Alex Oladele Elufioye & Ors V. Ibrahim Halilu & Ors (1990)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AWOGU, J.C.A.

Two interlocutory appeals have reached this court from the decisions of Adeniji, J., and Segun, J., in the above suit. The first, dated 5th December, 1988, was in respect of the discharge of an ex-parte order in favour of accelerated hearing. The second, dated 7th February, 1989, was, after Segun, J., took over, the refusal to dismiss the claim in limine for reasons given in the motion dated 19th December, 1988. Both judgments were to have been delivered together but for the request that the second appeal be heard by the full court in view of the conflicting decision of this court with regard to the Rule in Foss v. Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461. As a result, the appeal in respect of the discharge of the ex-parte injunction had to be disposed of earlier. The present judgment by the full court is in respect of the second appeal.

The plaintiffs and the defendants are members of National Union of Banks, Insurance and Financial Institutions Employees (NUBIFE, for short), the other parties being their bankers. The plaintiffs brought an action against the defendants claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs:-

“(v) An injunction restraining the 1st – 11th defendants and each of them from:-

(a) performing any of the functions of the respective office to which he was appointed in November, 1985;

(b) parading himself as an officer of the 18th defendant Union or as a member of the National Executive Council thereof;

(c) operating any of the Bank Accounts of the 18th defendant Union in any Bank or from disposing of, receiving, negotiating or in any way dealing with any of the assets of the 18th defendant Union.

(vi) A mandatory injunction directing the 12th defendant. The General Secretary of 18th defendant Union – to summon and service a National Delegates’ Conference for the purpose of Constitution in lieu of the Delegates’ Conference which should have been summoned for November, 1988.

(vii) An injunction restraining the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th defendants from honouring any cheques or orders for payment of money or for the disposal of or other dealing in any Security or assets of the 18th Defendant Union except and until a proper National Delegates’ Conference shall have been held and fresh officers of the 9th Defendant Union shall have been elected for that purpose by the 18th Defendant Union.”

Later, the plaintiffs also filed a motion for an Interlocutory Injunction restraining the 1st – 11th defendants and each of them from:-

“1. (a) performing any of the functions of the respective office to which he was elected in November, 1985;

(b) parading himself as an officer of the Union or as a member of the National Executive Council thereof;

(c) operating any of the Bank Accounts of the Union in any Bank or from disposing of, receiving, negotiating or in any way dealing with any of the assets of the Union;

2. An injunction restraining the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th Defendants from honouring any cheques or orders for payment of money or for the disposal of or other dealing in any security or assets of the 18th Defendant Union except and until a proper National Delegates’ Conference shall have been elected for the purpose by the 18th Defendant Union pending the determination of the Motion on Notice filed herein or until further order.”

This was preceded by an ex-parte application, which was granted, and later, discharged. Thereafter, Chief Williams, S.A.N., for 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 18th Defendants, gave notice of the following preliminary objections to the action:-