ONYESOH V, NNEBEDUN

• Pages: 497-519

ONYESOH V. NNEBEDUN



497

ONYESOH V, NNEBEDUN

5

OBIDIEGWU ONYESOH

V.

10 1. NZE CHIRSTOPHER NNEBEDUN

(Member of Eze Nri-in-Council) )

2.

NZE FREDERICK J. OKEKE



)

(Executive Member Akamkpisi )

Development)

3.

NZE BONIFACE I. ODINANWA )

APPEAL NO. SC. 276/1989.

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

KARI B I-WHYTE,



J.S.C.

NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.0

OLATAWU RA ,



J.S.C.

AKPATA,



J.S.C.

BABALAKIN,



J.S.C.

30 27th March, 1992.

Appeals - Grounds of appeal - Issues arising from - Principles guiding formulation of -

"Blue Pencil Rule" - Applicability - Whether applicable to issues for determination in

an appeal - Exercise of discretion - When an appellate court may interfere.

35

Injunction -

Interlocutory injunction - Object, basis and purpose of - Application for grant

of - What applicant must show - Duty of Court - Principles guiding grant of -

Undertaking as to damages - Necessity for - Effect of failure to give same - Ex parte

injunction - Grant of - Duty of court.

40 Practice and Procedure -

Interlocutory injunction - Application for - When accelerated

hearing ought to be ordered.

Words and Phrases -

'Res" - Meaning (;f:

ISSUES:

45



1. What is the objective and basis of a court granting an interlocutory injunction?

2.

What factors should a court consider before granting an interlocutory

injunction?

3.

What is the duty of a court in relation to a grant of an interlocutory injunction?

APPELLANT

RESPONDENTS

15



(Vice-Chairman A.D.U.)

4.

NZE CHRISTOPHER NWOKOYE )

(One of the leaders of Kingmakers -

The Adamas)

(For themselves and on behalf of the

20



members of Akamkpisi community))

25

50

498



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1992] 1 N.S.C.C.

FACTS:

The plaintiffs/respondents and the defendant/appellant were members of Nri

Town. On 9/2/88 the respondents, as plaintiffs, filed a writ of summons claiming

from the defendant/appellant the following reliefs:

"1. A declaration that Nri town is made up of six villages.

2.

A declaration that the six villages which include the plaintiffs have to give

their consent before the enthronement of any person from Nri as the Eze

or lgwe of Nri.

3.

An order of injunction restraining the defendant, his privies and supporters

from presenting himself for installation and/or coronation or installing or

crowning the defendant the Eze or Igwe of Nri without the consent or

consensus of the plaintiffs given in writing or in a customary way in a public

gathering or meeting."



On the same day the plaintiffs, by a motion ex

parte,

applied and obtained an



15

interim injunction restraining the defendant from being crowned or installed as the

Eze or lgwe of Nri pending the determination of the motion on notice for interlocu-

tory injunction.

The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal.

The Court held that the trial judge was right in his view that the gravamen of the 20

application was the preservation of the

res.

The court also dismissed the complaint

that it was wrong to grant the interlocutory injunction in the face of the order for

accelerated hearing of the substantive action.

Still not satisfied, the defendant further appealed to the Supreme Court on the



ground,

inter alia,

that "the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law and



25

misdirected themselves when they upheld the erroneous exercise of discretion of

the learned trial judge in granting the application for interlocutory injunction when

the plaintiffs/applicants did not show "the existence of a legal right and a threat-

ened infringement of such right" judging from the copious documentary exhibits

and affidavit evidence before them which the court of first instance refused to 30

examine, let alone resolve but found that the

RES

must be preserved and occa-

sioned a miscarriage of justice."

HELD:

1.

The central objective of a court granting an interlocutory injunction is to

exercise its discretion to keep the parties in

status quo

pending the

determination of the substantive action. Hence the basis of a decision to grant

such application is that the court has before it a substantive action seeking for

the determination of the issue subject matter of the application, that the

applicant has shown from the affidavit in support of his application that there

is a

prima facie

case that there is a genuine dispute between the parties to be

determined

before the Court.

(See p.508, lines 14 - 22).

2.

The following factors are to be taken into consideration by a court before

granting an order of interlocutory injunction:

1.

The strength of the applicant's case in the substantive suit, and that there

is a serious issue to be tried.

2.

That the balance of convenience is on the side of the applicant, the onus

of proof of which is on the applicant.

3.

That monetary damages will not be an adequate compensation for the

injury resulting from the violation of his right if he succeeds in the action.



50

5

10

35

40

45