PAUL NWAZUAH NKWO & ORS VS IBOE & ORS
June 27, 2025EMMANUEL OKPANUM VS S.G.E. NIGERIA LIMITED
June 27, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1998) Legalpedia (SC) 17219
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jun 5, 1998
Suit Number: SC. 127/1995
CORAM
SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MICHAEL EKUNDAYO OGUNDARE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ANTHONY IKECHUKWU IGUH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
CHIEF SAMUEL ADEBISI FALOMO APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff’s case was that he was nominated by his family to ascend the vacant stool of Olusin of Ijara-Ijisin which nomination was ratified and letter of appointment issued to him. It was after this that the defendant/appellant began to sponsor adverts to the effect that the plaintiff’s appointment was null and void. His action culminating in this appeal is for an injunction restraining the defendant/appellant from parading himself as the Olusin of Ijara-Ijisin ?
HELD
Appeal lacks merit and was thus dismissed ?
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have held that the plaintiff made out a case deserving of an injunctive relief against the appellant when the relief sought in the application was in respect of concluded acts and the order of the court below was not clear and unequivocal.2. Whether the court below was right to have ordered a transfer of the case from the trial court when there was no legal basis for the order and none of the parties asked for it.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ESSENCE OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION
An interlocutory injunction is granted before the trial of an action and its primary object is to keep matters in status quo ante bellum until the question at issue between the parties can be finally determined by the court, thus facilitating the administration of justice at the trial. Per Iguh J.S.C.
PARTY NEEDNOT BE HEARD BY A PARTICULAR JUDGE
It is clear to me that it is not the constitutional right of any party to be heard by a particular judge. Per Iguh J.S.C.
BASIS FOR THE GRANT OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION
It is not necessary that for the plaintiff to succeed, the court in an application for interlocutory injunction should find a case which would entitle him to relief at all events. That is not the law. It is quite sufficient if the court finds a case which shows, as in the present case, that there is a substantial question to be investigated and that matters ought to be preserved in status quo ante bellum until that question can be finally dispose. Per Iguh J.S.C.
CASES CITED
American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. (1975) A.C. 396 at 407 – 409.Orji v. Zaria Industries Ltd. (1992)1 NWLR (Pt.216)124Obeya Memorial Hospital v. Attorney-General of the Federation (1987)3 NWLR (Pt.60)325.Preston v. Luck (1884) 27 Ch. D. 497 C.A.Iyaji v. Eyigebe (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 523 at 530?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Court of Appeal Act, 1976Court of Appeal Rules, 1981?
