Adiakot Stephen Okomo & Ors V. Chief Daniel Udo Umoetuk & Ors (2003)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OKWUCHUKWU OPENE, J.C.A.

The plaintiffs who are now the respondents on 11th April, 1999, brought an action against the appellants as the respondents in the High Court of Akwa Ibom State, claiming as follows:

“1. A declaration that Ndon Idung Adiakot is a family unit in the village of Esit Urua in Eket Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom State and not a village recognized in law.

2. A declaration that the 1st respondent is not a village head and the 2nd and 3rd defendants are not the Chairman and Secretary respectively of any village council.
3. A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from parading themselves, acting in any manner howsoever, giving directives or orders as the village head, village council chairman and secretary respectively of a non existent Ndon Idung Adiakot village in Eket Local Government Area.”

As a result of this the respondents on the 17th of April, 1999, filed a motion on notice praying the court for an order:

“Restraining the defendants from parading themselves, acting in any manner howsoever, giving directives or orders as the village head, village council chairman, and secretary respectively of a non-existent Ndom Idung Adiakot village in Eket Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom State until the determination of the substantive suit.”

In his considered ruling delivered on 9/2/2000. The learned trial Judge Okon, J. granted the application. The appellants unhappy and dissatisfied with the ruling have appealed to this court. In accordance with the rules of this court both the appellants and the respondents filed their briefs of argument.

In the appellants brief of argument, two issues were identified for the determination of the court and they read as follows:-

“1. Whether in the circumstance of this case the trial court was right in granting an order of interlocutory injunction in the term sought by the applicant.

2. Whether the learned trial court was justified in determining the substantive issues between the parties in a ruling on an application for interlocutory injunction.”

The first point taken up in the appellants brief of argument by the appellants counsel, Chief Assam Assam is what is the status quo which the grant of an application seeks to maintain. He said that this is the question which the courts have always been enjoined to ask at the hearing and to determine at the ruling of an application for interlocutory injunction and that it determines the balance of convenience, what the remedies for the infringement are, if any, and whether the grant will do more harm than refusal, that the affidavit must disclose status quo ante bellum. He referred to paragraphs 15 and 30 of the respondent’s affidavit and also exhibit B referred to in paragraph 13 of the said affidavit in which it was stated that the 1st appellants in 1997 recommended one of his citizens to the Chairman of Eket Local Government for the issuance of a certificate of origin as a member of Ndong Idung Adiakot village and argued that they neglected to aver whether the Chairman of Eket Local Government Area Council granted the request or not.

He also referred to another document annexed by the respondents exhibit C which is a letter written to the Speaker of Akwa Ibom House of Assembly in 1992 by the 1st appellant reasserting the rights of the Ndong Idung Adiakot village to recognition of the Government as the village has been long standing as a village community.

Referring to the appellants’ counter-affidavit, he stated that the appellants had denied advocating for the creation of a new village out of Esit Urua village and that their case is that their’s is an old village which was only omitted from the list of the villages published by Government of Akwa Ibom State and that their efforts have been directed at ensuring that the said village was gazetted as a village under the laws of the Akwa Ibom State and that they have been carrying on activities over thirty years as a distinct village and the most recent being the launching of a development fund in 1994.

He said that in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit that, the appellants stated that a committee of government on omitted villages in 1989 recommended the village as an old village for recognition and that the said report was annexed as exhibit A and that the two villages have two distinct village administrations and that this is recognised by their clan, the Afaha clan council of which the two viliages are members. He stated that the facts disclose that as at the commencement of the action that the 1st appellant had been village head for 19 years and that the village had never been a pan of Esit Urua village as it has existed from time immemorial as a separate and distinct entity recognised by the clan and the Local Government and even recommended by a State Government Committee for gazetting as a village under the laws of Akwa Ibom State.

He then submitted that the above is the status quo ante bellum upon which the applicants were entitled to have their application heard and determined which needed to be preserved and that this could not be the pressing injury against which the applicants needed to be protected.

To buttress his argument, he referred to the following cases. Akapo v Hakeem-Habeeb (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 247) 266; Odumeru v. Adenuga (2000) 4 NWLR (Pt. 652) 224; Orji v. Zaria Industries Ltd. (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 216) 124; John Holt (Nig.) Ltd. v. Holts African Workers Union and Cameroun (1963) 2 SCNLR 383; Obeya Memorial hospital v. A.-G., Federation (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 60) 325; Kotoye v. CBN (1989) 1NWLR (Pt.98) 419.