ORJI V. ZARIA IND. LTD.

• Pages: 1-22

ORJI V. ZARIA IND. LTD.



1

ORJI V. ZARIA IND. LTD.

5

MR. D.O. ORJI

V.

10 ZARIA INDUSTRIES LTD.

ALH. DANJUMA ADAMU

APPEAL No. SC. 240/1989.

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

15



KARIBI-WHYTE,



J.S.C.

BELGORE,



J.S.C.

WALT,



J.S.C.

AKPATA,



J.S.C.

OMO,



J.S.C.

20

10th January, 1992.

Appeals - Brief writing - Failure to formulate issues therein - Effect - Order I rule 20(5)

Court of Appeal Rules - Duty of Court before exercising power thereunder - Effect of

25



order 3 rule 2(6) Court of Appeal Rules thereon.

Company Law -

Mere participation of Government in private company - Whether ipso

facto converts such a company into a public company.

Evidence -

Affidavits - Mere conclusion of facts within knowledge of deponent - Whether

30



offend against section 86 of the Evidence Act.

Practice and Procedure -

Injunction - Balance of Convenience - Guiding principles in

consideration thereof - Interlocutory matters - Duty of court thereto.

Remedies -

Injunction - Interlocutory injunction - Considerations - Guiding principles for

35



grant of

Words and Phrases -

"Interlocutoty injunction"- Meaning of

ISSUES:

1.

What is an interlocutory injunction and what should a court consider before

40



granting same?

2.

What principle governs a court in its consideration of a balance of convenience

in an action for interlocutory injunction?

3.

What is the duty of a trial court when dealing with interlocutory matters?

45

FACTS:

The appellant whose employment was terminated by the respondents insti-

tuted an action by Writ of Summons. seeking,

inter alia,

a declaration that the

termination of his appointment was wrongful, void and of no effect. He also sought

an order of injunction to restrain the respondents from carrying into effect the

50



contents of the letter of termination of the employment.

APPELLANT

RESPONDENTS

2



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1992) 1 N.S.C.C.

The learned trial judge, in a considered ruling, refused the application for an

order of injunction mainly on the ground that the balance of convenience was in

favour of the 1st respondent and that there was nothing before the court to show

that the inconvenience the plaintiff would suffer if the application was refused could

not be adequately compensated for through damages. The application was 5

accordingly dismissed.

The appellant being dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial court appealed to the

Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the trial Court on

the interlocutory application, and held that the trial court acted judicially and

judiciously in the exercise of its discretion to refuse to grant the interlocutory



1C

injunction. The Court of Appeal also held that there was no material placed before

the trial court by the appellant to show that whatever inconvenience that might

arise directly from the refusal to grant the injunction could not be adequately

compensated by award of damages should the substantive case terminate in

favour of the appellant. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Still dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court against the



lE

judgment of the Court of Appeal.

HELD:

1.

An interlocutory injunction is an equitable remedy granted by the court before

the substantive question raised in the case is finally determined. Its object is



2C

to keep matters in status quo while the case is still pending. The court in

deciding whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction, shall be guided

by the following considerations:-

1.

serious issue to be determined with prospect of success.

2.

balance of convenience.



2E

3.

status quo as a proper remedy.

(See p.9, lines 20 -

26).

2. The governing principle in considering the issue of balance of convenience is

whether, in case the plaintiff succeeds in his claim, he could not be adequately

compensated by award of damages against the defendant and that the 3C

defendant is financially in a position to pay the damages awarded. Thus, where

the damages in the measure recoverable at common law would be adequate

and the defendant would be in a financial position to pay, the court will not

grant the interlocutory injunction however strong the plaintiff's case may

appear to be.

(See p.9, lines 35 - 39).

3. It is the duty of a trial court when dealing with interlocutory matters to avoid

making statement giving the impression that it has made up its mind on the

substantive issue on trial before it.

(See p.12, lines 15 - 18).

4. Mere

participation of any government in a private company does not

ipso facto

convert such a company into a public one.

(See p.12, lines 43 -

45).



4(

Thus in the instant case, the mere fact that the Kaduna State Government holds

the largest share of 40.95% of the total share holdings in the 1st respondent

company does not convert the 1st respondent into a public company.

Per

AKPATA, J.S.C:



4!

5. Failure to formulate issues in a brief is sufficient by itself to render the brief

incompetent, and arguments canvassed therein would therefore be of no

consequence. The brief becomes irredeemably bad if, as in this case,

arguments are not based on any issue or issues or semblance of them. (See

p.16, lines 49 - 50; p.17, lines 1 - 2).



5

~~