NIG. JOINT AGENCY LTD. V. ARROW ENG. & GEN. TRANS. CO. LTD.

• Pages: 273-277

NIG. JOINT AGENCY LTD. V. ARROW ENG. & GEN. TRANS. CO

. LTD. 273

the land in dispute as being at Anifowoshe Village, Ikeja and states that a plan of it

would be filed later. No such plan had been filed then and the question is whether

the averments in the affidavits which we have earlier on in this judgment set out

could establish the identity of the area of land on which the order of injunction was

5



sought. The learned trial Judge ir: the course of his ruling took the view that the

photographs exhibited by the respondents to her affidavit as exhibits A, B, C, D

and E and the contents of those photographs could identify the land which the re-

spondent has claimed to be the one in dispute. We are not in any doubt that this

is a mistaken view of the legal position; and indeed comments such as appear in

10



this matter are themselves suggestive that there was a need in every case to ident-

ify precisely the area of land over which an injunction is to operate. In

Oluwi

v.

Eniola

(1967) N.M.L.R. 339, it wa decided that an order of injunction was rightly

refused inasmuch as the area of ;and in respect of which it was sought was not

precisely defined. We see no reasons why a different and lower degree of ident-

15



ification should be required for purposes of an interim injunction since in both

cases compliance consists in withdrawing oneself from the specific area of oper-

ation.

In the present case we are in agreement with learned counsel for the appellants

that as the precise area of land to be litigated still had to be defined with any de-

20



gree of precision at the time of the present application, the learned trial Judge

should not have granted the prayer since the order which was sought only oper-

ate over a well-defined area or parcel of land.

The appeal will therefore be allowed and the ruling of Adefarasin, J. dated the

10th day of April, 1970, in Suit No. LD/192/70, including his order for costs, is set

25



aside. It is ordered that the respondent's motion dated the 1st April, 1970 be dis-

missed with costs and this shall ee the order of the Court. The respondent shall

pay to the appellants the costs of this appeal fixed at 20 guineas as well as the

costs of the appellants in the court below fixed at 5 guineas.

Appeal allowed.

30

MG.

JOINT AGENCY LTD.

V.

ARROW ENG. &

GEN. TRANS. CO

. LTD.

NIGERIAN JOINT AGENCY LIM

,

TED



APPELLANT

V

ARROW ENGINEERING AND GENERAL

TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITIED



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 248/1969

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

COKER,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

FATAI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C.

13th November, 1970

35

40

45

Land Law - Landlord and Tenant - Possession - No/ice of intention to recover

possession and plaintiffs erroneously putting expiry date one day later -

Defendants not prejudiced ,5y error - Whether notice invalid - Recovery of

Premises Act.

50