Prince A.I. Umejuru & Ors V. Chief F.P. Imordi & Ors (2009)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
SULEIMAN GALADIMA, J.C.A.
The respondents who were the plaintiffs in the court below claimed against the defendants, now the Respondents as follows:
“1. A declaration in accordance with tradition; native law and custom and customs and usage of the Umuenyike Royal Family of Ali-Ogba, the 4th Plaintiff was duly selected, appointed and installed to the stool of Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuchi on 27th March, 1994.
2. A declaration that in accordance with the tradition, native law and customs and usages of the Umuenyike Royal Family of Ogba the 1st defendant is not and has not been validly selected, appointed and/or installed to the stool of Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi by the Umuenyike Royal Family and any such ceremony organized by the defendants is consequently null and void.
3. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant by himself, servants, agents or privies from acting or parading himself as the reigning Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi.
4. An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd defendants whether by themselves, servants, agents or privies from parading the 1st defendant as the Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi.”
Simultaneously, with the filing of the application for the writ of summons on 19/5/95, the plaintiff filed a motion on Notice for an “order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants whether by themselves, servants, agents or privies from launching or holding a launching or attempting to launch an Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi succession charter at Omoku or tradition, native law and customs and customs and Obrikom or otherwise acting as and or parading the 1st defendant as the Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi of the Umuenyike Royal Family Ogba, pending the determination of the substantive suit.”
In the affidavit in support of the said motion, particularly paragraphs 5 and 7 thereof, the 1st plaintiff/applicant alleged inter alia that sometime in April 1994 the 1st defendant began parading himself as the Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi, and that on 8/5/95, the defendants started making radio announcements on the Radio Rivers Radio Station that he (sic) is the Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbehi appointed by the plaintiff and that he has already appointed his council of chiefs and has organized and would hold launching of Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi that succession charter at Omoku on 27/5/1995. The defendant in their counter-Affidavit denied the claim that the 4th Plaintiff was ever selected, appointed or installed as the Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi by Umuenyike Royal Family and questioned the locus standi of the 1st plaintiff in the dispute, and affirmed, to the contrary, that it was in fact the 1st defendant that was in accordance with Ogba native law and custom as applicable to the parties duly selected presented and installed into that stool on 9/4/94 and 23/4/94 respectively. The plaintiffs through the 1st Plaintiff filed what they called a reply to the counter affidavit.
Argument on the motion began on 11/10/95. The RULING was given on 23/2/96 wherein the learned trial judge granted two reliefs to the plaintiff/respondents and consequently ordering as follows:
(1) That the Defendants/Respondents namely, Prince A.I. Umejuru, prince Allen Okrigwe and Lawrence Ogu, by themselves, servants, agents or privies are hereby restrained from launching, or holding a launching of an Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi succession charter at Obrikom or Omoku or elsewhere until the determination of this suit now pending in court.
(2) That the 1st Defendant/Respondent namely, Prince A.I. Umejuru is hereby restrained either by himself, servants, agents, privies or howsoever from parading himself as the Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi, pending the determination of this case.
(3) That each Plaintiff/Applicant enters into an undertaking in the sum of N5,000.00 (Five Thousand Naira) and to forfeit same to the Defendant/Respondents, if this suit is found either to be frivolous and or vexatious.
(4) That the matter be adjourned to 23/4/96 for mention.
Dissatisfied with the above decision, the plaintiffs caused a Notice of Appeal to be filed against the said decision on the 28/2/96. The 5 grounds upon which the appeal was premised is set out on the Notice of Appeal without their particulars were that:
“(1) The learned trial Judge erred in law in granting the order of interlocutory injunction against Defendants/ Appellants when the Plaintiffs/Respondents did not show that they had any legal rights to be protected.
(2) The learned trial Judge misdirected himself in law when he stated inter alia as follows:
“Counsel for the Defendants/Applicants (sic) had urged the court not to grant this application sought in that the Applicants have not shown that the stool which the 4th Plaintiff/Applicant is aspiring to is a government recognized stool and that the 4th Plaintiff/Applicant has been recognized by the Government of Rivers State or by any other government. The above submission is not among the conditions necessary for a grant of an Interlocutory Injunction and so, it does not apply at this stage”.
(3) The learned trial Judge erred in law in granting the order of an interlocutory injunction against the Defendants/ Appellants solely on the affidavit evidence of the 1st Plaintiff/Respondent.
(4) The learned trial Judge erred in law in holding that the acts complained of in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the 1st Plaintiff/Respondent’s affidavit was not completed acts.
(5) The learned trial Judge erred in law in deciding issues at this stage which should properly be decided on the conclusion of the substantive suit.
In line with the practice and procedure of this court, briefs of argument were filed and exchanged by the learned counsel for the parties, The Appellants’ brief of argument dated 10/4/2000 was filed on 20/4/2000. and Reply brief dated 5/6/2001 and filed on that date. The Respondents’ brief of argument was filed on 16/5/2001.
At the hearing of this appeal on 19/5/2009, Chief C.A.B. Akparanta Esq., learned counsel, leading two other counsels namely Josephine Nwadawa (Miss) and Fisher Ezeukwu Esq. who appeared for the Appellants adopted and relied on the Appellants Brief and the Reply Brief as his submissions in support of the Appeal. He urged us to allow the appeal.
The Respondents and their counsel who had been duly notified of the date of hearing of this appeal did not show up in Court. It is noted that the Respondents have filed their brief of argument aforesaid. By virtue of Order 17, Rule 9(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2007, the Respondents will be treated as having duly argued the appeal in consideration of their brief of argument.
Two issues raised and submitted by the Appellants to the court for determination at paragraph 3 on page 2 of their brief are in the following terms:
“(i) Whether the plaintiffs/respondents made out a case for the granting of the orders of interlocutory injunction in their favour.
(ii) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the acts of the Defendants/Appellants complained of in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the supporting affidavit were not amended acts.”
The Respondents on their part, without much ado, adopt the issues for determination distilled by the Appellants.
In my respectful view the issue that possibly call for determination of the appeal, simply put is Appellants’ first issue (i) reproduced thus:
“Whether the Respondents made out a case for the granting of the orders of interlocutory injunction in their favour.”
This issue covers grounds (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the Appellants’ Grounds of Appeals. Learned counsel for the Appellants in the brief has submitted that, having regard to the law and the affidavit evidence before the trial court, the Respondents did not make out a case for the granting of the orders of interlocutory injunction in their favour. That the precondition for the grant did not exist because the 4th Respondent was a rival claimant to the 1st Appellant to the traditional stool of EZE OGBA NWADEI OGBUEHI of their community.
The issue still to be determined at the substantive trial was who of the two was rightfully installed in accordance with the tradition and custom of the people and not when the purported installation of 1st Respondent took place. It is contended that at the time when the application for interlocutory injunction was brought the 4th Respondent was still to establish that he had any legal and recognizable right to the said stool which had to be protected by the grant of the said order. That the 4th Respondent was merely attempting to succeed his late father, contrary to the native law and custom, and against the wish of the people. Reliance was placed on the cases of AKAPO V. HAKEEM-HABEEB (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt.247) 266 at 91; KOTOYE V. C.B.N. (1989) 1 NWLR (P.89) 419; OYE V. GOV. OYO STATE (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.306) 437 at 447 and ADEWALE BELLO CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD V. INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR WEST AFRICA LTD. (1997) 7 NWLR (Pt.204) 498 at 506.
On the balance of convenience the learned counsel has submitted that the learned trial Judge was in error when he held that the balance of convenience was in favour of the Respondent merely because the purported installation of the 4th Respondent ante-dated that of the 1st appellant. It is argued that timing was not material to the determination of the validity or otherwise of the purported installation. He relied on the case of GEVER V. CHINA (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt.315) 97.
It is contended that a dispassionate consideration of the conflicting evidence contained in the affidavits, and the position of the law in this matter, will put the position of the return to the status quo ante to what it was before the commencement of the litigation. The findings of the learned trial Judge at page 43 lines 4 – 7 of the judgment were referred.
The learned counsel finally submitted that the learned trial Judge was not right in holding that the acts of the Appellant complained of in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Supporting affidavit were not completed acts. It is argued that if it were true that the acts complained of were all completed then there would have been nothing for the court to restrain.
Relying on the authority of ANOSIKE V. GOVERNOR OF IMO STATE (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.66) 663 at 674, it is submitted that interlocutory injunction is no more a remedy for an act which had already been carried out.
On the grant of injunctions restraining the launching of the succession charter, it was submitted that the learned trial Judge was in error in so ordering for the reason that the complaint of the launching of a succession charter did not appear in the Respondents claim at pages 1-3, and 66 of the Records of Appeal.
The Respondents have submitted that the learned Trial Judge was right to have restrained the Appellants in view of the affidavit evidence before him, particularly paragraphs 4, 5, That the Respondents deposed that following the death of Late Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi, the father of the 4th Respondent, the said 4th Respondent was selected and appointed and installed as the Eze-Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi and installed as the Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi and crowned by the Umuenyike family of Ogba in accordance with the tradition, native law, custom and usages of the Umuenyike Royal family of Ogba. That the Respondents have shown by the paragraph 4 that he has a recognized legal right which aught to be projected by the Court. It is contended that the Respondents have shown in paragraph 5 and 7 of the supporting affidavit that their rights were threatened by the impending launching of an Eze Ogba Nwadei succession charter at Omoku on 27/5/95. It is submitted that in an application for interlocutory injunction, the court is not concerned at this stage with proof of the allegations or effective denials of them, since these are the matters to be dealt with at the trial. He cited in reliance the Supreme Court case of OBEYA-MEMORAL HOSPITAL V. ATT-GEN. OF THE FEDERATION & ANOR. (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.60) 32.
It is submitted that a consideration of paragraphs 4, 5 and 7 of the affidavit in support of the motion and the claims of the plaintiff in the sustentative action show clearly that there are serious issues to be tried in this case. And that the Respondents had established that there was a threat to their legal rights. That, besides, by paragraphs 16 and 17 of the counter-affidavit the 4th Respondent was crowned on 27/3/94 and before the crowning of the 1st Appellant on 23/4/94 as alleged by him. Reference was made to the cases of OBEYA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL V. A-G- OF THE FEDERATION & ANOR. (supra); AKAPO V. HAKEEM HABEEB (1912) 6 NWLR (Pt.247) (supra) N.U.J V. MIL. GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE (1995) 3 NWLR (Pt.385) AMERICAN CYANAMID CO. VS. V. ETHICON LTD (1975) AC 396 (1955) 1 All ER. 504.
On the question of balance of convenience the Respondents have contended that the balance of convenience was in favour of restraining the 1st Appellant from holding a launching of the stool at Omoku and from further parading himself as the occupant of the stool pending the determination of the substantive suit where the rights of the parties will be effectively determined.
On the Appellants’ contention that the 4th Respondent did not swear to the Affidavit in support of the motion himself, it is submitted that depositions to the affidavits are not normally, restricted to only parties to the litigation. Reliance was placed on the cases of Busari v. Oseni (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt 237) 557 at 281, EZEBILO V. CHINWUBA (1997) 7 NWLR (Pt.511) 108 at 127; CCB (NIG) PLC V. OZOBU (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt 541) at 311 and ODUNTAN V. GENERAL OIL LTD. (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt.387) 1.
On the issue of ensuing irreparable damage, the Respondents’ counsel submitted that they have shown that if the Appellants were not restrained, their actions would have resulted in the infringement of the Respondents’ rights, particularly the 4th Respondent’s right to the stool. And also that the dignity and status of the stool would have been eroded, if dispute was allowed to degenerate unto break down of law and order. The case of AKAPO V. HAKEEM-HABEEB (supra ratio 2) was cited in reliance.
It is further submitted that the learned trial Judge by deciding that the status quo to be maintained was the status quo at 27/3/94; he did not decide issues which should be concluded at the trial of substantive suit, because he very well appreciated that fact in his statement at page 142 lines 24 of the Records, that the status quo to be maintained in this case is the state of affairs before the beginning of hostilities between the wrongful acts of the Appellants complained of, and not the situation that existed before the commencement of litigation; which is the state of affairs that existed before the 1st Appellant started parading himself as the Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi on 23/4/94 whereas the 4th Respondent had already been crowned on 27/3/94. References was made to the cases of AHMED V. DASUKI (1998) 1 NWLR (Pt.534) 471 at 479-480; AKAPO V. HAKEEM HABEEB (supra) at p.303 and 311.
On the question of whether the learned Trial Judge was right in holding that the acts of the Appellants complained of in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the supporting affidavit was not completed acts, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the acts were not completed acts at the date of the grant of the orders of information on 23/2/96.
It is contended that the Motion On Notice was mainly to restrain the Appellants from launching or holding a launching or attempting to launch an Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi succession charter at Obrikom or Omoku or otherwise acting as or parading 1st Appellant as the Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi of the Umuenyika Royal family. It is argued that the launching or attempting to launch an Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi succession charter had not taken place and was not therefore a completed act.
It is further contended that the acts of the 1st appellant of parading himself as the Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi were likely to continue and he was likely to repeat this unlawful acts and the court below was right to restrain the Appellants as the infringement was continuing and the Respondents had deposed to that effect in paragraphs 7, 9 and 10 of the supporting affidavit that the 1st Appellant was intending to parade himself at the proposed launching of the Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi succession charter as the reigning occupant of the stool. It is contended that these acts of the Appellants were not completed acts.
For the proper position of the respective parties and the thorny issues involved that led to litigation that resulted into interlocutory injunction I have earlier set out in some detail, the background facts leading to this appeal. It is however pertinent to emphasize the fact that the substantive action between the parties are still pending in the court below. The purpose of the application of the Respondents was to keep the parties in status quo pending the determination of that sustentative action.
On the issue of whether the complaint of the launching of a succession charter did not appear in the respondents’ claim, it was submitted that the respondents claim sought inter alia, to perpetually restrain the 1st Appellant from acting himself as the reigning Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi.
I have set out also in some great detail the submissions of the parties as arising from the sole issue that I feel are capable of resolving the appeal. The question, as I have said, is whether the learned trial judge was right to have restrained the Appellants as he did, in view of the affidavit evidence before him. In their paragraph 4 of the affidavit in support of the motion praying for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Appellants, the Respondents deposed that following the death of late Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi of the Umuenyike Royal Family, the father of the 4th Respondent, the 4th Respondent has selected, appointed and installed as the Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuchi and crowned by the said Umueriehi family of Ogba in accordance with the tradition, native law, custom and usages of the Umuenyike family of Ogba the Respondent have also shown in this paragraph 4, that they have recognized legal right which ought to be protected by the court.
In paragraph 5, 6 and 7 the Respondents have shown that their rights were threatened by the impending launching of an Eze Ogba Nwadei succession charter at Omoku on 27/5/95. I reproduce the paragraphs.
“5. That sometime in April 1994 the 1st Defendant began parading himself as the Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuchi claiming falsely that he was appointed to the stool variously on 9th April, 1994 and 23rd July, 1994.
6. That on 22nd April, 1994, the plaintiffs wrote to the D.P.O. Omoku complaining about the acts of the defendant that on 21st July, 1994, the plaintiff wrote also to the 1st Defendant warning him about the likely consequences of his campaign of disintegration copies of the said letters are attached herewith as Exhibit URF – 2 and URF 3 respectively.
7. That on the 8th of May, 1995, the Defendants started making radio announcement on the Radio Rivers, Radio station that is the Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi appointed by the plaintiffs and that he has already appointed his council of chiefs and has organize and would hold launching of the Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi succession charter at Omoku on 27th day of May, 1994.”
The foregoing are the various acts and conduct of the Appellants that have been alleged against the Appellants.
In LADUNMI V. KUKOYI (1972) 1 All NLR (Pt.1) 13, G.B.A. Coker JSC at p.136 – 137 said:
“…In this I respect, however, we point out that the jurisdiction to grant interim injunction is equitable and for this purpose, the court must consider the conduct of the parties before and at the time of the application ……..”
However, in an application for interlocutory injunction, the court is not concerned at this stage with the proof of the allegation or effective denials of them. These are matters to be dealt with at the trial. All that the Respondents will be required to establish at this stage is to satisfy the test laid down by the Supreme Court in OBEYA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL V. ATT -GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & ANOR. (1987)1 3 NWLR (Pt.60) 325. See AKAPO V. HAKEEM HABEEB (supra) at p.295; that the court must be satisfied that the claim is not frivolous, or vexatious; in other words that there is a serious question to be tried. See AMERICAN CYANAMID CO. V. ETHICON LTD (1975) 1 All ER. 504 and KOTOYE V. CBN (supra).
One of the important considerations and guiding principles guiding grant of interim injunction is that once an applicant shows that he has a prima facie case on a claim of right or in other words, that prima facie, the case he has made out is one which opposing party would be called upon to answer, and that it is just and correct for the court to intervene, and that unless, the court so intervenes at that stage, the other party’s action or conduct would irreparably alter the status quo or render ineffective any subsequent decision of the court he is entitled to an interim injunction. See JOHN HOLT (NIG.) LTD V. HOLTS AFRICAN WORKERS UNION (1963) 2 SCNLR 383 and EJIOFOR V. EMEJULU (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt.1117) 459 at 467-468.
In the instant case, under consideration, greater harm could result to the Respondents, particularly the 4th Respondents, if the order of interim injunction was not made.
The status quo to be maintained in this case was the state of affairs before the beginning of hostilities between the parties that is, before the wrongful acts of the Appellants complained of. That is to say the state of affairs that existed before the 1st Appellant started “parading” himself as the Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi on 23/4/94. At that point, from the affidavit evidence, the 4th Respondent was already crowned on 27/3/94. The 1st Appellants’ act complained of was that he was installed on the 23/4/94 and had planned to hold a launching of the Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi succession Charter at Omoku on 27th May, 1995. I agree with the learned counsel for the Respondents that the status quo to be maintained was that which existed on 27/3/94 before the 1st Appellant’s claim that he was crowned on 23/4/94. The decision of the learned trial Judge to that effect does not amount to a decision in issue which should properly be decided at the substantive suit. Where there are conflicting claims as to what status quo is to be maintained the court has a duty to decide at the hearing of the application for interlocutory injunction what status quo is to be maintained pending the substantive suit.
A careful consideration of paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the affidavit reproduced hereof above, in support of the motion and the claims of the Respondents in the substantive suit show clearly that there is a serious issue to be tried in this case. The Respondents had established that there was a threat to their legal rights. By their own showing in paragraphs 16 and 17 of their counter-affidavit the 4th Respondent was crowned on 27/3/94 before the alleged crowning of the 1st Appellant on 23/4/94.
On the balance of convenience, it is trite law that where it favours an application for interim injunction the trial court ought to grant the application.
In the instant case, the trial court had considered the balance of convenience, which was on the side of the Respondents and the injury on the Respondents was continuing. The Appellants would not lose anything if they await the determination of the substantive suit to launch the Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi stool that is disputed.
The Respondents as representatives of the Umuenyike family appointed the 4th Respondent as the Eze Ogba and crowned him on 27/3/94. The Appellants aver in paragraph … of their counter-affidavit that the 4th Respondent sometimes in March 1995 invited the general public to the anniversary of his installation having been crowned before the 1st Appellant and having already celebrated an anniversary of his crowning before the 1st Appellant. For this reason the balance of convenience was in favour of restraining the 1st Appellant from holding a launching of the stool at Omoku and from further parading himself as the occupant of the stool pending the determination of the substantive suit when the rights of the parties will be effectively determined.
Appellants have contended that the Respondents did not show what irreparable damage they would suffer if their application for injunction was not granted. But the Respondents have shown that if the Appellants were not restrained their actions would result in the infringement of their rights and particularly the 4th Respondent’s rights to the stool.
I am not persuaded by the learned counsel of the Appellants’ contention that the substantive suit at the court below is a chieftaincy dispute and is not a perishable commodity and in such circumstances the courts ought to have held that the better course to be taken was to accelerate the hearing of the case. He cited GEVER V. CHINA (supra); OYEYEMI V. IREWOLE LG (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt.270) 462 at 476 in reliance. The Respondents have shown that even at the stage of the application they cherish the dignity and traditional status of the stool of Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi and would protect it from being eroded ridiculed or allow it to degenerate into a state of break- down of law and order. They placed reliance on the case of AKAPO V. HAKEEM-HABEEB (supra). Once an applicant for interlocutory injunction can show that there is a serious issue to be tried relating to the violation of his right and that the damages he may suffer before the final determination of the suit will be such that it cannot be adequately compensated for in damages the court as a guardian of the rule of law, will grant the applicant the relief of interlocutory injunction.
On the question of failure by the trial court to pursue expeditious hearing of the case instead of injunction, I must observe that the grant or refusal of an application for interlocutory injunction and the decision whether to call for accelerated trial instead of an injunction are matter for the exercise of discretion of the trial court which must be exercised judicially. The Appellants have not shown that by not granting accelerated hearing, there has been miscarriage of justice.
Besides the appellants did not apply or urge the trial court to accelerate the hearing of the case instead of an injunction.
On the question of whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the acts of the Appellants complained of in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the supporting affidavit were not completed acts. I have before now set out paragraphs 5 and 7 of the supporting affidavit. The contents give vivid account of the Respondents’ claims and contentions in this matter. The Respondents merely brought application to restrain the Appellants from launching or holding a launching or attempting to launch on Eze Ogba Nwadei succession charter or acting or parading 1st Appellant as the Eze. The said launching, or attempting to launch on Eze Ogba, succession charter had not taken place and as such it cannot be said to be completed act. Furthermore, the act of the 1st Appellant of parading himself as the Eze was likely to continue and the 1st Appellant was likely to repeat this act. The court was therefore right to restrain the Appellants, as the infringement was continuing and the Respondents deposed in paragraphs 7, 9 and 10 of the supporting affidavit – that 1st Appellant was contending to parade himself at the proposed launching of the Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi succession charter as the reigning occupant of the stool. I agree with the Respondents that these were competed acts.
On the issue of whether the complaint of the launching of a succession charter did not appear in the Respondents’ claim, I agree with the earned counsel for the Respondents that the Respondents’ claim seeks, inter alia to perpetually restrain the 1st Appellant from acting or parading himself as the reigning Eze of Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi. This conduct covers any activities of the 1st Appellant which amount to acting or parading himself as the reigning Eze Ogba such as to launching of a succession charter to the disputed stool.
In the final analysis, I have come to the conclusion for the reasons I have given in this judgment, that the appeal lacks merit and it must be dismissed. The Ruling of the Court below on 23/3/96 granting the Respondents interim injunction against the Appellants is hereby affirmed. I however remit this case to the Hon. Chief Judge of Rivers State for assignment to another Judge of the High Court for accelerated hearing and determination of substantive suit pending in that court.
Other Citations: (2009)LCN/3334(CA)
