Oguchi Onea & Ors V. Nwaeke Egbeichi & Ors (1974)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
SOWEMIMO, JSC.
This is an appeal against the ruling of the learned trial Judge, Nwokedi J., at the Okigwe High Court in the East Central State, in Suit No. HU/19/71. The learned Judge refused to grant an interlocutory injunction against the defendants because the area of land in dispute could not be identified.
No plan of the land was exhibited. There was dispute between the parties, as could be gathered from the affidavits and counter-affidavits filed, as to the actual area being litigated upon and their locations. The learned trial Judge in his ruling stated inter alia:- “It is not denied that at the time this motion was brought the applicants had filed no plan which would enable this court to determine and identify the area of land where the injunction could operate.
The necessity for this has become more obvious since the Defendants in their counter- affidavits are saying that their own lands are different from that their own lands are different from that of the plaintiffs/applicants. There is in my mind some doubt as to the exact areas of land an injunction if granted will encompass. In the circumstances it would certainly be futile for me now to make the order sought by the applicants”.
But it is also equally true that an applicant for an order of interlocutory injunction must have sufficient interest in the relief sought. The applicants in this motion in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of their affidavit have clearly to my mind demonstrated that they no longer have any appreciable interest other than in the sharing of the compensation which the Christian Council of Churches would eventually pay. They had earlier granted their land to an amorphous organisation known as the Association of Refugees who in turn secured the services of the Christian Council of Churches to plant some crops on their land. Neither the Christian Council of Churches nor the Association of Refugees who in my view “will be greatly affected by the results of this motion are parties either in the original suit or in this motion. It is these two bodies who would suffer by the Defendants alleged acts of vandalism on the disputed land since the farm settlement if anything would benefit the so called Association of Refugees. It has been urged on behalf of the applicants that the court should also consider the balance of convenience in granting or refusing to grant applicants’ prayer.”
In this motion the applicants have not shown what inconvenience they would suffer if their prayer is refused. The Christian Council of Churches owners of the money to be paid by way of compensation are quite-prepared to pay to any party who ultimately wins the land case. Finally I have to take into consideration the tremendous hardship which the defendants would suffer if applicant’s prayer is granted at this stage by this court.
This is the farming season and an interlocutory injunction would certainly have the effect of keeping Defendants out of their lands which they claim are completely outside the area of operation by the Christian Council of Churches or the Association of Refugees. In view of the foregoing, I find myself unable to accede to Applicants’ prayer at this state.”
Against the ruling the appellants filed 5 grounds of appeal. At the hearing of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant abandoned grounds 3, 4 and 5 and these were accordingly struck out. The gravamen of the complaint, on the two remaining grounds canvassed before us, was that owing to some alleged actions of the defendants, the plaintiffs were unable to have the land surveyed, and, unless the injunction was granted, the plaintiffs are unable to have a plan made out as ordered by the court.
This point was not raised in the lower court and on our consideration of the prayer in the motion, we do not think that that point could be raised here or in the lower Court. The relevant portion of the motion reads:- “.as Counsel for the plaintiffs can be heard on their behalf praying the court for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants their servants and agents from their entering the land in dispute and obstructing the work of the farm settlement and from committing wanton waste on the said land or from acting therein in any manner depreciatory of the value of the said land and for such order as the court may seem fit.” (Underlining is ours).
We are of the view, therefore, that the learned trial Judge in his careful and exhaustive ruling had properly considered the application for an interlocutory injunction and we agree with him, in his refusal to grant the prayer. The appellants appeal therefore fails. We uphold the ruling of the learned trial Judge and dismiss the appeal. The two sets of respondents are hereby awarded costs of N90.00 to each set against the appellants.
Other Citation: (1974) LCN/1919(SC)
