INTERNATIONAL DRILLING COMPANY (NIGERIA) LIMITED V. MOSES EYEIMOFE AJIJALA
August 8, 2025ANICHE NZONWANNE & ORS V. CHRISTOPHER IGWE & ORS
August 8, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1976) Legalpedia (SC) 41691
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Feb 6, 1976
Suit Number: SC. 127/1974
CORAM
ALEXANDER, CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA
MADARIKAN, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IDIGBE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
G. A. OBANOR APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
In the High Court, the present appellant took out a writ of summons against the respondent. During the course of the proceedings, the writ was amended. After hearing the evidence of both parties and their witnesses the learned trial Judge, in a considered judgment, found, as a fact, that the plaintiff was in possession of the building and could bring an action for trespass, and that the defendant was liable for the damage done to the building. He eventually awarded N2,000 to the plaintiff as damages and declined to grant the injunction sought. The plaintiff has appealed against the decision in the court of appeal, and further in the Supreme Court.
HELD
The judgment of the High Court, including the order for costs was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
ISSUES
That a lump sum of N2,000 was awarded as special and general damages without distinguishing what portion of the award was for special damages and what portion was for general damages.
That the learned trial Judge erred by refusing to grant the injunction sought when the evidence was sufficient to warrant the granting of the injunction.
That the learned trial Judge fell into an error in this portion of the judgment as the claim for injunction is in no way dependent on declaration of title.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHAT IS EXPECTED OF THE COURT WHEN DAMAGES ARE AWARDED FOR TRESPASS AND THERE IS AN ANCILLARY CLAIM FOR INJUNCTION
“It is settled law that where damages are awarded for trespass to land and there is an ancillary claim for injunction, the court will grant an injunction –
(1) to prevent multiplicity of suits
(2) To prevent irreparable damage or injury or irremediable mischief.” Per MADARIKAN, JSC
CASES CITED
Hanson v. Gardiner 32 ER 125
Lowndes v. Bettle (1864) LT55
Fenner v. Bedford (1875) Bitt. Prac. Cas. 54
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None.
