CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

APPELLANTS

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

ACTION, APPEAL, COURT, INJUNCTION, LAW OF BANKING, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, who was the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the defunct Bond Bank Plc, was dismissed on 05/11/2005 on allegations of financial improprieties involving misappropriation of funds, gross misconduct and particularly, receiving, concealing and converting the sum of One Billion, One Hundred and Sixty-nine million Naira (N1,169,000,000.00), deposited by one Gbenga Ajala, which funds were allegedly pertained to the funds embezzled by Mr. Tafa Balogun, an erstwhile Inspector General of the Nigeria Police Force. He was dismissed barely three years into his ten-year contractual agreement with the defunct Bond Bank. The Appellant, as Claimant, challenged his dismissal by taking out a Writ of Summons against the Bank and the Chairman and Directors of the Bank before the Federal High Court, Lagos. He also filed an application for interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants, now Respondents, from evicting him from his official residence or withdrawing the official benefits he enjoys as the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the defunct Bond Bank. The refusal of the lower Court to accede to the Appellant’s request culminated into this appeal. It needs to be mentioned here that following the merger of Bond Bank Plc with other Banks, the name of the 1st Defendant/Respondent was, on the application of the Appellant, changed to Skye Bank Plc by an order of this Court made on 03/03/2014, and further changed to Polaris Bank Ltd., by yet another order made during the hearing of this appeal on 22/11/2021.

 

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

 

 

---

ISSUES

---

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

 Whether the Appellant satisfied the requirement for the grant of an order of interlocutory injunction as the relationship between the 1st Respondent and Appellant is not that of an employer/employee or master/servant simpliciter which does not entitle the Appellant to an order for interlocutory injunction

 

 Whether the letter of dismissal served on the Appellant complied with the contract of service, Memorandum and Articles of Association of the 1st Respondent, thereby foreclosing the Appellant’s legal right to be protected.

 

 

 Whether the injunctive relief sought against the Respondents in the Appellant’s application for interlocutory injunction is a completed act by virtue of the letter of termination of his employment.

 

 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case vis-a-vis settled position of the law on when an injunction may be granted or refused, whether the lower Court was not right to have refused the Appellant’s motion on notice dated 8/11/2005.

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

INJUNCTION

---

 

INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION – OBJECT OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION

“This appeal borders on the rule governing the grant or refusal of an interlocutory injunction, whose purport is the preservation of the res in the litigation. The law requires that the res or subject matter of the litigation should not be destroyed or annihilated before the judgment of the Court. It is beyond doubt that the object of interlocutory injunction is to protect the Applicant against injury by violation of his right for which he cannot be adequately compensated in damages if the dispute is finally resolved in his favour at the trial. See Obeya Memorial Hospital vs. AG Federation (supra); Ogbonnaya vs. Adapalm Nig. Ltd (1993) LPELR-2288 (SC); Dyktrade Ltd vs. Omnia (Nig.) Ltd (2000) LPELR-977 (SC); Akinpelu vs. Adegbore & Ors (2008) LPELR-354 (SC)”.PER M.I.SIRAJO, J.C.A

COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

INTERLOCUTORY RULING – DUTY OF COURT TO ENSURE THAT PENDING ISSUES IN THE SUBSTANTIVE SUIT ARE NOT DETERMINED AT THAT INTERLOCUTORY STAGE

“This Court will resist the invitation to make a determination, at the point of hearing an appeal against an interlocutory ruling, which will have the effect of pre-judging or pre-empting the issues for adjudication in the substantive suit before the lower Court. The law is that in an application for the grant of injunction pending the determination of the substantive claim (including the hearing of an appeal arising from a ruling on such application), the Judex has a duty to ensure that pending issues in the substantive suit are not determined at that interlocutory stage. See Group Danone & Anor vs. Voltic Nigeria Ltd (2008) LPELR-1341 (SC); Iweka vs. S.C.O.A. (Nigeria) Ltd (2000) LPELR-1563 (SC); ACB Ltd vs. Awogboro & Anor (1996) LPELR-200 (SC); Duwin Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co. Ltd vs. Beneks Pharmaceutical & Cosmetics Ltd & Ors (2008) LPELR-974 (SC); Agwu & Ors vs. Julius Berger Nigeria Plc  (2019) LPELR-47625 (SC)”. PER M.I.SIRAJO, J.C.A

ACTION, INJUNCTION

INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION – WHETHER AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION CAN LIE AS A REMEDY FOR A COMPLETED ACT

“The law is firmly settled that the essence of granting an interlocutory injunction is to preserve the res from dissipation pending the resolution of the dispute presented before the Court. Where, however, the act sought to be restrained has already been carried out, an injunction cannot lie as it is not a remedy for a completed act, even where the act is irregular. The only remedy available in respect of a completed act or conduct is perpetual injunction. See William Angadi vs. Peoples Democratic Party & Ors (supra); Ideozu vs Ochoma (2006) LPELR-1419 (SC); AR Security Solution Ltd vs. EFCC (2018) LPELR-43828 (SC); Buhari vs. Obasanjo (2003) LPELR-813 (SC). PER M.I.SIRAJO, J.C.A

INJUNCTION, ACTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION – BASIS ON WHICH AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION WILL NOT BE GRANTED

“It is well settled that an interlocutory injunction cannot be granted where there is nothing to restrain. It is not a remedy for an act that has already been carried out. If the act has been completed, nothing remains to be safeguarded or to be restrained by the grant of an interlocutory injunction; Commissioner for Works Benue State & Anor v Devcon Development Consultants Ltd & Anor (1988) LPELR-884(SC); Angadi v PDP (2018) LPELR-44375(SC)”. PER O. A.OTISI, J.C.A.

 

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT