Joseph Ogundele Ajewole V. Oba E.a. Adetimo & Ors. (1996)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED, J.S.C.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division, in which it affirmed the ruling of Adekola J of Oyo State High Court, wherein the learned trial judge dismissed an application filed before him by Mr. Joseph Ogundele Ajewole, hereinafter called the appellant, for an order of interim injunction based on the following prayers:-

“(i) Restraining the 1st Plaintiff (Edward Adebayo Adetimo) from holding himself out and/or parading himself as the OBA Ajaaregbe of Ijaaregbe:

(ii) Restraining the 1st Plaintiff from collecting to himself the customary Rents (Ishakole) from the customary farmers/Tenants on Ijaaregbe stool land;

(iii) Restraining the 1st Plaintiff from celebrating his alleged 1st Anniversary on the throne of Ijaaregbe scheduled for 17th October, 1987 as indicated on the Invitation cards from the 1st Plaintiff;

(iv) Restraining the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs from assisting in the performance of the proposed celebration;

(v) Restraining the 1st Plaintiff from doing any other Act or Acts that may lead to a breach of the peace at Ijaaregbe pending the final determination of the present case in Suit NO. HIL/48/87, and (B) for such further Order or Orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances”.

In support of the application, the appellant filed an affidavit and a further affidavit disclosing facts on which the grounds for application were based. The respondents filed a counter affidavit deposed to by Oba Edward Adedayo Adetimo, the 1st Plaintiff respondent, in opposition to the application. It is plain from the affidavits that the conflict must be resolved. It is trite and a matter of practice that when a court is faced with affidavits which are irreconcilably in conflict, the judge hearing the case should first hear oral evidence from the deponents or such other witnesses as the parties may call so that the oral evidence would enable him test the affidavit evidence and thereby resolve such conflicts arising from the affidavit evidence. See Government of Ashanti v. Adjuah Korkor and others 4 WACA 83 and Uku v. Okumagba (1974) 3 S.C. 35.

In this regard the learned trial judge directed the parties to adduce evidence in order to resolve the conflict. At the end of the hearing the learned trial judge, in a well considered ruling, found no merit in the application for the interim injunction filed by the appellant and dismissed all the prayers sought for in the motion.

Dissatisfied with that ruling, the appellant filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal, Ibadan. The Court of Appeal considered all the issues raised in support of the appeal and in a carefully considered judgment it dismissed the appeal.

The appellant has now come before this court on three grounds of appeal. His counsel the learned Chief Taiwo Aribisala formulated the following five issues for the determination of the appeal.

“(1) Whether in an application for interim injunction the judicial precedent that, “once an act has been carried out”, an Order for Interim Injunction is not available to undo the act pending the final determination of the substantive action especially against the background that not all cases are on all fours.

(2) Whether adherence to Technicalities of Law should be allowed to stand in the way of the duty of the Court doing substantial justice, having regard to the circumstances of the case in hand.

(3) Whether it is not duty of the Court to maintain Even Balance between two disputants claiming the same right, instead of considering the Balance of Convenience of just one of the Parties