Legalpedia Citation: (2023-08) Legalpedia 67722 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden At Abuja

Mon Aug 14, 2023

Suit Number: CA/ABJ/PRE/ROA/971M/2022(R)

CORAM

Jamilu Yammama Tukur JCA

James Gambo Abundaga JCA

Abdul-Azeez Waziri JCA

PARTIES

1. UNITY HIGH SCHOOL LIMITED
2. UNITY HIGH SCHOOL

APPELLANTS

1. THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
2. FEDERAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
3. BWAKI AREA COUNCIL
4. COPEN SERVICES LTD

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EVIDENCE, LAND, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellants amongst other things, sued for the declaration of title to property in dispute known as Plot 223 Cadastral Zone F13, Kubwa Abuja. The 1st and 2nd Respondents raised a preliminary objection that the grant of the land to the Appellants was incompetent because when they granted the land to the Appellants, it was granted to Unity High School without the addition of the word ‘Limited’. The Honourable Lower Court upheld the objection and dismissed the Appellants’ suit. The Appellants appealed against the decision and in addition sought for an injunction restraining the Respondents from building on the land pending the appeal. The Honourable Lower Court granted the injunction restraining the Respondents from building on the land in dispute pending this appeal.

In flagrant disobedience of the injunction, the 4th Defendant moved to the site and has been building the land, working day and night. This appeal seeks for the enforcement of the order of injunction of the lower Court.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Whether based on the totality of the evidence before the Court a grant of this Application will be justified?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

MANDATORY INJUNCTION – THE PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE THE GRANT OF AN ORDER OF MANDATORY INJUNCTION

In the case of Kwankwaso v. Gov. of Kano State & Ors (2006) LPELR – 11617 (CA), it was held:

“Generally Courts have always been, and are still reluctant to issue orders for mandatory injunction except in very clear cases. They have always required the clearest evidence as well as very high standard of proof so as to make sure that at the trial it will still appear that the order of the mandatory injunction was rightly made, as grave consequences could follow such an order. In practice therefore, there must be either a trial of a claim for mandatory injunction or at least a substantive prayer in an application for it in clear terms followed by undisputable evidence of the infringement that entitled the applicant to the order. The principles to guide the grant of order of mandatory injunction has been enunciated in the case of ATTORNEY- GENERAL ANAMBRA STATE V. OKAFOR (1992) 2 NWLR(PT. 224) 396 and they are as follows:

(a) Whether in the circumstance as they exist after the breach, a mandatory order and if so

(b) What kind of mandatory will produce a fair result,

(c) The benefit which the order will confer on the plaintiff and the detriment which it will cause the defendant,

(d) A plaintiff should not be deprived of a relief to which he is justly entitled merely because it would be disadvantageous to the defendant,

(e) A plaintiff should not be permitted to insist on a form of relief which will confer no appreciable benefit on himself and will materially be detrimental to the defendant.

See MODILE V. LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT & 7 ORS. (2004) 12 NWLR (PT. 887) 354 at 383”. Per BA,ABA, JCA (Pp. 24-25, paras. F-B).

See also the case of Adeleye & Ors v. The Executive Governor of Ogun State (2012) LPELR – 9584 (CA) pp. 29 – 30 paras E – B; Total E & P (Nig) Ltd v. Imoladei & Sons(2012 LPELR – LPELR – 14256 (CA) pp. 16-17 paras D – B.

The law as stated in the above cases is that the Court should be hesitant in granting a mandatory injunction. That it should be granted only in very clear cases, that is to say, where there is credible evidence in proof of the violation of an order of interlocutory injunction. – Per J. G. Abundaga, JCA

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
2. The Police Act
3. Evidence Act 2011

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT