CORAM

---

HON. JUSTICE Y. M. HASSAN

---

PARTIES

---

1. MR. SHOLA ADELAKUN

2. ALHAJI FAWEMI RAFIUS ADISA

3. MR. CLEMENT AKINLOLU

4. MR. ADETONA ISIAKA

5. MR. TAYO AREOYE

6. MR. OLALEKAN OLAWUYI

7. MR. EMMANUEL TALABI

8. MR. SAHEED FAWEMI

9. MR. OLUWASEUN OLUKADE

10.MR. OLAJIDE FAWEMI

11.MR. RAJI MUSILIU

12.MR. SOLIU OLAMIDELE

13.MR. SAMUEL O. FAGBOHUN

14.MR. IDOWU MUTIU

15.MR. IBRAHIM FAWEMI

16.MR. OLAWOLE AJADI

17.MR. BABALOLA NURENI

18.MR. KOREDE ALIU

19.MR. ADIGUN NURUDEEN

20.MR. SULAIMON GANIYU

21.MR. RAJI TAIWO

22.MR. MURITALA LIADI

23.MR. KAREEM AKANJI

24.MR. OWOOLA JAMIU

25.MR. AKINOLA AHMED

26.MR. OMODARA ADEYINKA

27.MR. AKEEM RAJI

28.MOHAMMED SULEIMAN

29.MR. BAMIDURO HAMEED OYENIYIAND

APPELLANTS 

---

1. NATIONAL UNION OF ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS (NURTW)

2. ROAD TRANSPORT EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA (RTEAN)

3. PARK MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED

4. GOVERNOR OF OGUN STATE

5. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OGUN STATE

6. WALE AJAYI (A.K.A NERO)

7. TAJUDEEN GBADAMOSI

8. MOJEED OGUNBIYI (A.K.A MOGANA)

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

LABOUR LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, TRADE UNION LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Claimants/Applicants are twenty-nine commercial transport operators who filed a motion on notice dated and filed on November 27, 2024, seeking interlocutory injunctions against the Defendants/Respondents pending the determination of the substantive suit. The Defendants/Respondents include the National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW), the Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria (RTEAN), Park Management Services Limited, the Governor of Ogun State, the Attorney General of Ogun State, and three named individuals.

The Claimants/Applicants deposed, through the second Claimant/Applicant Alhaji Fawemi Rafius Adisa, that they were being pressured to compulsorily join the trade unions of the Defendants/Respondents, and upon their refusal, were being attacked, harassed, intimidated, and forcefully prevented from entering and operating at the Owode-Yewa Motor Park and other motor parks in Ibadan, Ijebu-Ode, Abeokuta, and Ilaro for their business of commercial transportation. The supporting affidavit further deposed that the Defendants/Respondents had vowed to “sniff lives” out of the Claimants/Applicants for failing to join their unions, and that the discrimination against them in relation to loading of passengers and ticketing was ongoing.

The Claimants/Applicants sought three orders of interlocutory injunction: restraining the Defendants/Respondents from attacking and preventing them from entering the motor parks; restraining the Defendants/Respondents from abusing their fundamental rights, liberty, and freedom of association with the incidental right to work; and restraining the Defendants/Respondents from discriminating against them for not belonging to their unions.

In opposition, the 2nd and 6th Defendants/Respondents filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations and asserting that it was the Claimants who caused disruptions at the motor parks by jumping queues and assaulting members of the 2nd Defendant. The 1st and 8th Defendants/Respondents filed only a written address but no counter affidavit. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th Defendants/Respondents filed a counter affidavit and written address arguing that the grant of the application would usurp executive functions over motor parks and would amount to granting the substantive reliefs at the interlocutory stage.

The Court, having examined the affidavit evidence and submissions, found that the balance of convenience favoured the Claimants/Applicants, that the reliefs sought at the interlocutory stage were not entirely the same as those in the substantive suit, and that granting the application would not usurp executive powers. The application was granted as prayed, with an order for accelerated hearing of the substantive suit.

 

---

HELD

---

The Court granted the application for interlocutory injunction as prayed and ordered accelerated hearing of the substantive suit. The Court held that the Claimants/Applicants satisfactorily established that the balance of convenience was in their favour and that more justice would result in granting the application than in refusing it. The Court also held that since the 1st and 8th Defendants/Respondents filed no counter affidavit, the depositions in the supporting affidavit were deemed accepted as true against them. The Court rejected the argument that granting the injunction would amount to delving into the substantive suit, finding that the reliefs sought at the interlocutory stage were not entirely the same as those in the substantive suit. The Court further rejected the submission that the grant of the injunction would usurp executive functions over motor parks, holding that the orders sought merely restrained the Defendants from attacking and excluding the Claimants from the motor parks and had no bearing on the executive management of motor parks. No order as to costs was made.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the Claimants/Applicants have made out a case for the grant of the interlocutory injunction as prayed?

2. Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant or refusal of the interlocutory injunction?

3. Whether the grant of the interlocutory injunction would amount to delving into the substantive suit at the interlocutory stage?

4. Whether the grant of the interlocutory injunction would usurp or prevent the lawful exercise of executive and statutory functions over the management of motor parks?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

GRANT OR REFUSAL OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION — NATURE AS ABSOLUTE DISCRETION OF THE COURT TO BE EXERCISED JUDICIALLY AND JUDICIOUSLY

---

“This one thing that is well settled in law however, is that the grant or refusal of an order of interlocutory injunction is absolute discretion of the Court, which discretion however, like all other judicial discretions, must be exercised judiciously, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of each and every case. The remedy of interlocutory injunction is so useful that it should be kept flexible and discretionary, it must not be made the subject of strict Rules.” — Per Hon. Justice Y. M. Hassan

 

---

PRINCIPLES FOR GRANT OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION — REQUIREMENTS AS LAID DOWN IN KOTOYE v. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA

---

“a. That the Application must show that there is a serious question to be tried i.e. that the Applicant has a real possibility, not a probability at success at the trial, notwithstanding the Defendant’s technical defence (if any). b. That the Applicant must show that the balance of convenience is on his side, that more justice will result in granting the Application than in refusing it (IMI v. BALOGUN (1958) 1 ALL NWLR-318 referred to. c. That the Applicant must show that damages cannot be adequate compensation for his damages or injury, if he succeeds at the end of the day. d. That the Applicant must show that his conduct is not reprehensible for example that he is not guilty of any delay. e. No order for an interlocutory injunction should be made on notice unless the applicant gives a satisfactorily undertaking as to damages save in recognized exceptions. f. Where Court of first instance fails to extract an undertaking as to damages, an appellate Court ought to normally to discharge the order of injunction on Appeal.” –– Per Hon. Justice Y. M. Hassan

 

---

BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE — MOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION IN AN APPLICATION FOR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION

---

“The balance of convenience between the parties is a basic determinant factor in an Application for interlocutory injunction. In the determination of this factor, the law requires some measurements of the scale of justice to where the pendulum tilts. In other words, the advantage of granting the injunction must outweigh the disadvantages.” — Per Hon. Justice Y. M. Hassan

 

---

BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE — THE APPLICANT MUST SATISFY THE COURT THAT HE WILL SUFFER MORE HARDSHIP IF THE APPLICATION IS REFUSED

---

“Perhaps, the most important consideration that will weigh on the mind of the Court towards taking a decision as to whether grant or refuse to grant an application for interlocutory injunction is the balance of convenience of the parties from the affidavit evidence place before it.” — Per Hon. Justice Y. M. Hassan

 

---

BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE — SATISFACTION OF THE COURT THAT CLAIMANTS WILL SUFFER MORE IF APPLICATION IS REFUSED

---

“At this juncture, it is clear from the Affidavit evidence before the Court, particularly the depositions reproduced above, that the Claimants/Applicants have satisfactorily shown to this Honourable Court that they will suffer more if this application is refused. In other words, the Claimants/Applicants have satisfactorily established that the balance of convenience is on their side and more justice will result in granting the application than refusing it. I so hold.” — Per Hon. Justice Y. M. Hassan

 

---

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT — FAILURE TO FILE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT MEANS DEPOSITIONS IN SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT ARE ACCEPTED AS TRUE

---

“Before I dwell on the issue for determination, it is germane to state briefly at the beginning that from the record, the 1st and 8th Defendants/Respondents only filed a written address but did not file any Counter Affidavit in opposition to the motion on notice. The legal implication is that the Court is to accept the entire depositions in the supporting Affidavit as true against the 1st and 8th Defendants/Respondents without much ado.” — Per Hon. Justice Y. M. Hassan

 

---

BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE — FAILURE BY DEFENDANTS TO ESTABLISH THEY WILL SUFFER MORE IF APPLICATION IS GRANTED WEIGHS AGAINST THEM

---

“Let me point out here that from the entire depositions in the Counter Affidavit filed by the Defendants/Respondents, i.e. the 2nd and 6th as well as the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants/Respondents did not state and/or establish that they will suffer more if this application is granted. This means that the balance of convenience is not in their favour. I so hold.” — Per Hon. Justice Y. M. Hassan

 

---

INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION AND SUBSTANTIVE SUIT — GRANT OF APPLICATION DOES NOT AMOUNT TO DELVING INTO SUBSTANTIVE SUIT WHERE RELIEFS SOUGHT ARE NOT ENTIRELY THE SAME

---

“Let me point out here that the argument of the learned Counsel to the 1st and 8th Defendants/Respondents in their written address inter alia that there is no way the Court can determine the relief sought by way of interlocutory injunction without making a pronouncement on the substantive suit, is to say the least, misconceived because a careful look at the reliefs sought in this application are not entirely the same with the reliefs sought in the substantive suit. Therefore, granting this application will in my opinion not amount to delving into substantive suit at interlocutory stage.” — Per Hon. Justice Y. M. Hassan

 

---

PROHIBITION ON DELVING INTO SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES AT INTERLOCUTORY STAGE — SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW

---

“The law is well settled that a Court is to refrain from delving into the substantive issue at the interlocutory stage…” — Per Hon. Justice Y. M. Hassan

 

---

INJUNCTION AGAINST EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS — GRANT OF INJUNCTION RESTRAINING DEFENDANTS FROM ATTACKING CLAIMANTS DOES NOT USURP EXECUTIVE POWERS OVER MOTOR PARKS

---

“I must say that I find it difficult to align myself with the submission of the learned Counsel to the 3rd – 5th Defendants/Respondents in their written address particularly at paragraphs 4.2 to 4.5 among others that the grant of this application will halt or prevent the lawful exercise of executive/statutory function and/or it will rub the executive of its statutory right of oversight function as the motor parks and garages are managed by the Executive Arm of government. A careful examination of the reliefs sought by the Claimants/Applicants via this application, will show that it has no any bearing from preventing or rubbing the Executive Arm of government from exercising their power of managing the motor parks and garages.” –– Per Hon. Justice Y. M. Hassan

 

---

EXECUTIVE POWERS AND INJUNCTIONS — DISTINCTION BETWEEN RESTRAINING UNLAWFUL CONDUCT OF DEFENDANTS AND USURPING EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC FACILITIES

---

“It is my considered opinion in the light of the foregoing that granting this application cannot be equated or is not synonymous to usurping the Executive Arm of government powers of managing motor parks and garages. I so hold.” –– Per Hon. Justice Y. M. Hassan

 

---

PURPOSE OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION — TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO ANTE BELLUM PENDING DETERMINATION OF THE SUIT

---

“Let me re-echo it here that an interlocutory injunction is basically aimed at maintaining the status quo ante bellum pending the determination of the issues submitted for adjudication by the Court. It is an equitable jurisdiction which the court is called upon to exercise in the light of facts presented before it by the Applicant.” –– Per Hon. Justice Y. M. Hassan

 

---

OBJECT OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION — TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO PENDING DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS

---

“The reason is obvious, the object or purpose of the injunction is to maintain status quo pending the determination on the merit.” — Per Hon. Justice Y. M. Hassan

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) — Section 40; Section 254C(1)(f) and (g)

2. National Industrial Court Act, 2006 — Section 16(1) and (2)

3. National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 — Order 48 Rule 6

4. Trade Union Act, Cap T14, LFN, 2010 — Section 12(4)

 

---

OTHER CITATIONS

---

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---

COUNSEL

---

1. Victoria Morakinyo (Miss) for the Claimants/Applicants.

2. R.B. Kadir (Mrs), Director Civil Litigation, Ogun State Ministry of Justice, appearing with G.A.C. Korie, Senior State Counsel, Ogun State Ministry of Justice for the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants/ Respondents.

3. No Legal representation for other Defendants.