Mrs. Oghenekohwo Queen & Anor V. Madam Odemekpore Adaroh & Anor (1998)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AKINTAN, J.C.A.

This is an appeal from an interlocutory ruling delivered by Ehiwario, J. on 30th October, 1996 sitting at Isiokolo High Court, Delta State in Suit No. HC1/16/96. The plaintiffs, now appellants, had by a writ filed on 15th July, 1996 instituted the action against the defendants, now respondents, in which their claim reads as follows:

“1. The sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two million naira) being damages suffered by the plaintiffs when the defendants trespassed on the plaintiffs’ land/rubber plantation situate at Okudioka bush in Oviorie-Ovu in Ethiope East Local Government Area of Delta State a place within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.

2. An order directing the defendants to refund the amount they have collected and/or gained from tapping the rubber plantation of the plaintiffs.
3. An order of interim injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, privies and/or anybody whatsoever acting on their behalf from doing anything inconsistent with the plaintiffs’ interest on the plaintiffs’ land/rubber plantation situate at Okudioka bush in Oviorie-Ovu in Ethiope East Local Government Area of Delta State a place within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
4. An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants, their agents or privies and/or anybody whatsoever acting on their behalf from doing anything whatsoever inconsistent with the plaintiffs’ interest on the plaintiffs’ land/rubber plantation situate at Okudioka bush in Oviorie-Ovu in Ethiope East Local Government Area of Delta State a place within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
5. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, privies and/or anybody whatsoever acting on their behalf from doing anything whatsoever inconsistent with the plaintiffs’ interest on the plaintiffs’ land/rubber plantation situate at Okudioka bush in Oviorie-Ovu in Ethiope East Local Government Area of Delta State a place within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.”

The plaintiffs also filed, on the same day along with their writ of summons.

a motion in which they prayed the court for the following relief:-

“An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, privies and/or anybody whatsoever acting on their behalf from doing anything whatsoever inconsistent with the plaintiffs’ interest on the plaintiffs’ land/rubber plantation situate at Okudioka bush in Oviorie-Ovu in Ethiope-East Local Government Area of Delta State pending the determination of the substantive suit.”

The motion was supported by a 33-paragraph affidavit and a 16-paragraph further affidavit both sworn to by the 1st plaintiff/appellant. The motion was opposed. To that end, a 21 -paragraph counter-affidavit and a 12-paragraph further and better counter-affidavit both sworn to by the 2nd defendant/respondent. The motion thereafter came up for hearing before the learned trial Judge. After taking submissions from learned counsel for the parties, the learned Judge reserved his ruling.

In his reserved ruling delivered on 30th October, 1996, the learned Judge held that the application lacked merit and he accordingly dismissed it with N200,00 costs in favour of the defendants/respondents. The learned Judge made the following findings of fact in the course of his said ruling before coming to his above conclusion:-

“From the evidence from both parties, I have no doubt in my mind that the respondents are in possession of the rubber plantation before the applicants came to court and that they are still in possession. Secondly, I find the hare assertion of the applicants that if the respondents are not restrained now, they will suffer irreparable damages which monetary awards will not be adequate compensation as being far from the mark of realism. First, from the nature and character of the relief they seek against the respondents in the main claim, they have demonstrated that their damages (if any) can be redressed through monetary recompense. Dead rubber trees can reasonably be assessed and losses from the proceeds quantified over a length of time. The respondents who are right now in possession have gone ahead to employ workers to be tapping the rubber for them. They live on the proceeds. The effect which a temporary stoppage of this business is likely to produce on the respondents will be more severe than that on the applicants. Meanwhile, the applicants have nothing to lose other than the alleged monetary gain claimed in their writ which can be compensated for if they eventually win.”

The plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the ruling and they have appealed against it to this court. They filed 4 grounds of appeal against the ruling. The panics filed their briefs of argument in this court. The appellants formulated the following two issues in their brief as arising for determination in the appeal:-

“1. Whether the mere fact that there is a relief for damages without more is sufficient to refuse an application for an interlocutory injunction.

2. Whether to be in possession by an act of trespass is sufficient for the refusal of an application for interlocutory injunction.”

The respondents, on the other hand, formulated only a single issue as arising in the appeal. The single issue is as follows:

“Whether in all the circumstances of this case the learned trial Judge was right in refusing to grant an interlocutory injunction against the defendants/respondents.”

Although I believe that the single issue formulated in the respondents’ brief is more appropriate in resolving the question raised in the appeal, I will, however, follow the issues formulated in the appellants’ brief.