IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
                              IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
                                            HOLDEN AT ABUJA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP:

HONOURABLE JUSTICE BUHARI SANI…..JUDGE

ON MONDAY THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

                                                           SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/256/2026

BETWEEN:
ALH. ABUBAKAR ABDUL ............................................ CLAIMANT/APPLICANT

AND

1. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, PENSION TRANSITIONAL DIRECTORATE
2. PENSION TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS DIRECTORATES…………….

….……………………………………………….DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

                                     RULING

This is a Motion Ex-Parte brought pursuant to Section 16 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006; Order 17 Rule 1 and 2 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017; and under the inherent jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.

The Claimant/Applicant seeks the following reliefs:

1. AN ORDER OF INTERIM INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants/Respondents, whether by themselves, their agents or privies, from stopping, refusing, failing or defaulting to pay, altering or tampering with the monthly pension of the Claimant/Applicant to his disadvantage or making downward adjustment of the monthly pension of the Claimant/Applicant and/or to maintain status quo antebellum pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction filed on 15th September, 2026.

2. AND FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDER(S) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this suit.

The application is supported by a 5-paragraphed Affidavit in Support of Motion Ex-Parte and a 5-paragraphed Affidavit of Urgency. The Claimant/Applicant avers that he is a senior citizen and his monthly pension is his only source of income, livelihood and sustenance. He challenges the drastic downward review of his monthly pension from N1,405,947.88 to N240,898.82 by the Defendants/Respondents. He is apprehensive that upon service of the processes, the Defendants/Respondents will stop his monthly pension entirely, causing him unimaginable hardship. He has undertaken to pay damages if the order is found to have been wrongly granted.

LEGAL SUBMISSIONS:

Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant, S. E. Aruwa, SAN, submitted in the Written Address that the purpose of an interim injunction is to preserve the res and maintain the status quo. Relying on Obeya Memorial Hospital v. A.G. Federation (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 60) 325 and Kotoye v. Central Bank of Nigeria (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419, Counsel argued that the Applicant has a legal right which ought to be protected pending the determination of the substantive suit. Counsel further submitted that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting the application, as the Applicant stands to suffer irreparable damage if his only source of income is halted.

COURT'S DECISION:

I have carefully considered the processes filed, the submissions of learned Counsel, and the relevant authorities.

The law is settled on the distinction between an interim injunction and an interlocutory injunction. An interim injunction is one granted to last until a named date or pending the hearing of a Motion on Notice. It is for cases of real urgency. Conversely, an interlocutory injunction is one granted after a contest between the parties, pending the determination of the substantive suit. See PHARMA DEKO PLC V. FDC LTD (2015)10 NWLR (PT.1467)225,

STATOIL(NIG) LTD V. NNPC (2013)14 NWLR (PT.1373)1, OLOWO V. BUILDING STOCK LTD.(2004)4NWLR (PT.864)445, KOTOYE V. CBN (1989)1 NWLR (PT.98)419.

The Applicant has specifically sought an interim order pending the hearing of the Motion on Notice. The prayer is for "status quo antebellum pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice." This is legally competent and falls within the purview of the exceptional jurisdiction of this Court to grant ex-parte reliefs in cases of extreme urgency.

The Applicant has filed an Affidavit of Urgency deposing that the suit is yet to be served and that if served, the Respondents will immediately stop his pension. The Applicant is a senior citizen relying solely on this pension for sustenance.

I take judicial notice of the vacation period of the judiciary. The law is settled that the vacation of the court does not extinguish the rights of litigants to seek urgent reliefs. Order 17 Rule 1 of the NICN (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, empowers this Court to hear ex-parte applications for interim injunctions during vacation where real urgency is shown.

However, the Supreme Court held that ex-parte injunctions are for cases of real urgency, where there has been a true impossibility of giving notice of motion. The urgency must not be self-induced. The court must be satisfied that the applicant could not have given notice to the other side if he had acted promptly.

See KOTOYE V. CBN (supra).

In the instant case, the Claimant/Applicant avers that the downward review of his pension has already occurred and that he fears a complete stoppage upon service. While the Court sympathizes with the Applicant's situation as a pensioner, the question is whether the circumstances disclose such extreme urgency that the Defendants/Respondents cannot be put on notice before an order is made.

The Applicant became aware of the downward review and filed this suit on 15th September, 2026. The processes are yet to be served. The fear that the Respondents will stop the pension upon service is a reasonable apprehension, but it is a future threat contingent upon service. There is no evidence of an imminent act that would occur before the Respondents can be heard if notice is given. The urgency, while present, does not meet the threshold of "true impossibility of giving notice."

Furthermore, the principles governing the grant of an interlocutory injunction require that the Applicant show that damages cannot be an adequate compensation for the injury he seeks to protect. The Applicant argues that his pension is his only source of livelihood. While this is a serious consideration, the Court must balance this against the corresponding need of the Defendants/Respondents to be heard before an order affecting their legal rights is made.

In Kotoye v. CBN (supra), the Supreme Court emphasized that where a court is faced with an ex-parte application for an interlocutory injunction and is not satisfied that there is real urgency, the proper order is not to grant the order ex-parte, but to order that the other party be put on notice. The Court held that to do otherwise would offend the principles of fair hearing enshrined in Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

The Court in Kotoye further held that where an ex-parte application is made for an interlocutory injunction and the court cannot see any facts showing real urgency or a desire to preserve a res from imminent destruction, the court should either refuse it or order that the other party be put on notice and served with all the relevant papers. The court will then determine the application by the principles for granting interlocutory injunction.

In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the interests of justice will be better served by hearing both parties before any order is made. The Applicant's Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction is already filed. The Defendants/Respondents should be given the opportunity to respond to both the Motion Ex-Parte and the Motion on Notice. This will enable the Court to properly evaluate the serious question to be tried, the balance of convenience, and the adequacy of damages, without prejudging the matter.

In conclusion, the Motion Ex-Parte is hereby refused. The Applicant is ordered to put the Defendants/Respondents on notice. The Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction shall be heard on the merits after service on the Defendants/Respondents.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

1. The Motion Ex-Parte for an Order of Interim Injunction is hereby REFUSED.

2. The Claimant/Applicant is hereby ordered to put the Defendants/Respondents on notice by serving them with the originating processes and Motion on notice for interlocutory injunction within 7 days from today.

3. The status quo as at today shall be maintained by all parties pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction.

4. New date and hearing notice is ordered to be issued and served on the parties by the Registrar of this Court.

 

The Ruling is accordingly entered.

 

 

 

 

 

HON. JUSTICE BUHARI SANI
JUDGE

 

 

 

LEGAL REPRESENTATION:

Khadija Bala, Esq, for the Claimant/Applicant.