CORAM
PARTIES
APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
On the 18th April, 1970, the defendant and his agent broke and entered the piece of land to destroy the tombstone and the grave where plaintiffs late father, the Hon. Asifo Egbe was buried in. hence the plaintiff sued the defendant for trespass.
HELD
The Court held that the appeal succeeds. The order of Ovie-Whisky, J., dismissing the application for an interim injunction is hereby set aside. In substitution thereof it is ordered that the application for interim injunction as contained in the Notice of Motion dated 5th May, 1970, is hereby granted. It is further ordered that the substantive case be listed before another judge for hearing.
ISSUES
Whether the learned Judge directed himself properly and correctly on the principles governing the exercise by the court of its discretionary powers when dealing with an application for interim injunction.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE GRANTOF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION
“In an application for the interlocutory injunction the applicant must establish a probability or a strong prima facie case that he is entitled to the right of whose violation he complains, and subject to this being established the governing consideration is the maintenance of the status quo pending the trial.” LEWIS, JSC.
BURDEN OF PROOF FOR AN INTERIM INJUCTION
“The burden of proof that the inconvenience which the plaintiff will suffer by the refusal of the injunction is greater than that which the defendant will suffer, if it is granted lies on the plaintiff.”
CASES CITED
Donmar Productions Ltd. v. Bart & Ors. (1967) 2 All ER 338 at page 339Kufeji v. Kogbe (1961) All NLR page 113Hoskins-Abrahall v. Paighton U.D.C. (1928) All ER 57.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Burials Law (Cap. 155 W.N.L.) and RegulationsCemeteries Clauses Act, 1847