Pius Nwosu V. Nze J.i. Nnajiuba (1997)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
KATSINA-ALU, J.C.A.
The plaintiff, Nze Joseph Ibe Nnajiuba sued the defendant, Pius Nwosu in the court below claiming the following reliefs:
- A declaration by the Honourable Court that the Chieftaincy Stool of Amaokpara Autonomous Community is neither hereditary nor the exclusive preserve of the family of the defendant.
- A declaration by the Honourable Court that the plaintiff having been duly chosen, selected, identified, installed and presented for recognition by the overwhelming majority of the people of Amaokpara Autonomous Community is entitled to be recognized by the Imo State Government as the Traditional Ruler (Eze) for Amaokpara Autonomous Community.
- An order of the Honourable Court restraining the defendant by himself, his servants or agents from parading, masquerading, styling or holding himself out as the Eze-elect of Amaokpara Autonomous Community.
- A declaration by the Honourable Court that any purported identification, selection and presentation of the defendant by his few friends and relatives to the Imo State Government through the Chairman of the Nkwerre Local Government for recognition as the Traditional Ruler of Amaokpara Autonomous Community is illegal, null and void same having been carried out in violation of the provisions of the Chieftaincy Constitution of Amaokpara Autonomous Community.
- A declaration by the Honourable Court that the document titled “Chieftaincy Constitution: Autonomous Community Amaokpara Nkwerre L.G.A.” purportedly executed by Eze James Uzozie Nwosu, and J.O. Madueke and one Nze Ebo Ibegbulem for and on behalf of Amaokpara Autonomous Community and on which document the defendant has been relying for his claims to the Chieftaincy throne of Amaokpara is a cheap forgery manufactured by the members of the family of late Eze James Uzozie Nwosu for the purposes of perpetuating the Chieftaincy stool of Amaokpara in their family albeit fraudulently.”
The case proceeded to trial before Ezenagu, J. And on the 6th day of August, 1996 he entered judgment for the plaintiff and made the following consequential orders;
“1. An order declaring that the Chieftaincy Stool of Amaokpara Autonomous Community in Nkwerre Local Government Area of Imo Stale is neither hereditary nor the exclusive preserve of the family of the defendant.
- An order declaring that the plaintiff – Nze Joseph Ibe Nnajiuba – having been duly selected, identified, appointed, installed and presented by an overwhelming majority of the people of Amaokpara Autonomous Community in Nkwerre Local Government Area of Imo State for recognition is entitled to be recognized by the Imo State Government as the Traditional Ruler (Eze) for Amaokpara Autonomous Community in Nkwerre Local Government Area of Imo State.
- An order declaring that the purported selection, identification, appointment, installation, and presentation of the defendant – Mr Pius Nwosu to the Imo State Government for recognition as the Traditional Ruler of Amaokpara Autonomous Community in Nkwerre Local Government Area of Imo State is illegal, null and void ab initio.
- An order restraining the defendant by himself, his servants or agents from parading, masquerading, styling or holding himself out as the Eze-Elect of Amaokpara Autonomous Community in Nkwerre Local Government Area of Imo State.”
Dissatisfied by the said judgment and the orders made therein the defendant appealed to this court upon a number of grounds. This appeal is pending. It has not yet been disposed of. The parties are yet to file their respective briefs of argument. In the meantime the defendant, who shall hereinafter be referred to as the applicant, filed a Motion on Notice dated 26/10/96 praying for an order of injunction in the following terms;
“Restraining the plaintiff/respondent by himself, his servants, agents, privies or associates from presenting himself and/or allowing himself to be presented to the Chairman, Nkwerre Local Government and/or The Military Administrator of Imo State for recognition and/or presentation of Certificate of Recognition and/or presentation of Staff of Office as the Traditional Ruler of Amaokpara Autonomous Community pending the determination of the appeal filed by the defendant/appellant/applicant.”
This motion was moved on 2/7/97. In moving the motion on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Egole pointed out that the motion was supported by an affidavit of 28 paragraphs and attached thereto are Exhibits A to G, a further affidavit of 14 paragraphs and a further affidavit of 8 paragraphs. It was said that the applicant relied on all the paragraphs of these affidavits.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has shown that he has a legal right which is being invaded and has also shown by the grounds of appeal filed on his behalf that this case has a possibility of succeeding. He relied particularly on paragraphs 13, 19, 20, 21 and 24 of the affidavit and also on Exhibits F and G. Learned counsel also relied on the cases of Martins v. Nicannar Food Co. Ltd. (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt.74) 75 at 82; Josien Holdings Ltd. v. Lornamead Ltd. (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt.371) 254 at 268.
It was also the submission of the applicant that the Grounds of Appeal raised substantial and arguable points of law such as to create special or exceptional circumstance to warrant this court to exercise its discretion in favour of granting the application. He referred to the case of Vincent Standard Trading Co. Ltd. v. Xtodeus Trading Co. (Nig.) Ltd. (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt.296) 675 at 688.
It was further submitted that the principles guiding the courts for grant of stay of execution and interlocutory injunction are the same. Reliance was placed on the case of Y.P.O. Shodeinde v. The Registered Trustees of Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam (1980) 1-2 SC 163 at 167. Finally counsel urged us to grant the application.
The application was opposed. Chief Bon Nwakanma, SAN appeared for the plaintiff who shall hereinafter be referred to as the respondent. He intimated the court that the respondent filed a counter-affidavit in opposition on 15/1/97. The respondent relied on all the paragraphs of the counter-affidavit. He also adopted pages 4 and 5 of Exhibit E as his oral submission.
Learned Senior Advocate of Nigeria for the respondent pointed out that the present dispute is a chieftaincy matter. He then submitted that a chieftaincy matter deals with status and as such has no legal right. At best it can be said to be a civil action having regard to the provisions of S.6(6)(d) of the 1979 Constitution as amended.
It was also the submission of learned Senior Advocate that chieftaincy matters are not perishable commodities. He further submitted that a chieftaincy matter is not an appropriate case for an injunction or stay of execution. He relied on the decisions in the cases of Gever v. China (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt.315) 97 at 108-9; Governor Imo State v. Anosike (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 66) 663. Finally he urged the court to dismiss the application.
The guiding principles for interlocutory injunctions have been approved by the Supreme Court in the cases of Obeya Memorial Specialist Hospital & Anor. v. A.G. of the Federation & Anor. (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.60) 325; Kotoye v. Central Bank of Nigeria (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt.98) 419. The applicant in an application for interlocutory injunction must satisfy the court that there is a serious issue to be tried. Once he has done so, then the court will proceed to consider the balance of convenience. If the court is satisfied that it is on the side of the applicant, it should then extract from the applicant an undertaking as to damages.
These principles must be strictly observed. Although decided cases have established that it is impossible to lay down any general rule regulating the discretion of the court in all cases, it must be borne in mind that interlocutory injunctions are not granted for the asking, See John Holt Nigeria Ltd. v. Holts African Workers Union of Nigeria and Cameroons (1963) 2 SCNLR 383; (1963) 1 All NLR 379 at 383. The remedy by interlocutory injunction is so useful that it should and must be kept flexible and discretionary. It must not be made the subject of strict rules. See Governor of Imo State v. Anosike (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt.66) 663.
The purpose of an interlocutory injunction is to maintain the status quo and thereby preserve the res, the subject matter, of the litigation from being wasted, damaged or frittered away with the result that if the case succeeds, the result would be nugatory in that the successful party would reap an empty judgment. It follows that when a court of law finds that the matter sought to be restrained will not render the case, if successful, nugatory, then there is no reason why an injunctive order to maintain the status quo should be made. See Oyeyemi v. Irewole Local Government (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt.270) 462 at 476 where the Supreme Court per Nnaemeka-Agu, J.S.C. said:
“Also it must be noted that the whole purpose of an order to maintain the status quo is to preserve the res, the subject matter of the litigation, from being wasted, damaged, or frittered away, with the result that if the appeal succeeds, the result would be nugatory in that the successful appellant could only reap an empty judgment. When as in this case, a court of law finds that completion of a step sought to be restrained will not render the appeal, if successful, nugatory, then there is absolutely no basis for making the order to maintain the status quo.”
The subject matter of the present action is the Chieftaincy Stool of Amaokpara Autonomous Community. The Office of the Traditional Ruler of the said Community is not a perishable commodity. See Gever v. China (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt.315) 97 at 109; Governor Imo State v. Anosike (supra). In other words, a refusal to make an order of injunction, will not render the appeal, if successful, nugatory.
In the circumstances, there is absolutely no basis to grant the order sought by the applicant. The application therefore fails and it is dismissed. The respondent is entitled to costs which I assess at N1,500.00.
Other Citations: (!997)LCN/0301(CA)
