OBEYA MEM. SPECIALIST HOSP. & ANOR. V. A-G. FED. & ANOR.
| Pages | 961-981 |
OBEYA MEM. SPECIALIST HOSP. & ANOR. V. A-G. FED.
& ANOR. 951
OBEYA MEM. SPECIALIST HOSP. & ANOR. V.
A-G. FED. & ANOR.
1.
OBEYA MEM. SPECIALIST HOSPITAL
APPELLANTS
2.
AYI ONYEAMA FAMILY LIMITED
V
1.
A-G. OF THE FEDERATION
2.
A-G. OF BENUE STATE
RESPONDENTS
SUIT NO. SC 22
7
/
1
986
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
OBASEKI,
J.S.C.
NNAMANI,
J.S.C.
UWAIS,
J.S.C.
KAZEEM,
J.S.C.
KAWU,
J.S.C.
3rd July, 1987
Equitable Remedies - Injunction - Nature of application for relief sought determines
25
quantum of proof application requires - Interlocutory injunction - Balancing of
interest required - Court must determine where balance of convenience and
evidence lies - Interlocutory injunction - Existence of serious issues to be tried
in substantive action, balance only of convenience to be considered - Purpose
of interlocutory injunction - Condition upon which interlocutory injunction to
30
be granted.
ISSUES:
1.
What purpose does an interlocutory injunction serve.
2.
Upon what considerations should a court exercise its jurisdiction in favour of
an applicant seeking an interlocutory injunction.
FACTS:
The appellant was operating a hospital at Oturkpo in Benue State, when on 24th
January, 1986, the Recovery of Public Funds and Property Panel with the aid of
some personnel of the Nigerian Airforce and Army forcibly ejected the appellant's
staff from the hospital and took over possession of the hospital premises. Chief
Obande Obeya had been found to be indebted to the Benue State Government in
a huge sum of money by a Commission of Inquiry set up by the state. The appel-
lant company which was regarded as the Chief's personal property was taken over
by virtue of the powers vested in the said Recovery Panel, in partial settlement of
the indebtedness. The appellant commenced action against the respondents for
declarations that the action was unlawful and amounted to trespass, for damages
and an injunction to restrain the trespass. After filing the application for issue of
the writ of summons, the appellant brought a motion seeking orders that possess-
ion of the premises be restored to it. The High Court dismissed the application
and the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed
the appeal and the appellant further appealed to Supreme Court.
5
10
15
20
35
40
45
50
962
NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES
[1987] 2 N.S.C.C.
HELD:
1.
The purpose of an interlocutory injunction is to protect a plaintiff against injury
by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in
damages recoverable in the action if the case were resolved in his favour at
the trial; but the plaintiff's need for such protection must be weighed against
5
the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting
from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights if the
uncertainty were resolved in the defendant's favour at the trial.
2.
When an application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain a defendant from
doing acts alleged to be a violation of the plaintiff's legal right is made upon
10
contested facts, the decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction
has to be taken at a time when ex hypothesis, the existence of the right or
violation of it or both is uncertain and will remain uncertain until final judgment
is given in the action. It was to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during
the period the uncertainty could be resolved that the practice arose of granting
15
him relief by way of interlocutory injunction.
3.
The court must weigh one need against another and determine where the
balance of evidence lies.
4.
The purpose sought to be achieved by giving to the Court discretion to grant
injunctions would be satisfied if the discretion were clogged by a technical rule
20
forbidding its exercise if upon that incomplete untested evidence the Court
evaluated the chances of the plaintiff's ultimate success in the action at 50 per
cent or less but permitting its exercise if the Court evaluated his chances at
more than 50 per cent.
5.
The Benue State Government will lose nothing if it withdraws from the hospital
25
premises till the final determination of the action. The appellant if not returned
to occupation now would have lost tremendously in goodwill, patients, finance,
etc., if it ultimately succeeds in the substantive action. The balance of
convenience is therefore in favour of granting the application.
6.
The seizure of the hospital buildings by heavily armed Army and Airforce
30
personnel from unarmed law abiding citizens should not be encouraged or
applauded in a democratic society such as ours where the Rules of Law reigns.
It is more honourable to follow the due process of law. It is also more respectful
and more rewarding to follow such a course.
7.
The rule of force wearing the kid glove of an Edict can never usher in social
35
justice. It only wears the condemned face of the Law. Let the Benue State
Government return to the Rule of Law.
CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:
1.
American Cyanamid v. Ethicon Limited
(1975) A.C. 396.
40
2.
Agbor v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner
(1969) 1 N.W.L.R. 703.
3.
Ojukwu v. Governor of Lagos State
(1986) 3 N.W.L.R. 39.
4.
Kufeji v. Kogbe
(1961) 1 All N.L.R. 113 at 114.
5.
Egbe v. Onogu
(1972) 1 All N.L.R. (Part 1) 95 at 98.
6.
Ladunni v. Kukoyi
(1972) 1 All N.L.R. (Part 1) 95 at 98.
45
7.
Woluchem v. lnko Taria Wokoma
(1974) 3 S.C. 153.
8.
Donmar Production Ltd. v. Bart and Ors
(1967) 1 W.L.R 740 at 742.
Chief F.R.A. Williams, S.A.N.
(with him, Mr.
M.N. Chukuma, S.B. Johnson, Austin
Lawani and F.R.A. Williams (Jnr)
for the appellant.
5C
Mr. J.B. Ajala, (Director of Civil Litigation & Publication, Federal Ministry of Justice)
for the 1st respondent.
Mr. A.J. lkongbe (D.P.P. Benue State
with him,
Mr. T.S. Yakubu, Ag. D.D.P.P.
Benue State Ministry of Justice
for the 2nd respondent.
To continue reading
Request your trial