UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC VS E. I. NATAMA INTERNATIONAL COMPLEX LTD
March 30, 2025MR ISAAC ISAIAH & ORS VS THE LAGOS STATE TASK FORCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SPECIAL OFFENCES UNIT & ORS
March 30, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2020) Legalpedia (CA) 10201
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT LAGOS
Mon Nov 23, 2020
Suit Number: CA/LAG/CV/380/2019
CORAM
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL, .(Read the Lead Judgment)
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL, .(Read the Lead Judgment)
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL, .(Read the Lead Judgment)
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL, .(Read the Lead Judgment)
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL, .(Read the Lead Judgment)
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL, .(Read the Lead Judgment)
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL, .(Read the Lead Judgment)
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL, .(Read the Lead Judgment)
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL, .(Read the Lead Judgment)
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL, .(Read the Lead Judgment)
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL, .(Read the Lead Judgment)
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL, .(Read the Lead Judgment)
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL, .(Read the Lead Judgment)
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL, .(Read the Lead Judgment)
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL, .(Read the Lead Judgment)
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL, .(Read the Lead Judgment)
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL, .(Read the Lead Judgment)
SYLVESTER UMARU ONU IGUH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL, .(Read the Lead Judgment)
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
SYLVESTER UMARU ONU IGUH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL, .(Read the Lead Judgment)
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU
SYLVESTER UMARU ONU IGUH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL, .(Read the Lead Judgment)
PARTIES
O & O NETWORKS LIMITED
BROAD COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant and the third-eleventh Respondents were the Defendants while the first and second Respondents were the Plaintiffs. The third Respondent, which had undergone appellation metamorphosis in the telephony industry, is a famous limited liability company and licenced operator of cellular mobile telecommunications in Nigeria. The Appellant, first, second, fourth and eleventh Respondents were the shareholders of the third Respondent. There was an executed Shareholders’ Agreement, dated 30th April, 2002, which conferred on the shareholders a “right of first refusal” in relation to disposition of shares or interest by co-shareholders in the third Respondent. Sometime in 2005, the first and second Respondents became aware, without formal notice, that in 2001 and 2003, the fourth Respondent, the alter ego of the Appellant, secretly transferred the Appellant’s ordinary shares in the third Respondent to the fifth and sixth Respondents in breach of the first and second Respondent’s pre-emptive rights. The number of the ordinary shares was 9,906,250-valued $4.50, per share amounting to $44,578,125 (Forty-Four Million, Five Hundred and Seventy-Eight Thousand, One Hundred and Twenty-Five Dollars). On 11th March, 2013, the first and second Respondents divested themselves of their interest in the third Respondent at $7.4 per share in accordance with the Shareholders’ Agreement. The first and second Respondents alleged that there was a differential of $2.9, in the value of the Appellant and fourth Respondent’s ordinary shares of 9,906,250 between 2003, when they were sold, and 2013 when they divested their interest in the third Respondent in 2013, which amounted to $28,728,125 (Twenty-Eight Million, Seven Hundred and Twenty-Eight Thousand, One Hundred and Twenty-Five Dollars). Sequel to that, the first and second Respondents beseeched the lower court, via an Originating Motion filed on 22nd December, 2006, which was later converted to a Writ of Summons on 8th October, 2007, and tabled against the Appellant, third-tenth Respondents and eleventh Respondent, which was later joined to the suit on 8th May, 2017, jointly and severally, certain declaratory reliefs, mandatory orders, interest on the said sum of $28,728,125 and cost of the action assessed at N100,000,000 (One Hundred Million Naira). Before the joinder of the eleventh Respondent to the action on 8th May, 2017, the lower court had, precisely on 5th February, 2015 and 19th October, 2015, made two orders which directed parties to maintain status quo as at February 4th, 2011 and present respectively. Subsequently, the first and second Respondents discovered that the Appellant sued the third Respondent et al in the lower court, wherein they obtained consent judgment based upon which the Appellant sold its shares in the third Respondent to Bharti Airtel Nigeria BV for N22,500,000,000= (Twenty Billion, Five Hundred Million Naira). Consequently, the first and second Respondents filed an application before the lower court, on 5th September 2018, which sought orders directing the Appellant to transfer the proceeds of the sale of its shares, which amounted to N22, 500,000,000= (Twenty Billion, Five Hundred Million Naira), into an interest-yielding account in the name of the Chief Registrar of the lower court pending the determination of the suit. The appellant filed a counter-affidavit in opposition. The application was, duly, heard by the lower court and in a considered ruling; the lower court granted the application. The Appellant was dissatisfied with the decision, hence an appeal wherein it prayed for an order allowing the appeal and setting aside the ruling of the lower court and an order dismissing the motion.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the court below was right when it exercised jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought in the Motion considering that the 1st and 2nd Respondents, having sold and/or divested themselves of their rights and interest in the shares of the 3rd Respondent in the year 2013, have no further right to either seek to restrain or intervene in the sale of the shares of the Appellant in the 3rd Respondent or acquire any benefit in the Sales Proceeds? Whether the Ruling and the proceedings of the Court Below, particularly the proceedings of (i) January 17, 2019, (the date the Motion was heard) and (ii) March 7, 2019, (the date the Ruling was delivered) are not liable to be set aside considering that the 11th Respondent (parent company of the appellant) was not (i) served with the court processes that were filed and issued in the suit, including the Motion and the accompanying court processes, and (ii) notified of the proceedings of January 17, 2019 and March 7, 2019 that took place in the court below? Whether the Court Below was right to hold that the sale by the appellant of the purchased shares was in breach of the 1st Order and the 2nd Order?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
BRIEF OF ARGUMENT – WHETHER A BRIEF OF ARGUMENT CAN BE TERMED INCOMPETENT ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS NUMBER OF PAGES
“In any event, it is imperative to place on record, pronto, that a protestation against the number of pages in a brief of argument is, totally, divorced from an issue bordering on the competence of an appeal, see Garba v. Mohammed (supra). In Emerhor v. Okowa (2016) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1522) 1 at 25, Okoro, JSC, insightfully and incisively, declared:
The learned senior counsel had urged this court to strike out the appellants’ brief and hold that there is no argument of the appeal before this court. I have no reason to do that. The fact that the brief of the appellant comprises 41 pages instead of the maximum of 40 pages prescribed by paragraph 9(a) of Practice Direction on Election Appeals to the Supreme Court, is not enough reason to strike out the brief. I can only admonish counsel and parties to try and limit the length of their briefs to 40 pages as directed by the Practice Direction aforesaid
It is settled, discernible from these magisterial pronouncement in these ex cathedra authorities, that superfluous pagination of brief of argument is a mere irregularity. It does not go to the prop/root of the brief as to it taint it with incompetence. This current position of the law, with due respect, drowns the appellant’s allegation that the first and second respondents’ brief of argument was/is plagued by incompetence on the footing of excess number of pages”.
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – DUTY OF COURT TO ISSUE OF JURISDICTION WHEN RAISES IN PROCEEDINGS
“The law compels the courts to accord premier consideration to issue of jurisdiction when raised in any proceedings, see SPDC Ltd. v. Amadi (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1266) 157; Okwu v. Umeh (2016) NWLR (Pt. 1501) 120; Brittania- U (Nig.) Ltd. v. Seplat Pet. Co. Dev. Ltd. (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1503) 541; Oni v. Cadbury Nig. Plc. (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 80; Diamond Bank Ltd. v. Ugochukwu (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1517) 193”.
LOCUS STANDI – EFFECT OF THE ABSENCE OR PRESENCE OF LOCUS STANDI IN A PARTY
“It is trite that the absence or presence of locus standi in a party will divest or infuse jurisdiction into a court to discountenance or entertain a matter before it, see Emezi v. Osuagwu (2005) 12 NWLR (Pt. 939) 349/(2005) 30 WRN 1; A.-G., Anambra State v. A.-G. Fed (2007)11 NWLR (Pt. 1047) 4; Admin/Exec., Estate Abacha v. Eke-Spiff (2009) 17NWLR (Pt. 1171) 614;Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1310 1370; Uwazuruonye v. Gov., Imo State (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1355) 28; Adebayo v. PDP (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1382) 1; Okwu v. Umeh (2016) 4 NWLR (pt. 1501) 120; Nyesom v. Peterside (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1512) 452; Rebold Ind. Ltd. v. Magreola (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1461) 210; Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666)518; Nworka v. Ononeze-Madu (supra); A.-G., C.R.S. v. FRN (2019) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1681) 401.
LOCUS STANDI – MEANING, SOURCES AND ESSENCE OF LOCUS STANDI
“From an etymological perspective, the cliché, locus standi, traces its roots to Latin Language which means: “place of standing”. In its expounded legal form, locus standi denotes the legal right or capacity of a person to institute an action in a court of law when his right is trampled upon by somebody or authority, see INEC v. Ogbadibo L. G.(2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1498) 167; Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC (supra) Nworka v. Ononeze-Madu (supra); A.-G., C.R.S. v. FRN (supra). Nigeria citizens derive their locus standi from the Constitution, statutes, customary law or voluntary arrangements in organisation involving their civil rights and obligations, see Odeneye v. Efunuga (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt. 164) 618. Locus standi was evolved to protect the court from being converted into a jamboree by professional litigants who have no interest in matter, see Taiwo v. Adegboro (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1259) 562; Al – Hassan v. Ishaku (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1520) 230. For a party to establish locus standi, he must show that the matter is justiciable – capable of being disposed of judiciously in a court of law – and the existence of dispute between parties, see Taiwo v. Adegboro (supra); Ajayi v. Adebiyi (supra). Again, that he has sufficient interest in the subject-matter of the action and that his civil rights and obligations are in the danger of being infringed, see Jitte v. Okpulor (2016) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1497) 542; Nyesom v. Peterside (supra); Al – Hassan v. Ishaku (supra); Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC (supra) Nworka v. Ononeze-Madu (supra); A.-G., C.R.S. v. FRN (supra)”.
LOCUS STANDI – WHAT THE COURT CONSIDERS IN DETERMINING THE LOCUS STANDI OF A PARTY – PROPER ORDER TO BE MADE BY COURT IN THE ABSENCE OF LOCUS STANDI
“It is the statement of claim, or affidavit in originating summons, that is examined by a court in determining the locus standi of a party, see Nyesom v. Peterside (supra); Taiwo v. Adegboro (supra); Odeneye v. Efunuga (supra); Uwazuruonye v. Gov., Imo state (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1355) 28; Bakare v. Ajose-Adeogun (2014) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1403) 320;INEC v. Ogbadibo L. G.(supra);Okwu v. Umeh(supra); Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC (supra) Nworka v. Ononeze-Madu (supra); A.-G., C.R.S. v. FRN (supra).However, chances of success of an action is irrelevant in considering locus standi, see Taiwo v. Adegboro (supra); Ajayi v. Adebiyi (supra); Okwu v. Umeh (supra). The order a court makes, in the absence of locus standi, is one of striking out the suit, not dismissal, see Magbagbeola v. Akintola (2018) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1629) 177”.
DECISION OF A COURT – MEANING OF DECISION OF A COURT
“A determination signifies “the settling of a controversy by a judicial decision, a coming to a decision”, see Omisore v. Aregbesola (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1482) 205 at 263, per Nweze, JSC. Both an order and a determination fall within the firmament of a court decision. A decision of a court means “in relation to a court, any determination of that court and includes judgment, decrees, order conviction, sentence or recommendation”, see section 318 of the Constitution, as amended, Yusuf v. Obasabjo (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 843) 293, Kubor v. Dickson (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1345) 534, Omisore v. Aregbesola (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1482) 205; CPC v. INEC (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1317) 260; Madumere v. Okwara (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1368) 303; Salik v. Idris (2014) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1429) 36; Otti v. Ogah (2017) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1563) 1; FRN v. Atuche (2019) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1674) 338”.
DECISION OF COURT – STATUS OF A DECISION OF COURT NOT APPEALED AGAINST
“It is elementary law, beyond any peradventure of doubt, that a decision of a court not appealed against remains binding and subsisting for and/or against parties thereto, see Nwaogu v. Atuma (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1364) 117; Gundiri v. Nyako(2014) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1391) 211; Enterprise Bank Ltd v. Aroso (2014) 3 (Pt. 1394) 256; Anyanu v. Ogunewe (2014) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1410) 437; Akoma v. Osenwokwu (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1419) 462; Ukachukwu v. PDP (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1435) 134; Awodi v. Ajagbe (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1447) 578; Kayili v. Yilbuk (2015) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1457) 26; Agbaje v. INEC (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1501) 151; Emeka v. Okoroafor(2017) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1577) 410; Poroye v. Makarfi (2018) 1 NWLR (P. 1599) 91; Abdurahman v. Thomas (2019) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1685) 107; Offodile v. Offodile (2019) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1698) 189”.
RIGHT TO SERVICE OF COURT PROCESSES – NATURE OF A PARTY’S RIGHT TO SERVICE OF COURT PROCESS
“A party to a suit has an inalienable right to be served with the court processes. A violation of that right to a party equates with breach of his inviolable right to fair hearing as entrenched in section 36(1) of the Constitution, as amended. It must be stressed, pronto, that the right to service of court processes is sui juris. It is a domestic right that is attached to a party. Being a personal right, it is submissive to a waiver by the owner party. This is encapsulated in the Latin Maxim: Quilibet potest renunciare juri prose introducto-an individual may renounce a law made for his special benefit, see Mobil Prod. (Nig.) Ltd v. LASEPA (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 789) 1, Odua Investment v. Talabi (1997) 7 SCNJ 600, Nonye v. Anyichie (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt. 910) 633, F & F Farms (Nig.) Ltd v. NNPC (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1155) 387, C & C.B. Dev. Co Ltd v. Min., E.H.O.U.D (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666) 484, Ardo v. INEC (2017) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1583) 450.”
ORDER – MEANING OF AN ORDER
“To start with, an order signifies “a mandate; precept; command or direction authoritatively given, rule or regulation, direction of a court or judge made or entered in writing and not included in a judgment”, see Maideribe v. FRN (2014) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1399) 68 at 91 per Mohammed, JCS (later CJN)”.
STATUS QUO ANTE BELLUM – MEANING OF THE TERM STATUS QUO ANTE BELLUM
“The term, status quo ante bellum, means the state/situation of things/affairs that existed before the something else, the case/controversy, occurred, see Akapo v. Hakeem-Habeeb (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 247); Falomo v. Banigbe (1998) 6 SC 141/ (1998) 6 SCNJ 42; Oronti v. Onigbanjo (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1313) 23”.
ORDER OF COURT – CONSEQUENCE OF DISOBEDIENCE OF AN ORDER OF COURT
“The law, in its wisdom, has saddled on the appellant the bounden duty/obligation, under pain of punishment, to obey any subsisting order of courts. It is not at the discretion of a party to obey order of court. It is of no moment that the order was wrongly made or without jurisdiction. The moment an order of court, of any cadre/stratium, is alive and extant, it must be obeyed to the letter. Disobedience of court order constitutes an affront to the rule of law-the soul of democracy. It is a mockery of administration of justice – man’s greatest interest in the universe. It breeds, nurtures and grooms anarchy, chaos or totalitarianism, which erodes on the peaceful co-existence in a society. It is a trample on the integrity and sanctity of the court and temple of justice. It renders the court a paper tiger and a toothless bulldog in the realm of adjudication.
CANON OF INTERPRETATION – LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE
“The order is disobedient to equivocation. In this wise, the court is enjoined by law to apply the literal rule as a canon interpretation, videlicet: to accord the words employed therein their ordinary grammatical meanings without any embellishments, see UBN v. Ozigi (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 333) 385, UBN Ltd v. Sax (Nig) Ltd. (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt. 361) 150; Enilolobo v. N.P.D.C Ltd (2019) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1703) 168”.
RECORD OF COURT – DUTY OF COURTS TO CONSTRUE THE RECORD OF COURT IN ITS EXACT CONTENT
“It is rudimentary law that a court, be it trial or appellate, is bound by the contents of the record. It is robbed of the jurisdiction to read into what is absent from it nor add into it what is outside the record. In other words, it must construe the record in its exact content. The parties are bound by the record too, see Orugbo V. Una (2002) 16 NWLR (Pt. 792) 175; Ogidi v. State (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt. 918) 286; 0. 0. M. F. v. N. A. C. B. Ltd. (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1098) 412; Ekpemupolo v. Edremoda (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1142) 166; International Bank Plc. v. Onwuka (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1144) 462; Sapo V. Sunmonu (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1205) 374; Akanbi v. Oyewale (2009) ALL FWLR (Pt. 456) 1922; Offcir v. State (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1333) 421; Adegbuyi v. APC (2015) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1442)1; Brittania-U (Nig.) Ltd. v Seplat Pet Dev. Co. Ltd. (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1503) 541; PDP V. Umana (No.2) (2016) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1526) 307; Gov., Imo State v. Amuzie (2019) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1680) 331; Ukwuyok v. Ogbulu (2019) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1695) 308”.
ORDER OF COURT – NATURE OF A PRESERVATIVE ORDER
“In other words, a preservatory order oxygenates the res in a suit and puts it in the incubation throughout the gestation period of a matter. A preservative order lubricates and enlivens the res so that a court is not confronted with a state of complete helplessness nor its order rendered nugatory at the end of the proceedings. It prevents the court from being foisted with a fait accompli which will diminish its integrity and sanctity and expose it to vain order. It is a court’s armour of integrity that is domiciled in its inherent power!
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Court of Appeal (Fast Track) Practice Directions, 2014,|
