The Incorporated Trustees of the Grail Movement of Nigeria V. Mr. Kolapo Lawson & Ors. (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AUGIE, J.C.A.

The Appellants who were Plaintiffs at the Federal High Court, Abeokuta commenced this action on the 22nd of November 1999 with an application for the issuance of an Originating Summons with the following prayers –

(i) A declaration that in accordance with the Trust Deed and Rules and Regulations of the Grail Movement, Nigeria, the holder of the office of Country Leader of the Grail Movement of Nigeria is to be determined exclusively by the holder of the Copy Right to the work The Grail Message “in the light of Truth” which holder is currently the stiftung and sole legal representative is MR.JURGEN SPRICK.

(ii) A declaration that in accordance with the Trust Deed and Rules and Regulations of the Grail Movement, Nigeria, its present Leadership is and shall continue to be the National/Country Leader of the Grail Movement Nigeria assisted by Trustees appointed by him for Grail Movement, Nigeria.

(iii) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants by themselves, or their agents, privies and/or principals howsoever called or described from taking any measures and/or doing any acts in relation to the Grail Movement Nigeria and/or its membership or assets otherwise than in accordance with the Trust Deed and Rules and Regulations of the Grail Movement of Nigeria.

(iv) An order restraining the 4th Defendant from registering new Trustees for the Plaintiff save and in accordance with the provisions of the Trust Deed and Rules and Regulations of the Plaintiff as declared in this suit.

On the same 22nd of November 1999, the Appellants filed a Motion Ex-Parte wherein they sought for an order of interim injunction pending the determination of the Motion on Notice, which they had also filed that day. The learned trial Judge, Biogbogun, J., granted the Motion Ex-Parte that same day, and the Respondents were served with a copy of the order and the Motion on Notice. On the 29th of November, 1999 the Respondents filed a Motion Ex-Parte praying the Court for the following orders –

(i) Suspending the operation of the Ex-Parte Order of this Court Honourable Court dated the 22nd day of November 1999, pending the hearing and determination of the Defendants’ Motion on Notice filed herein this date:

(ii) Granting an order of interim injunction to restrain the Plaintiffs herein whether by themselves or by their servants or agents (including the Nigeria Police) from entering the property known as Grail land by force or by multitude of people pending the hearing and determination of the Defendants’ Motion on Notice filed herein this date.

The Application was heard Ex-Parte on the 30th of November 1999, and in his Ruling, the learned trial Judge ordered as follows –

(i) That an order of this Court is hereby made suspending the operation of the Ex-parte order of this Honourable Court dated 22nd day of November, 1999 pending the hearing and determination of the Defendant’s Motion on Notice filed herein this date.

(ii) That this court grants an order of interim injunction to restrain the Plaintiffs herein whether by themselves or their servants, agent or agents (including the Nigeria Police) from entering the property known as Grail land by force or by a multitude of people pending the hearing and determination of the Defendant’s Motion on Notice filed herein this date.

Dissatisfied with the Ruling, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal in this Court dated 10th of December 1999, paragraph 4 of which reads as follows –

“That the Order of the Honourable Justice M. O. Biogbogun made on the 30th day of November 1999 be set aside and the order of interim injunction made in favour of the Plaintiff/Appellant on the 22nd day of November 1999, be restored pending the determination of the Motion on Notice’. (Italics mine)

In line with the rules of this Court, parties filed their respective briefs, and in the Appellants’ brief prepared by Osahon Idemudia, Esq., two Issues were formulated for determination in this appeal. However, in the Respondent’s brief prepared by Chief F. R. A. Williams (SAN), the Court was referred to paragraph 4 of the Appellants’ Notice of Appeal (reproduced above), and it is the Respondents’ contention that the Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction as well as the substantive suit had been terminated by the Court below when it struck out the proceedings herein on the ground that the legal practitioner who commenced the action in the name of the Appellants had no authority to do so, and that being so, the Appellants’ complaints will arise, if and only if, that decision of the Court below made on the 18th of July 2000 is reversed. It was further submitted, that unless and until the said decision is reversed, this Court can only treat this appeal as having been overtaken by events. The Court was therefore urged to look at the proceedings in Appeal No. CA/I/182/2000 and strike out the appeal.

I have to agree with the Respondents that the appeal will have to be struck out because it has been overtaken by events, but not for the reason given in the Respondents’ brief, but because the Order of 22nd November 1999 sought to be restored consists of interim orders, which were meant to last pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice filed by the Appellants also dated 22nd November 1999, and in the Judgment I delivered this morning in Appeal No. CA/I/182/2000, the order was made therein that the said Motion on Notice be sent back for hearing before another Federal High Court Judge. In the circumstances, I hold that this appeal is overtaken by events and it is therefore struck out.

There will be no order as to costs.

Other Citations: (2006)LCN/1992(CA)