Longinus Nnadi V. Dr. Adolphe Amadi (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the ruling of Nwosu-Iheme J. (as she then was) of the Imo State High Court delivered on 28/7/2005 granting the Respondent’s application for interlocutory injunction restraining the Appellant from continuing the erection of a filing station on the land in dispute.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, the Appellant have appealed to this court. The facts that led to this appeal are as follows:

From the affidavits filed by the Respondent, his case is that sometime in 1992 Dr. Nwakanma Okoro (SAN (now late), Chairrnan and Chief Executive Officer and sole owner of NECI Land Development Corporation Ltd. used the land in dispute as a collateral to secure a friendly loan from the Respondent. The said land transaction was by a memorandum dated 19/5/92 Subsequently when the said loan was unpaid the Respondent moved to foreclose the interest of the mortgagor and as a result took out a writ against NECI Land Development Corporation Ltd. in HOW/178/98 The said suit is still pending.

It is also the case of the Respondent that in November 2003 the Respondent noticed the activities of the Appellant on the land. In December 2004 the Respondent commenced this action against the Defendant seeking compensatory and injunctive reliefs against the Appellant, then the Respondent thereafter filed the aforesaid application for interlocutory injunction.

The case of the Appellant is that he is one of the director’s of a company called Royal Lonag Ventures Nigeria Ltd. Sometime in 2003, one Anselem N. Ashiegbu who was the holder of the Right of Occupancy in and over the land in dispute transferred his interest and rights in and over the land to Royal Lonag Ventures Nigeria Ltd. Royal Lonag Ventures Nigeria Ltd. then took effective and undisturbed possession of the land and started to develop the land into a petrol station after obtaining requisite permits and approvals from statutory authorities.

It is also the case of the Appellant that as at the time the Respondent filed the action and filed the said motion for interlocutory injunction, Royal Lonag Ventures Nig. Ltd. had fenced the land in dispute, buried petrol tanks on the ground, completed the building of the office block on the land and had generally developed the petrol station on the land after investing millions of Naira on the project. The Appellant also stated that the Respondent knew about these development since 2003 and did nothing until December 2004, and that the grant of the application will cause the said company great inconvenience and that the developments on the land will be exposed to the vagaries of weather.

The Appellant filed notice and grounds of appeal which were served on the Respondent. Thereafter all records were transmitted and served on the parties. By a motion on notice dated 15/10/07 filed on 18/10/07, the Appellant applied pursuant to the rules of court for an order setting down this appeal for hearing without the Respondent’s brief of argument. The said order was granted by this court on 5/5/08. The Appellant’s brief is dated 17/5/07 filed on same day. It will be used solely in the determination of this appeal. The brief was settled by Ezeohiri Fred Njemanze Esq.

The Appellant identified three issues for determination set out below:

i. Whether on the affidavit evidence placed before the lower court, the Plaintiff/Respondent made out a case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction.

ii. Whether the lower court was right in granting the application for interlocutory injunction based on his observation at the locus in quo of which there is no evidence upon the records.

iii. Whether the lower court was right in basing his decision to grant the application for interlocutory injunction mainly on his observation at the locus in quo and not the submissions of learned counsel and affidavit evidence before the court.

From this I have crystallized only two the first issues for determination which in my view adequately show the complaints of the Appellant without being repetitive.

ISSUE ONE