Chief Nta Sam Uket V. Chief Michael Okon Okpa (2005)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

THOMAS, J.C.A.

This is an interlocutory appeal against the ruling of Ugep High Court of Justice, Cross River State in suit No. HUG/MISC/10/2003 delivered on 14th July, 2003.

The present appellant was the plaintiff/applicant at the lower court in which he filed a motion on notice for:

“An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from whether by himself, his servants, workmen, agents and assigns or otherwise howsoever from entering or doing anything inconsistent with the rights of the plaintiff/applicant on the parcel of farmland known and called Kepontamse amon vema abo Mbang ofor and bounded by the parcels of land of Obal Enang Effiom, late Mbang-Ofem, Usang Egu Edet and Ikoi Mbang and equally demarcated by “yetete” trees, until the determination of the substantive suit.” (italics mine)

The above application for reliefs and the supporting 16 paragraphs affidavit was filed, and later, a reply to the counter-affidavit was also filed on 20th March, 2003. Relevant paragraphs will be considered later.

The defendant/respondent’s counter-affidavit of 18 paragraphs will be considered later.

The learned trial lower court heard arguments proffered by the parties in respect of the motion and the supporting and counter-affidavits and reply. Then in the ruling, the reliefs sought was refused and dismissed.

The plaintiff/applicant then applied and was granted leave to appeal. He filed on time, dated 29th July, 2003. He filed three grounds of appeal from which four issues have been formulated for consideration of the appeal.

Appellant’s issues read thus:

Issues

“Whether from the totality of the affidavit evidence of the appellant, the appellant has met the conditions for the grant of an order of interlocutory injunction in his favour.

Whether the appellant has described or identified the subject matter of his application with certainty as to have an order of interlocutory injunction in his favour.

Whether from the affidavit evidence of the respondent, the respondent was able to establish a link between the farmland on which he had judgment in suit No. YDC/85/89 exhibit K in the respondent counter affidavit and the farmland – the subject matter of this action for which the appellant prayed for an order of interlocutory injunction.

Whether the trial Judge properly exercised his discretion judicially and judiciously in refusing the grant of the interlocutory injunction. “