BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HONOURABLE JUSTICE E. D. SUBILIM

 

 

 

DATE: 31ST OCTOBER, 2025        

SUIT NO.: NICN/ABJ/216/2025

 

BETWEEN:

 

THE MOST REV. PETER

OLUWAKEMI OGUNMUYIWA                      -            APPLICANT

 

AND

 

  1. THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE  

AFRICAN CHURCH

  1. HIS EMINENCE JULIUS

OLAYINKA ABBE

  1. MRS. RONKE ODETUNDE
  2. THE MOST REV’D KENNETH

ANAKARO                                                             -            RESPONDENTS                        

 

REPRESENTATION:

Gbenga Adesina, Esq., for Applicant

No Representation for the Respondents.

 

RULING

 

INTRODUCTION

 

  1. The Claimant/Applicant through his Counsel, Gbenga Adesina Esq., instituted an action against the Defendants/Respondents vide an Amended General Form of Complaint, accompanied by a Witness Statement on Oath and other relevant processes dated 16th July 2025 and filed on the 18th day of July 2025. The Claimant/Applicant also filed a Motion on Notice brought pursuant to Order 3 Rule 7(1) B, 1 & 11 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure Rules, 2017) and under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, praying this court for the following order:

 

  1. AN ORDER of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants, their privies servants and/or agents from further acts that are connected to the office of the claimant as the subsisting Archbishop and transferring any other Archbishop to take charge/taking over as the Archbishop of the North and Abuja being the subject matter of the suit pending the final determination of the substantial suit by this Honourable Court

 

  1. AN FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDER(s) as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. 

 

  1. The Defendants/Respondents did not appear in Court despite an order of 24/07/2025 to that effect. According to the records of this Court Defendants/Applicants were duly served with the Motion on Notice and the other Court Processes on the 23/07/2025. However, on the return date being the 02/09/2025 neither the Defendants nor any Counsel appeared in Court.

 

WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION ON NOTICE

 

  1. The Claimant/Applicant brought the application to enable matters to be kept in status quo pending the final determination of the issues at stake in the substantive suit. In the course of arguing his case Counsel formulated a lone issue for determination thus:

 

Whether the claimant/applicant has made out a case for grant of the reliefs sought in the application.

 

  1. By virtue at Order 3, Rule 7 (2a) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, this Court has the power, in deserving cases, to grant an order of interlocutory injunction. A claimant can therefore apply to the court for an interlocutory injunction to protect his legal or equitable right where same has been threatened, or is in imminent danger of being threatened, arising from the reliefs sought by him. See Adeyemi V Oladapo [2002] 42 WRN 148 C.A. The rationale for the order is to enable matters to be kept in status quo pending when the court will determine the issues at stake in the substantive suit. The court has not only the power and jurisdiction but also the duty to preserve the res in an action.

 

  1. In Kotoye v. Central Bank of Nigeria [1989] 1 NWRL (Pt. 98) 419, the Supreme Court laid down the following principles for the grant of interlocutory injunction, they include:
    1. That there is a serious issue to be tried i.e. the Applicant has a real possibility of success at the trial, notwithstanding the defendant’s technical defence (if any).
    2. That the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant.
    3. That the applicant will suffer irreparable damage if the injunction is not granted.
    4. That the applicant must show that damages cannot be an adequate compensation for his damages or injury if he succeeds at the end of the day.
    5. That the Applicant gives a satisfactory undertaking as to damages save in recognized exceptions.
    6. That the applicant’s conduct is not reprehensible, that he is not guilty of any delay.

 

  1. It is clear from the foregoing that interlocutory injunction is not granted as a matter of course. The Court acts having regard to the affidavit evidence placed before it. See Obeya Memorial Specialist Hospital v. A.G. Federation [1987] 3 NWLR (Pt. 60) 325. On the first principle, which is that the Applicant must show that there is a serious issue to be tried, we refer to paragraph 2 and 3 of the supporting affidavits. Where it is established that the applicant’s job is threatened and the issue of whether due process was taken before the dismissal letter was issued i.e. the legality of the letter of dismissal, and whether he was given fair hearing before the decision was taken. We refer the court to section 33 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.

 

  1. On the issue of balance of convenience, the Court of Appeal in ACB v. Awogboro [1991] 2 NWLR (Pt 176) 711 @ 719 per Tobi JCA (as he then was) held that the balance of convenience between parties is a basic determinant factor which the law requires and that some measure of the scales of justice is needed to see where the pendulum tilts and that the law does not require any mathematical exactness. Counsel referred the Court to paragraph 8 of the affidavit in support of the motion. On the issue of irreparable damages and the fact that award of damages cannot be an adequate compensation we refer the court to paragraph 9. On the issues of principles c, d, e and f we refer the court to paragraph 10, 11, 12 of the affidavits. In view of the foregoing submissions. He urge the Court to grant the order of interlocutory injunctions as prayed and to resolve the sole issue in the applicant in favour of the Claimant/Applicant.

 

COURT’S DECISION

 

  1. I have carefully gone through the reliefs contain on the Motion paper filed by the Applicant, the affidavit and the written address attached thereto which is undefended, Defendants having not responded to the application. This Court distilled the issue for determination thus:

 

Whether the claimant/applicant has made out a case for grant of the reliefs sought in the application?

 

  1. The principle of interlocutory injunction under our labour law, is usually seen as a temporary Court order to maintain the status quo, preventing parties from taking action that could harm the subject matter of the main legal dispute or render it pointless until the substantive case is heard and decided. In the case Of Mrs Bisi George & Ors v. Fvloriana De Stefani [2022] LPELR-57274(CA) the Court of Appeal reasoned thus:

 

" …The law requires that the res or subject matter of the litigation should not be destroyed or annihilated before the judgment of the Court… Generally speaking, interlocutory injunction is granted to preserve the property in dispute from acts or further acts of trespass, destruction or injury, etc, pending the determination of the Issues submitted for adjudication by the Court. See Obeya Memorial Hospital vs. AG Federation (1987) LPELR-2163 (SC), Ogbonnaya vs. Adapalm Nig. Ltd (1993) LPELR-2288 (SC)”

                                    

This principle was further expounded and developed in the case of Ugo v. Ugo [2008] 5 NWLR (Pt. 1079) 1 @ P. 15, Paras. A - E where the court held thus:

                        

"An interlocutory application is an application which does not decide the rights of the parties but are made for the purpose of: (a) keeping things in status quo till the rights of the parties can be decided; (b) obtaining some directions of the court as to how the cause of action is to be conducted; (c) determining what is to be done in the progress of the cause of action for the purpose of enabling the court ultimately to decide upon the rights of the parties. Therefore, an order of court is interlocutory when it does not deal with the final rights of the parties. Omonuwa v. Oshodin (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 10) 924."

 

  1. From the foregoing, it is safe to conclude that an order of interlocutory injunction is granted upon exercise of discretionary power of the Judge in his equitable jurisdiction as provided under Section 13 National Industrial Court Act, 2006. Also, under Section 16 National Industrial Court Act 2006 this Court have also been vested with the power to grant injunction in all cases in which it appears to it to be just or convenient so to do. Like with all other discretions, the Judge must act judicially and judiciously on the facts placed before him. The case of the Claimant as stated in the affidavit in support of the Motion especially paragraphs 3 and 4 is that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants issued a letter of dismissal against the Applicant relieving him of the position of Archbishop of the province of the North and Abuja. And the 2nd Defendant have commenced the process of transferring the 4th Defendant to take over from the Applicant.

 

  1. Applicant’s Counsel in his written address submitted that this Court under Order 3 Rule 7 (2a) of the Rules of this Court has the power to grant this order restraining the Respondents. Counsel argued that all the conditions precedent to the grant have been satisfied and therefore urged this Court to grant the relief sought. In the course of this proceeding, Applicant’s Counsel first approached this Court with a Motion Ex Parte seeking an interim order against the respondents but this was refused and an order was made that Respondent be put on Notice. From the processes before this Court, this order of Court was complied with but the Respondents have refused and or neglected to appear and respond to this application. From the facts deposed to by Applicant, he was dismissed from the employment of the Defendant and now the Defendants want to deploy another person to take over from the Applicant. And to be precise the main relief of the Applicant in specific terms is to the effect that Defendants should be restrained “from further acts that are connected to the office of the Claimant as the subsisting Archbishop and transferring any other Arc-bishop to take charge/taking over as the Arch-bishop.” 

 

  1. And a close look at the Originating Processes of the Claimant before this Court, it is plainly challenging the contract of employment between the parties before this Court. My dilemma, if any, is this Court really asked to restrain? The Applicant seems to be wise by half. It is the very act of dismissal that is at the centre of this application, and applicant was dismissed on the 25/06/2025. It is trite that the essence of the grant of an interlocutory injunction is to maintain the status quo pending the hearing of the substantive suit. The decisions in Military Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu [1986] 1 All NLR (Pt.1) 194, 205-206 [1986] 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621 and Onwuegbu v. Ibrahim [1997] 3 NWLR (Pt. 491) 110, 120 are in point. The status quo in the present case is the point at which already the Applicant has been dismissed from the services of the Defendants. Be that as it may there is nothing in this application to restrain as the act has been completed. 

 

  1. It is also hornbook law that in an application for interlocutory injunction an order of injunction will not issue where there is nothing to restrain. If an act has been completed nothing remains to be restrained. See the case of Commissioner for Works Benue State & Anor v. Devcon Development Consultants Ltd & Anor [1988] LPELR-884 (SC).  For a court to embark on such voyage of granting this application in the present circumstances, it goes to show that the Court will be determining the matter at the interlocutory stage. This Court have severally been admonished that in considering an application for the grant of injunction pending the determination of the substantive claim, the Judex has a duty to ensure that pending issues in the substantive suit are not determined at that interlocutory stage. See Group Danone & Anor vs. Voltic Nigeria Ltd [2008] LPELR-1341 (SC); Iweka vs. S.C.O.A. (Nigeria) Ltd [2000] LPELR-1563 (SC). In other words, a Court should not delve into issues meant for the substantive suit when considering relevant interlocutory application. See David Kolawole Are v. Oluwafemi Yemisi Owoeye [2014] LPELR-41096(CA).

 

  1. Giving the present situation and circumstances, the Courts had cause to held that when it is not possible to resolve the issues in the interlocutory injunction without delving or intruding into the merits of the substantive suit, the interest of justice will be better served, if the Court will embark on an accelerated hearing of the substantive suit. See Standard Chartered Bank (Nig.) Ltd. v. Braithwaite (2014) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1397) 247 CA; Bassey Ors. v. Ekeng Ors. [2016] LPELR - 42053 (CA) and Wetipp Nigeria Ltd. v. Ladipo & Ors. (2014) LPELR - 24413 (CA). 

 

  1. Thus, in Globe Fishing Industries Ltd. & Ors. v. Coker [1990] LPELR - 1325 (SC), the Supreme Court counseled that:

 

"For the whole approach to an application for an order of interlocutory injunction should always take into account the clear implication that the Court is not to try the issues in contention in the case twice: first while considering the application for an interlocutory injunction; and secondly during the trial. Once the Court is faced with a situation where it may have to do that in order to give due consideration to the application, the correct thing to do is to stop hearing the application and accelerate the trial of the substantive suit...."

 

  1. Accordingly, having reasoned that determining this application will result in determining the substantive suit, the right thing and way to go is to order for accelerated hearing. This, I respectfully find, is the position of this Court. I so hold.

 

  1. On the whole the applicant’s relief seeking for interlocutory injunction is hereby refused and in the alternative an order for accelerated hearing is hereby granted. 

 

  1. Ruling is hereby entered accordingly.  

 

 

                                                                       ………………………………………..

                                                                              Hon. Justice E. D. Subilim

                                                                                                   JUDGE

 

 

Generated using WordToHTML.net - Online Word to HTML Converter


BACK

Copyright © 2021 All Rights Reserved...