BAKARE V. OKENLA

• Pages: 245-247

BAKARE V. OKENLA



245

deal in the normal way unless there is a special court order, and generally speak-

ing a receiver will always be appointed if there is a right to have one appointed.

See

In re Henry Pound

(1889) 42 Ch.D. 402.

In addition it is riot the normal practice to grant an interim injunction if a mere-

5



ly pecuniary matter is at issue and whilst there is an issue of insolvency here which

was not present in the cases to which we were referred we do not see that that al-

ters the fundamental basis of the practice. Here the applicants are only concerned

with a pecuniary issue, their claims as creditors of the Company, and on all scores

of convenience we do not consider that they have made out their case for restraint.

10



Cotton L.J. in

Preston v. Luck

(1884) 27 Ch.D. 497 said at 505:-

"This is an application only for an interlocutory injunction, the object of which

is to keep things in

statu quo,

so that, if at the hearing the plaintiffs obtain a

judgment in their favour, the defendants will have been prevented from dealing

15



in the mantime with the property in such a way as to make that judgment

ineffectual. Of course, in order to entitle the plaintiffs to an interlocutory

injunction, though the court is not called upon to decide finally on the right of

the parties, it is necessary that the court should be satisfied that there is a serious

question to be tried at the hearing, and that on the facts before it there is a

20



probability that the plaintiffs are entitled to relief." and, as we have indicated,

we do not see that any refusal cf restraint now would make the petition to wind

up ineffectual assuming that it is granted. Much longer restraint would be

needed by the applicants to aciieve their aim and this was neither sought in

the motion nor in any case would it be appropriate on balance of convenience

25



to grant it.

The motion is accordingly dismissed with 15 guineas costs to each respond-

ent.

Motion Dismissed.

30

BAKARE V. OKENLA

L. A. BAKARE

V

CHIEF 0. ADE OKENLA

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 383/1966

35

40

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

15th November, 1968.

45

Civil Action - Claim for professional fees by Legal Practitioner - Failure to serve

bill of charges as required by S.11 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1962 -

Effect.

50

ISSUE:

1. In a suit brought by a legal practitioner for payment of his professional fees,

what is the effect of his failure to have served the defendant with a bill of charges

as required by S.11 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1962.