Attached to the said Counter-Affidavit are 4 Exhibits listed as A1, A2, B and C. The defendants/respondents have also filed a written address in compliance with the rules of this court. In response, the Claimant/Applicant has also filed an 11 paragraph further affidavit also deposed to by the plaintiff, as well as a written address on points of law. The Claimant/Applicant’s Counsel U. S. Chukwu (Miss), in her written address, submitted that the issue for determination is “whether the applicant has made out a case for the grant of this application in his favour against the defendanst/respondents. She submitted that the Claimant has made out a case for the grant of this application in his favour, referring the court to paragraphs 5-11 and 15-17 of the Applicant’s supporting affidavit. She also referred the court to the pleadings of the applicant before the court, and the documents he intends to rely on. The Claimant is contending that he has up 2/2/2017 to be in his job. Learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Oyeyemi vs Irewole L.G. (1993) 1 NWLR (pt. 270) 462 is submitting that interlocutory injunction is aimed at maintaining the status quo and thereby preserves the res from being wasted. She submitted that in the instant case, the res to be preserved is the job or the employment of the claimant. She further relied on the case of Adewale Construction Co Ltd vs IBWA (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt. 204) 498 at 506 where the Court of Appeal held interalia, that the primary object of granting an Interlocutory Injunction is to keep matters in status quo until the issues in controversy between the parties are finally determined. She stated that a court invited to grant an interlocutory injunction in respect of matters which are yet to go on trial must be satisfied that there exists some legal rights of the applicant which are threatened and for which the court ought to accord some protection. She submitted that the Applicant has satisfied the said principle of law, and that he has a legal right in respect of the subject matter, which is being threatened by the Respondents, particularly the 1st and 2nd Respondents. Claimant’s counsel further relied on the case of Bamgboye vs Olusola (1998) 38 LRCN 864 to submit that under the doctrine of Lis Pendis, parties ought to maintain status quo pending the determination of the suit. She submitted that it is trite law that when a subject matter is in court, all the parties to the suit are legally enjoined to show restraint and not to take drastic steps over the subject matter that will give them undue advantage over the party in the event determination of the suit as per the reliefs sought by the claimant. In conclusion, counsel submitted that the Applicant has satisfied all the legal requirements for the grant of an interlocutory injunction which include: (a) That there is a legal right to be protected (b) That there is a serious question to be determined by the court in this action. (c) That the injunction being sought is predicated on an action pending in court (d) That the balance of convenience is on the side of the Applicant – for he will Suffer if the application does not succeed. The defendants have nothing to lose if this application is granted. (e) That damages cannot adequately compensate the applicant. There is no claim for damages in the reliefs sought. (f) That the subject matter and everything that surrounds it is under a serious threat by the respondents. (g) That Applicant has made an undertaking as to damages. Counsel urged the court to grant the application in the interest of justice and preserve the res pending the hearing and determination of the complaint. Learned Counsel for the Defendants/Applicants Mr. B. N. Amaghereonu, in opposing the motion for interlocutory injunction, relied on the counter-affidavit deposed to by Prisca Okoye, and the 4 Exhibits accompanying the counter-affidavit, as well as a written address. He submitted that there are 2 issues to be determined by the court in considering this application: 1. “Whether the Honourable Court has the power to restrain the Defendants when the acts complained of by the claimant have been completed; 2. “Whether the Honourable Court can restrain the defendants from ejecting the claimant from his Senior Staff quarters when the defendants were not party to the arrangement or privy to it as the agency that gave him the quarters is not a party to this suit.” Counsel submitted that the act the Claimant is complaining of, which is his retirement, had been completed. He cited the case of Commissioner for works, Benue vs Devcon Ltd and another, (1988) 3NWLR (Pt. 83) 407, where the court held that where the act sought to be injuncted has been done, or the prospective defendant has righty notified the plaintiff or infact repudiated the contract, it will be futile to issue an injunction restraining he breach of the contract. Counsel further submitted in support of issue b that a contract cannot confer enforceable rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person, except parties to it. He referred the court to the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd vs Selfridge Ltd (1915) A.C. 847 at p853. He stated that there is no privity of contract between the 1st defendant and the claimant on his senior staff contract, and the agency that gave him the quarters is not a party to this suit. He urged the court to discountenance this application by striking it out. I have carefully considered the processes, arguments and submissions as well as adumbrations of counsel on both sides. An interlocutory injunction is issued before or during trial to prevent an irreparable injury from occurring before the court has the chance to decide the case. It is trite law that the purpose of an application for interlocutory injunction is to keep the parties in an action in status quo in which they were before the judgment or act complained of. However, where doubts exist as to the Plaintiff’s rights, the court, in determining whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted, will take into consideration, the balance of convenience to both parties, and the nature of the injury which the defendant on the other hand would suffer if the injunction was granted and he should ultimately turn out to be right, and which the plaintiff on the other hand might sustain if the injunction was refused and he turn out to be right. See the case of Oba James Adeleke & 3others vs Nafiu Adewale Lawal & 7 others (2013) LPELR 20090 SC. The Supreme Court further held in the said case, per Aka’’ahs JSC, that in the determination of any interlocutory application pending the trial of the substantive case, care should be taken not to make pronouncements which may prejudice the trial of the claims filed and still pending before the court. To do otherwise is to prejudge the matter in respect of which evidence is yet to be led. In the instant case, the claimant’s claim, among other declaratory reliefs, seeks an order of this honourable court restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants, workmen, agents and privies from retiring or dispensing with the services of the claimant before the 2/2/2017, the claimant not having completed 35 years of service in the public service of Imo State or attained the age of 60 years before then. The claimant also seeks an order of court restraining the defendants from withholding the claimant’s monthly salary and other benefits accruing to his employment and from ejecting the claimant from where he is resident at the Senior Service quarters of the Ministry of Agriculture, Owerri, Imo State, which the claimant occupies by virtue of his employment anytime before 2/2/2017. On the other hand, the application before the court seeks an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants/respondents, their agents, servants, workers or privies from retiring the claimant/applicant now or before 2/2/2017 from his job/employment or from ejecting him from the Senior Service Government quarters he is occupying by virtue of his employment or from withholding or seizing the applicant’s salary and other benefits pending the hearing and determination of the substantive complaint/suit. The Claimant/Applicant’s motion for interlocutory injunction seeks 3 distinctive reliefs as follows: 1. An order restraining the defendant/respondent, their agents, privies, workers or servants from retiring the claimant now or before 2/2/2017 from his job. 2. An order restraining the defendants/respondents, their agents, privies, workers or servants from ejecting the claimant applicant from his official quarters pending the determination of this suit. 3. An order restraining the defendants/applicants, their agents, privies, workers or servants from withholding the claimant’s salary, allowances and other benefits, pending the determination of this suit. The 1st relief sought touches on the subject matter of the substantive suit. Granting it therefore would tantamount to pre-judging the suit in respect of which evidence is yet to be led and would amount to a conclusive determination of the substantive suit. This 1st prayer must therefore be refused, and I so hold. As regards the 3rd relief sought by the claimant/applicant which is an order restraining the defendants/applicants, their agents, privies, workers or servants from withholding the claimant’s salary, allowances and other benefits, pending the determination of this suit, I make reference to paragraph 6 of the Claimant/Applicant’s affidavit which indicates that the said salary has already been stopped. This fact is corroborated by Paragraph 16 of the defendants’ counter affidavit which indicates that the claimant had already been retired by 2/2/2013. It is clear that the acts sought to be injuncted upon, is already a completed act. I therefore hold that the 1st and 3rd reliefs sought by the motion on notice before the court are hereby refused. With respect to the 2nd relief sought by the claimant/applicant viz: An order restraining the defendants/respondents, their agents, privies, workers or servants from ejecting the claimant applicant from his official quarters pending the determination of this suit, I make reference to Paragraph 15 of the supporting the affidavit of the claimant, read along with Exhibit F which is a notice of eviction from the official residence where the claimant resides. This is a clear indication that there is a threat of eviction. In addition, the said Exhibit F emanates from the office of the governor who is a party to this suit. In the case of Florence Owolabi Enterprises Ltd vs Wema Bank Plc (2011) LPELR 4168 (CA), the Court of Appeal held that “In determining the balance of convenience in the consideration of an interlocutory injunction, the trial court is expected to pose one or two questions:” who will suffer more inconvenience if the application is granted?” Who will suffer more inconvenience if the application is granted?” The trial court has a duty to provide an answer to the questions, and in so doing, it must allow itself to be guided by the facts before it.” See also Ayorinde vs A.G. Oyo State (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt 434) 20 See also the Court of Appeal case of Cletus Mbaji vs M.O.S. Amobi in suit No CA/E/264/2007, cited in (2011) LPELR – 3988 (CA), where “balance of convenience” was defined as “the disadvantage to one side or the other, which damages cannot compensate.” I have carefully considered the facts as deposed to in the various affidavits accompanying this application. I am convinced that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the Claimant/Applicant with regard to his occupation of the Government quarters. If he is ejected now and the main suit later succeeds, he would have suffered too much hardship, which cannot be adequately compensated in terms of damages, especially as his claim does not contain any claim for damages. It should also be noted that the Claimant has made an undertaking as to damages. In conclusion, the 1st and 3rd prayers of the Claimant/Applicant’s motion on notice for interlocutory injunction are hereby refused while the second prayer hereby succeeds. In consequence, the Court hereby holds as follows: 1. The Claimant/Applicant’s prayer for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants/respondents, their agents, servants, workers or privies from retiring the claimant/applicant now or before 2/2/2013 is hereby refused. 2. The claimant/applicant’s prayer for an order restraining the defendants/respondents from withholding or seizing the claimant/applicant’s salary and other benefits pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit is hereby refused. 3. The claimant/applicant’s prayer for an order restraining the defendants/applicants from ejecting the claimant from the Senior Service quarters he is occupying pending the determination of the suit is hereby granted. I make no order as to costs. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Presiding Judge