CORAM

---

S. M. A. BELGORE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

S. U. ONU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

U. A. KALGO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

A. O. EJIWUNMI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

S. O. UWAIFO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

1. BABATUNDE ADENUGA2. HASSAN DAUDU AHMED3. O.N. OSUNDE4. M.A. BISIRIYU5. V.A. OGUNLAJA6.EUNICE ORONO-ADEROJA APPELLANTS

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The plaintiffs who claimed they were financial members of the 8th defendant sought to restrain the executives of the association from acting on the grounds that their election had elapsed by effluxion of time.

---

HELD

---

The court held that the plaintiff did not establish their interest in filing the action and accordingly dismissed their appeal against the decision of the court of appeal setting aside the interim injunction granted in their favour.

---

ISSUES

---

Whether having regard to the peculiar facts of this case the trial judge acted judicially and judiciously in granting all the reliefs sought in the substantive action by the Plaintiffs/Appellants at the interlocutory stage more so when the dispute had to do with mis-management and embezzlement of the funds of the 8th Defendant/Respondent by the 1st-3rd Defe-ndants/Respondents.
Whether the Plaintiffs/Appellants were denied fair hearing when the lower Court decided the appeal before it only on the bundle of documents filed by the Defendants/Appellants before it and completely ignored the bundle of documents filed by the Plaintiffs/Respondents now Appellant and thereby occasioning a miscarriage of Justice.

Whether the Court below decided the Appeal before it on wrong principles of Law and in particular the Rule in FOSS V. HARBOTTLE when the case on appeal clearly falls within the exception to that rule.

Whether the Court below was right in allowing the Defendants’ appeal and dismissing the Appellants’ case when the Defendants acted in contempt of the Orders of the Lower Court by fraudulently collecting funds belonging to the 8th Defendant and spending all the funds without banking them and clearly in violation of the injunctive orders of the lower Court dated 18/12/98 and 16/6/99 restraining the 1st- 3rd Defendants from collecting and/or in any way spending the funds of the 8th Defendant

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

MEANING OF LOCUS STANDI

---

Locus standi denotes the legal capacity, based upon sufficient interest in a subject matter, to institute proceedings in a court of law to pursue a certain cause. Per Uwaifo J.S.C.

---

CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION

---

A party suing must in his statement of claim aver enough facts to indicate what his interest are in the matter and how those interest stand threatened if the action was not brought. It is not enough to blandly state that he has an interest, there must be an averment that the interest is threatened -. S.M.A. BELGORE, JSC

---

CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION

---

In an application for an interlocutory injunction, the plaintiff must show an existence of his right which needs to be protected in the interim. He must at the same time satisfy the court that there is a real question to be tried in the substantive suit: Per Uwaifo J.S.C

---

THE RULE IN FOSS V. HARBOTTLE

---

The rule established in Foss V. Harbottle is simply with that when a decision has been irregularly taken on behalf of a company, it will be futile for the minority shareholder to take legal steps to oppose it since, if it is a decision the company or corporation can take, the majority share holders can easily ratify it. Per Uwaifo J.S.C.

---

CASES CITED

---

Adefulu V. Oyesile (1989) 5 NWLR (pt.122) 377;
Odeneye V. Efunuga (1990) 7 NWLR (pt.164) 618;
Adesokan V. Adegorolu (1997) 3 NWLR (pt.493) 261;
Owodunni V. Reg. Trustees of CCC (2000) 10 NWLR (pt.675) 315
Obeya Memorial Hospital V. Attorney-General of the Federation (1987) 3 NWLR (pt.60) 32
Green V. Green (1987) 2 NSCC (vol.18) 1115

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

NONE

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT