CHIEF EMMANUEL HENACHO VS THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE LIVING FAITH (A.K.A. WINNERS CHAPEL)

CORAM

MORONKEJI OMOTAYO ONALAJA. JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

HON. JUSTICE MUHAMMED LAWAL GARBA    JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

MORONKEJI OMOTAYO ONALAJA. JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

HON. JUSTICE MUHAMMED LAWAL GARBA    JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

PARTIES

1.CHIEF EMMANUEL HENACHO ODUNGWERUELDER JEFF ROBINSON OKWU (for themselves & on behalf of the Rumurueli community, Oroabali, Rebisi, Port Harcourt City Local Government Area). APPELLANTS

 THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE LIVING FAITH (A.K.A. WINNERS CHAPEL)

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Claimants/Appellants claimed to be the owners of a piece of land situate behind the Fruit Garden Market and Off Afam Street behind the Rivers State Reference Library, D/Line, Port Harcourt.

They sued the Respondent, hereinafter called the Winners Chapel claiming ownership and possession in respect of the disputed land, an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Respondent by themselves, their servants, agents, privies or otherwise however from committing further acts of trespass on the land, and an entire sum of N100, 000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) being and representing damages for trespass by the Respondents on the disputed land.

The Respondent alleges that it has been in possession of the disputed land and claims ownership of the same by virtue of the alienation to it of the interest of a third party- Adonai Foundation Assembly. The High Court refused to grant the Appellants’ motion for interlocutory injunction hence an appeal to this Court.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1.Whether by the affidavit evidence before the court, the court should have granted the order of interlocutory injunction?

2.Whether the court was right to hold that as a result of 3rd party (Adonai Foundation Assembly) interest, the order sought can not be granted?

3.Whether the trial court delved into the substantive case at the interlocutory stage thereby disqualifying itself from going ahead to determine the case on the merits?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION- INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION CANNOT BE GRANTED WHERE THERE EXISTS THIRD PARTY INTEREST

“An interlocutory injunction can not be granted where there exists such third party interest. See Cobiam v. Duke (2004) 6 WRN 47; Okomo v. Omoetuk (2004) 6 WRN 154 at 174.” PER. E. EKO JCA

INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION- PURPOSE OF GRANTING AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION

“An interlocutory injunction is basically aimed at maintaining the status quo and preserving the subject matter of a case pending the determination of the issues of dispute between the parties to the case. A court has not only the power and jurisdiction, but also the duty to preserve the res of the action before it to await the out of the determination and resolution of the questions submitted to it by the parties. It is an equitable jurisdiction which the court exercises in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case as presented in the affidavit evidence placed before it by the parties.” PER M. L. GARBA, J.C.A

REFUSAL OR GRANT OF AN INJUNCTION – CONSEQUENCE OF A REFUSAL OR GRANT OF AN INJUNCTION

“The refusal or grant of an injunction, interlocutory or perpetual, by a court of trial entitles the aggrieved party to appeal as of right by dint of Section 241 (1) (f) (ii) of the 1999 Constitution. PER. E. EKO JCA

INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION- INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION WILL BE APPROPRIATE WHERE THE SUBJECT MATTER WILL BE PERMANENTLY DESTROYED

“Generally, an interlocutory injunction is only appropriate where the subject matter will be permanently destroyed and cannot be replaced or returned to its state or position before litigation, so as to preserve it for decision by the court in the case. It is not granted as a matter of course, grace or routine and so in order for the court to exercise its equitable discretion, the applicant must present sincere, real and convincing facts which makes the grant of the order, deserving. See Kotoye v CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (1998) 419, Praying Band of C and S v Udokiuu (1991) 3 NWLR (182) 716 A.G., Anambra v Okafor (1992) 2 NWLR (224) 396, Saraki v Kotoye (1990) 4 NWLR (143) 144.” PER M. L. GARBA, J.C.A

INTERFERENCE WITH THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY A LOWER COURT- INSTANCES WHERE AN APPELLATE COURT WILL INTERFERE WITH THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY A LOWER COURT

“It is not the duty of this court to interfere with the exercise of a discretion by a lower unless it is demonstrated that the exercise was wrong in law. See Efetiroroje v Okpalefe (1991) 5 NWLR (193) 517, Ideozu v Ochoma (2006) ALL FWLR (308) 1183.” PER M. L. GARBA, J.C.A

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Constitution the Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT