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/326/2026

BETWEEN:

COMRADE IBIALAPULYM NGOYE WOKOMA … CLAIMANT/APPLICANT
(Suing on his own behalf as a bona fide member of the Amalgamated Union of Public Corporations, Civil Service Technical and Recreational Services Employees)

AND

1. COMRADE BENJAMIN ANTHONY (a.k.a. BENJAMIN UYANTO ANTO)
2. COMRADE ALIYU MOHAMMED
3. COMRADE EUGENE MANJI
4. AMALGAMATED UNION OF PUBLIC CORPORATIONS, CIVIL SERVICE TECHNICAL AND RECREATIONAL SERVICES EMPLOYEES (AUPCTRE)………………………………….DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

                                 RULING

This is an Ex Parte Motion filed by the Claimant/Applicant on the 17th day of September 2026. The Applicant prayed for the following reliefs:

1. AN ORDER OF INTERIM INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants/Respondents, their servants, agents, and privies, pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction, from taking or implementing any step at or arising from the National Delegates Conference of the 4th Defendant scheduled to hold in Kano from 23rd to 26th September 2026, which would alter, determine, extinguish, prejudice, or otherwise affect the disputed offices, delegate rights, candidacies, appointments, disciplinary status, or constitutional positions forming the subject matter of this suit.

2. AN ORDER OF INTERIM INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants/Respondents from recognising, implementing, or giving effect to any election, appointment, removal, recall, suspension, disciplinary decision, delegate accreditation, resolution, or other decision arising from the said National Delegates Conference insofar as such act or decision concerns or affects the disputed constitutional questions placed before this Honourable Court.

3. AN ORDER directing the Defendants/Respondents to maintain the status quo ante in respect of the disputed offices, delegate rights, candidacies, appointments, disciplinary status, and constitutional positions pending the hearing and determination of the Claimant/Applicant's Motion on Notice.

4. AN ORDER that no step taken during the pendency of the Claimant/Applicant's Motion on Notice shall be used to defeat, overreach, render nugatory, or substantially alter the subject matter of the Originating Summons.

The application is supported by a 32-paragraphed Affidavit, an Affidavit of Urgency, and a Written Address. The Applicant has also filed a Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction, which is pending before the Court.

 ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The Applicant's counsel formulated a sole issue for determination which is adopted by this Court as the issue for determination of this application:

"WHETHER having regard to the urgency created by the forthcoming National Delegates Conference scheduled for 23rd – 26th September 2026, the affidavit evidence before the Court, and the need to preserve the subject matter of the substantive action, the Claimant/Applicant has established sufficient grounds for the grant of the limited interim injunctions sought pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice."

 APPLICANT'S WRITTEN ADDRESS

The Applicant's counsel, in his written address, argued that the application is brought pursuant to the exceptional jurisdiction of the Court to preserve the res where immediate intervention is necessary. Relying on Kotoye v. CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419, counsel submitted that an ex parte injunction is justified only in circumstances of real urgency where waiting to hear the opposing party may occasion serious or irretrievable mischief.

Counsel submitted that the urgency is real and not self-created. The National Delegates Conference is scheduled for 23rd-26th September 2026, and the application was filed on 17th September 2026, immediately before the event. The Applicant had previously invoked the internal dispute-resolution mechanism under Rule 27 of the Union's Constitution by a Notice of Dispute dated 31st July 2026, but the issues were not resolved.

It was further argued that the orders sought are preservative and not final. They do not seek to determine the substantive rights of the parties but merely to preserve the res pending the hearing of the Motion on Notice. Counsel submitted that the balance of convenience favours preservation, as refusing the order would allow the disputed constitutional matters to be altered irreversibly, whereas granting it merely preserves the position for a short period. Finally, counsel submitted that damages would not be an adequate remedy as the injury concerns constitutional governance, membership qualification, and elective offices, and the Applicant has expressly undertaken to comply with any undertaking as to damages.

        COURT'S DECISION

I have carefully considered the Motion Ex Parte, the supporting Affidavit, the Affidavit of Urgency, and the Written Address of counsel. I have also taken judicial notice of the pending Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction.

The Claimant/Applicant is a bona fide member of the 4th Defendant (AUPCTRE). He has instituted an Originating Summons challenging, amongst other matters, the proper interpretation and application of the Constitution of the 4th Defendant, particularly concerning membership qualification, tenure, appointment of principal officers, disciplinary authority, delegate status, and the powers of various organs of the Union.

The Applicant avers that the National Delegates Conference of the 4th Defendant is scheduled to hold in Kano from 23rd to 26th September 2026. He contends that the Conference is capable of taking decisions concerning the very matters that are presently before this Court for constitutional determination. If such decisions are taken and implemented before the Motion on Notice can be heard, the subject matter of the substantive suit may be substantially altered or rendered academic. The Applicant further states that he invoked the internal dispute-resolution mechanism under Rule 27 of the Union's Constitution by a Notice of Dispute dated 31st July 2026, but the dispute remains unresolved, necessitating this urgent application.

The Ex Parte Motion was filed on 17th September 2026. The Court did not hear the application immediately. The application was eventually heard on 25th September 2026. By that date, the National Delegates Conference had already commenced (having started on 23rd September 2026). The Court adjourned the matter for Ruling to today, 28th September 2026.

The Conference, which was scheduled to hold from 23rd to 26th September 2026, has now concluded. The event sought to be restrained by the ex parte application has therefore already taken place.

The law regarding the grant of ex parte interim injunctions is well settled, particularly by the Supreme Court in Kotoye v. Central Bank of Nigeria & Ors. (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419. The principles are:

1. An ex parte interim injunction is an exceptional remedy. Its purpose is not to determine the rights of the parties but to preserve the res for a short period until the party against whom the order is sought has an opportunity to be heard.

2. It is justified only in circumstances of real urgency, where waiting to hear the opposing party may occasion serious or irretrievable mischief before the application on notice can be heard.

3. The urgency must not be self-induced.

4. The order must be limited in duration and must not become, in substance, a final or interlocutory determination made without hearing the affected party.

5. The Applicant must give a satisfactory undertaking as to damages.

The Applicant must also show that there is a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favours the grant of the order. Also, the court must be satisfied that damages cannot be an adequate compensation for the injury complained of. See also the cases of: Itama V. Osaro-lai (2000) 6 NWLR (pt.661) 515, Statoil (Nig.) ltd V. NNPC (2013)14 NWLR (pt.1373)1, Pharma Deko Plc V. FDC Ltd. (2015)10 NWLR (pt.1467)225.

However, there is a fundamental principle of equity that must be considered. An injunction is not a remedy for a completed act. See the cases of BPS Engr. & Constr. Co. Ltd. v. FERMA (2023) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1884) 461 SC, A.-G., Anambra State v. Okafor (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 224) 369, and Ideozu v. Ochoma (2006) 4 NWLR (Pt. 970) 364. An injunction will not be granted even where the completed act complained of is irregular. The proper remedy for a completed act lies in damages, declarations, or other consequential reliefs, not in an order of injunction which is forward-looking and preservative in nature.

The rationale for this principle is that an injunction is an equitable remedy designed to prevent future harm or to preserve the status quo pending the determination of a dispute. It is not designed to undo a harm that has already occurred. Where the act sought to be restrained has already been completed, the court cannot use an injunction to turn back the hands of time. The Applicant's remedy, if any, lies in other forms of relief.

I will now apply these principles to the facts of this case. The National Delegates Conference commenced on 23rd September 2026 and concluded on 26th September 2026. The application was heard on 25th September 2026, during the pendency of the Conference. The Ruling is being delivered on 28th September 2026, after the Conference has ended.

The urgency that the Applicant apprehended when he filed the application on 17th September 2026 was the imminent holding of the Conference. That urgency has now dissipated. The Conference has come and gone. The event sought to be restrained has already taken place. There is therefore no longer any urgency to justify the grant of an ex parte order.

The ex parte application has been overtaken by events. The reliefs sought, insofar as they relate to restraining the holding of the Conference, are now academic. The Court cannot make an order restraining an event that has already occurred.

The crucial question is whether the ex parte application is now unnecessary because the act sought to be restrained has been completed. The answer, in my view, is in affirmative.

The Applicant sought orders restraining the Defendants from taking or implementing any step at or arising from the National Delegates Conference. The Conference has now been held. Any decisions that were going to be taken have been taken. The act of holding the Conference is a completed act.

It is a settled principle of law that an injunction will not be granted to restrain a completed act. As the Supreme Court held in A.-G., Anambra State v. Okafor (supra), an injunction is not a remedy for a completed act. The proper remedy for a completed act lies in damages, declarations, or other consequential reliefs.

In the present case, the holding of the Conference is a completed act. The Applicant's ex parte application, insofar as it seeks to restrain the holding of the Conference, is therefore unnecessary. The Court cannot grant an injunction to restrain an event that has already occurred.

However, a distinction must be drawn between the holding of the Conference and the implementation of decisions arising therefrom (which may be ongoing or imminent). While an injunction cannot lie to restrain the holding of a Conference that has already taken place, an injunction may lie to restrain the implementation of decisions that are the product of an allegedly unlawful process, where such implementation would irreparably alter the subject matter of the pending suit.

The Applicant's reliefs are wide enough to encompass both the holding of the Conference and the implementation of its decisions. Reliefs 1 and 2 specifically refer to "taking or implementing any step at or arising from the National Delegates Conference." Reliefs 3 and 4 seek to maintain the status quo ante and to prevent steps taken during the pendency of the Motion on Notice from defeating the subject matter of the Originating Summons.

To the extent that the reliefs seek to restrain the implementation of decisions arising from the Conference, they are not necessarily defeated by the principle that an injunction is not a remedy for a completed act. The implementation of decisions may be an ongoing process, and an injunction may lie to restrain further implementation where such implementation would cause irreparable harm.

However, the ex parte application is not the appropriate vehicle for such relief at this stage. The urgency that justified the ex parte procedure was the imminent holding of the Conference. That urgency has dissipated. The Defendants have not been heard. The Applicant's remedy, if any, now lies in prosecuting the pending Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction, which will be heard inter partes, with the Defendants given the opportunity to respond.

Even if the Court were minded to grant some form of preservative order, it would be improper to do so ex parte at this stage. The Defendants have a right to be heard. The principles of fair hearing enshrined in Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) demand that the Defendants be given an opportunity to respond to the Applicant's allegations before any order affecting their rights is made.

The urgency that justified the ex parte procedure no longer exists. The Conference has ended. There is no imminent danger that requires immediate intervention without hearing the Defendants. The Applicant's remedy lies in the Motion on Notice, which can be heard expeditiously.

The Applicant has filed an Originating Summons raising substantial questions concerning the interpretation and application of the AUPCTRE Constitution, including the qualification of the 1st Defendant, the validity of the appointment of the 2nd Defendant, the consequences of retirement under Rule 14(ii)(b), the competence of the South-South Zonal Council, the validity of disciplinary measures affecting Comrade Perpetual Wellington, and the proper conduct of the National Delegates Conference. These are not frivolous or hypothetical questions. The Applicant has placed documentary evidence before the Court, including the Union's Constitution and a Certified True Copy of a judgment in a related suit. I am satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried.

The injury apprehended by the Applicant is not principally pecuniary. The substantive proceedings concern constitutional governance, membership qualification, elective offices, appointments, delegate rights, and disciplinary status within a trade union. If disputed offices are altered, persons are accredited or excluded as delegates, elections or appointments are implemented, or disciplinary decisions are acted upon before the Court determines the underlying constitutional questions, a subsequent award of damages would not adequately restore the precise constitutional and administrative position that existed before the impugned acts. The injury contemplated is therefore one which may not be adequately compensated by an award of damages.

The balance of convenience favours the preservation of the existing position pending the hearing of the Motion on Notice. However, this preservation can be achieved by putting the Defendants on notice and hearing the Motion on Notice expeditiously, rather than by granting an ex parte order. The Defendants have a right to be heard, and the Court is mindful of the need to avoid making orders that could be perceived as unfair or one-sided.

The Applicant has expressly undertaken to comply with any undertaking as to damages which this Honourable Court may require. Paragraph 29 of the supporting affidavit states that the Applicant is ready and willing to give such undertaking as to damages as the Court may direct.

 In conclusion therefore, I am not satisfied that this is a proper case for the grant of an ex parte interim injunction. The Conference, which was the subject of the urgency, has already taken place. The ex parte application has been overtaken by events. The principle that an injunction is not a remedy for a completed act applies to the holding of the Conference. While the implementation of decisions arising from the Conference may still be amenable to injunctive relief, the ex parte procedure is no longer appropriate, as the urgency has dissipated and the Defendants have a right to be heard.

The appropriate order in the circumstances is to refuse the ex parte application, put the Defendants on notice, and hear the Motion on Notice expeditiously. This will ensure that the subject matter of the substantive suit is preserved while respecting the Defendants' right to fair hearing.

Consequently, I make the following orders:

1. The Ex Parte Motion filed on 17th September 2026 is hereby refused. The application has been overtaken by events, as the National Delegates Conference has already been held and an injunction is not a remedy for a completed act.

2. The Defendants/Respondents are hereby put on notice of the Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction.

3. The Defendants/Respondents shall file their Counter-Affidavit and Written Address within the period prescribed under the rules of this Court after service of the Motion on notice.

4. The Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction is hereby fixed for hearing, date shall be communicated to the parties by the registrar of the court.

5. In the meantime, and in order to preserve the res pending the hearing of the Motion on Notice, the parties are hereby ordered to maintain the status quo ante in respect of the disputed offices, delegate rights, candidacies, appointments, disciplinary status, and constitutional positions. This order is made to preserve the subject matter of the suit and is not a determination of the rights of the parties.

6. The Applicant's undertaking as to damages is hereby noted.

Ruling is accordingly entered.

 

                                           HON. JUSTICE BUHARI SANI

JUDGE

 

LEGAL REPRESENTATIONS:

A. B. Andrew-Jaja, Esq, for the Applicant