Obidiegwu Onyesoh V. Nze Christopher Nnebedun & Ors. (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

G. KARIBI-WHYTE, J.S.C

On the 10th April, 1989 the Court below in a unanimous judgment dismissed the appeal of the Appellants from a ruling of Obiesie J, of May 5, 1988 granting plaintiffs an interlocutory injunction restraining the appellant from being crowned as the Eze Nri. This is an appeal against that decision.

The litigation arose in this way. Plaintiffs and the Defendant all belong to Nri Town. Plaintiffs in their affidavit in support of their application ex parte to restrain the appellant from being crowned the Eze Nri, dated 9/2/88 claim to be representing Akamkpisi Village, one of the six villages constituting the Nri Town. It was deposed in the affidavit that the Nri custom is that the selection of the Eze Nri is the responsibility of all the constituent villages. That the Adamas who are the only Kingmakers and who only can crown the Eze Nri, are of Akamkpisi village. It was also deposed that it was against Nri custom for only three of the six constituent villages, without concurrence of the others, to arrogate to themselves the right and power to select, install and crown the Eze Nri. The Adamas have not been consulted and have not consented to the crowning of the Appellant.

On the same date as the ex parte motion, plaintiffs had earlier filed a writ of summons claiming from the Defendant the following reliefs.

1. A declaration that Nri town is made up of six villages.
2. A declaration that the six villages which include the plaintiffs have to give their consent before the enthronement of any person from Nri as the Eze or Igwe of Nri.
3. An order of injunction “restraining the defendant, his privies and supporters from presenting himself for installation and/or coronation or installing or crowning the defendant the Eze or Igwe of Nri without the consent or consensus of the plaintiffs given in writing or in a customary way in a public gathering or meeting.

The Defendant whose selection had been made more than a year previously was scheduled to be crowned on the 20th February, 1988. The motion ex parte filed on the 9th February, 1988 was fixed for hearing on the 17th February, 1988.

Obiesie J granted the application and made the following order.

“… the defendant be and is hereby restrained from presenting or getting himself crowned or installed as the Eze or Igwe of Nri on the 20th day of February 1988 or any other day until final determination of Motion on Notice for interim injunction.

It is also ordered that 7 days be granted the defendant within which to apply to discharge the order with effect from the date of service of the Order.”

Respondents who are the Appellants before us were by this Order put on notice with liberty to apply to discharge the order. It is interesting to observe that the ex parte application was filed on the 9th February. It was then known that the event sought to be restrained was fixed for the 20th February, yet the application for injunction ex-parte was fixed to be heard on the 17th February, thus leaving no time for service on the Respondent or for him to apply for its discharge. Indeed. Obiesie J. subsequent to the grant of the ex parte application fixed hearing of the motion of the interlocutory application for the 14th March. 1988.

This court has advised High Court Judges that applications of this nature should be made, on notice to the party who would be affected from the order to be made. They should not be designed to create embarrassment or deliberate inconvenience. In this regard it is not only irregular and unfair, it is indiscrete to fix the hearing of the motion so close to the event sought to be restrained. In the instant case the date of the event sought to be restrained had been known, well ahead before the institution of the action. There was therefore no real urgency on the part of the parties to proceed by way of an ex parte application.

The order for interim injunction obtained ex parte was served on the defendant on the 19th February. He therefore brought an application to discharge the order pursuant to Order 3 rules 5, 7, 11 and 17 of the. High Court Rules of Anambra State. He also asked for accelerated hearing of the substantive suit brought by the plaintiffs. Obiesie J on March 1st, 1988 refused the application, but granted the prayer for accelerated hearing of the substantive suit. The Motion by the plaintiffs on Notice to the Defendant for an order of interlocutory injunction pending the determination of the substantive suit was argued on the 28th March, 1988. Obiesie J delivered his ruling on the 12th May, 1988 and granted the injunction sought. Defendant thereupon appealed to the Court below.

Six grounds of appeal were filed against the judgment. Three issues for determination were formulated from these grounds.

The issues are as follows:-

“(i) Having ordered accelerated hearing of the substantive suit on 14/3/88 was the trial judge right to have proceeded to grant the interim injunction, without necessarily making findings which will prejudge issues in the substantive suit.