Brittania-u Nigeria Limited V. Seplat Petroleum Development Company Limited & Ors (2016)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, J.S.C.

The appellant herein commenced an action by way of Writ of Summons issued at the Registry of the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division on 12/12/2013 claiming declaratory and other reliefs against the respondents, then defendants.

In view of the time element in the interim injunction, the subject of this appeal, I will set out the processes filed with reference to dates of filing.

On 12/12/2013, the appellant as plaintiff commenced the action by Writ of Summons. On the same day, he filed other processes including a motion ex parte for interim injunction pending the hearing of the motion on notice for an interlocutory injunction.

On 13/12/2013 the trial Court heard, and granted, the motion ex parte for interim injunction. The motion on notice for an interlocutory injunction was fixed for hearing on 27/1/2014. On 18/12/2013, the appellant filed another motion ex parte for an order to correct errors on the face of the order granted on 13/12/2013 and the motion on notice was fixed for heating on 22/1/2014.

On 23/12/2013 the motion ex parte to amend the order of interim injunction was granted. On

27/12/2013 the 1st respondent as 5th defendant filed a motion on notice for an order to vary, discharge or set aside the motion for interim injunction as granted on 13/12/2013 and amended on 18/12/2013.

Appellant objected to the application on the ground that the same was not filed within the period allowed by the appropriate rules of Court. The motion to discharge the order of interim injunction was fixed for hearing on 10/1/2014. On 21/1/2014, 2nd and 3rd respondents filed a motion on notice to strike out the suit and the order made for want of jurisdiction or in the alternative an order to stay proceedings pending referral to arbitration.

On 24/1/2014, 5th respondent filed a motion to challenge the competence of the suit. On 27/1/2014 the trial Court ruled, inter alia, that:

“… the interim order made by the Court stands extended as the condition precedent that will warrant its discharge is not yet fulfilled.”

The matter was adjourned to 10/2/2014 for pending applications. On 31/1/2014, the 5th respondent now appellant, appealed to the Court of Appeal against the order of the trial Court made on 27/1/2014 extending the life span of the interim order of

13/12/2013 as amended.

The Court of Appeal in its judgment allowed the appeal on the ground that the order of interim injunction made on 13/12/2013 as amended had expired and that there was nothing to preserve. On 4/7/2014, appellant appealed to this Court against the judgment of the Court below.

Learned Counsel for the parties filed their respective briefs as follows: