Law ReportsSubject SummariesNLS HandbookcasesFaculty Textbookcases

exparte injunction

Q1804. A building is the subject of a disagreement between and ‘Y’. ‘X’ is about to pull down the building which ‘Y’ lays claim to ‘Y.’ ‘Y’ is tensed, he wants to act, quickly, what remedy is available to him?

‘Y’ obviously has an interest in the disputed property. Although he hasn’t brought any formal action against ‘X’, ‘Y’ is entitled to the remedy of injunction restraining ‘X’ from making well his threat pending the determination and resolution of the dispute between them by a competent court. As a result of the urgency of the situation, ‘Y’ can apply for an injunction ex-parte; That is, he does not need to put ‘X’ on notice as it may be too late to attempt this. An ex-parte order will be given by the court upon an ex-parte application premised on the urgency of the situation as it is in this case. The purpose for this is to preserve the subject matter which in this case is the building. If the court refuse to grant same and If the court refuse to grant same and the building is eventually destroyed, further trial regarding the subject matter may become mere academic exercise. Chief Amuda Olorunkosebi (Ashira of Oyo) V. M.K.O. Abiola & Ors. (unreported) HOY/9/88 delivered on 22-1-1988; 7-Up Bottling Co. Ltd. V. Abiola & Sons Ltd. (1995) 3 NWLR (Pt. 383) 257 at 261

Q1805. We keep hearing that in a bid to preserve the ‘Res’ or the ‘subject matter’ of litigation, the court will readily issue an ex-parte order upon an ex-parte application. is it really the duty of the court to preserve the res

Yes. The court as a matter of fact has the duty to ensure that the subject matter of a suit is not destroyed so that the success of a litigant is not rendered nugatory. It is the duty of the court to preserve the ‘res’. A court that fails to preserve the res will be seen as abdicating its primary constitutional duty as the plaintiff would have lost the chance to have his right decided by a court of law. Kigo V. Holman (1980) 3-4 SC 60 at 70

Q1806. Where a court grant an ex-parte order, does this not deny the party it is directed to the chance to be heard, considering that everybody has a right to be heard under our law

No. Even though there has been so much controversy surrounding ex-parte orders of court, an ex-parte order do not amount to denial of fair hearing of the party the order is directed to. Of course, the right to be heard is one of the twin pillars of justice and this right cannot be eroded. However, an ex-parte order of the court is only granted upon the existence of real urgency. It is temporal in nature usually pending till the next motion date. Besides, such order does not deny the other party his right to be heard in the substantial suit. It is usually made to preserve the subject matter of litigation so that the judgment of the court is not rendered nugatory if the applicant succeeds at trial. 7-Up Bottling Co. Ltd. V. Abiola & Sons Ltd. (1995) 3 NWLR (Pt. 383) 257 at 280 and 282; Mohammed V. Kano, NA (1968) 1 All NLR 424; Oyeyipo V. Oyinloye (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 50) 356.