injunctions

Injunction is an equitable remedy given only upon the discretion of the court. It is mandatory or prohibitory in nature. It is therefore a judicial process operating ‘in person’ and requiring the person to whom it is directed to do or refrain from doing a particular thing. The basis for the grant of injunction is two fold; i) To prevent the impending or threatened breach of a legal or equitable right; ii) To prevent a person from acting in a manner that is unconscionable and contrary to equitable principles or doctrine such as in rules relating to fiduciary relationship and administration of trusts. The court will only grant a prayer for injunction where it is just and convenient to do so. Metuh V. FRN (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 901) 722 at 754.

Injunctions may be classified according to the nature of the order given by the court. Some of the classifications are; i) Where the order of the court requires a person to do a specified act, it is called a mandatory injunction. ii) It is a prohibitive injunction where the order of the court is restrictive in nature and it restrains the person to whom it is directed to from doing a specific act. Injunctions may also be classified as interlocutory, interim, mareva, Quia Timet, Anton pillar injunction.

Generally, an injunctive relief can only be sought and obtained against a person who has infringed or is infringing on the legal and equitable right of the applicant. However, an injunction may also be sought even where no legal or equitable right of the applicant has been trampled upon. This form of injunction is called a Quia Timet injunction. It is available to an applicant who has fear that a wrong will be done to him if no injunction is granted. The purpose for this type of injunction is that it prevents the stultification of the jurisdiction of the court. It seeks to prevent an apprehended legal wrong even though none has occurred at the time of the application. Redland Bricks Ltd. V. Morris (1970) AC 652

Although the terms are often misused interchangeably, it is wrong to do so as one is substantially different from the other. While an interlocutory injunction is normally expressed to last till the conclusion of a substantive suit, an interim injunction on the other hand is a much more temporary order of injunction which normally last till a specific date usually till the next motion date. Also, an interim injunction is usually granted upon an application made ex-parte. That is, the person against whom the injunction order is sought has no idea that an application for such order has been made against him because he is not put on notice. However, this is not the case for an interlocutory injunction as an application for interlocutory injunction is made on notice to the other party. Kotoye V. CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419 at 442; Oye V. Gov. Oyo State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 306) 437, Orji V. Zara Ltd (1992) I NWLR (Pt. 216) 124 SC.