Pius Itama & Ors V. Emmanuel Osaro-lai & Ors (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OGEBE, J.C.A. 

On the 15th May, 1997, the Respondents, as Plaintiffs in the High Court of Justice, Port Harcourt brought an action against the Appellants as Defendants seeking for some declaratory reliefs and mandatory orders. The cause of action arose from the suspension of the first Respondent as Chairman of the Port Harcourt Zone of the Nigeria Welders Association by the National Executive of the Association in a meeting held in Kaduna on the 23rd April, 1997 and the appointment of the 3rd Appellant as the Ag. Chairman of the Port Harcourt Zone. The Respondents also sought for a declaration that the stay of the National Secretary of the Association at the Port Harcourt Zonal Office amounted to a usurpation of the powers and duties of the Executive Officers of the Port Harcourt Zone.

At the institution of the suit, the Respondents brought a motion ex parte for all order of an interim injunction against the Appellants pending the determination of the motion on notice, which was also filed along with the motion ex parte. The motion ex parte reads:

“Take notice that this Honourable court will be moved on … day of… 1997 at the hour of 9 O’clock in the forenoon or so soon thereafter is the Plaintiffs/Applicants or Counsel on their behalf can be heard praying the Court for:-

1) AN ORDER OF INTERIM INJUNCTION restraining the 3rd Defendant from functioning, acting, answering or parading himself as the Zonal Chairman of Zone C of the Nigerian Welders Association and in any way whatsoever from carrying out, assuming or performing the duties of G the Zonal Chairman of the said Zone C -which has its secretariat at Port Harcourt pending the determination of the motion on Notice.

2) AN ORDER OF INTERIM INJUNCTION restraining the 2nd Defendant from staying at Zone C office or the Association in Port Harcourt to function or operate his duties and functions, as the National Secretary of the Nigerian Welders Association, pending the determination of the motion on notice.

3) AND for such further order or orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.

The motion was supported by an affidavit of 52 paragraphs and it was eventually taken by the Court on the 30th of May, 1997 and granted. The trial Judge Ogbunna, J., in his ruling, held as follows:-

“By paragraph 16 of the affidavit in support of the motion the National President and the National Secretary have acted on their own in taking decision that have led to this suit being filed. They suspended the Branch Chairman and later constituted themselves into a fact-finding committee, which removed the branch Chairman. These facts are contained in the affidavit. By paragraph 25 of the affidavit, the power to remove the Branch Chairman lies with the branch itself. It is also exposed to in the affidavit that the 3rd Defendant is being tipped to succeed the Branch Chairman that is the 1st plaintiff.

From the fact contained in the affidavit, I think it is necessary to restrain the Defendants at this stage before the matter gets out of hand. The motion therefore succeeds and it is ordered as follows:

1) That the 3rd Defendant is hereby restrained from functioning, acting, answering or parading himself as the Zonal Chairman of Zone C of the Nigerian Welders Association and in any way whatsoever from carrying out, assuming or performing the duties of the Zonal Chairman of the said Zone C which has its Secretariat at Port Harcourt pending the determination of the motion on notice.

2) That the 2nd Defendant is hereby restrained from staying at Zone C Office of the Association in Port Harcourt to function or operate his duties and functions as the National Secretary of the Nigerian Welders Association pending the determination of the motion on notice. It is further ordered that, the Defendants should enter into bond in the sum of N5,000.00 (Five Thousand Naira) as damages should the motion on notice prove frivolous.”

Dissatisfied with that ruling, the Appellants appealed to this Court, and in accordance with the rules of Court, filed a brief in which they identified one issue for determination as follows: “Whether the Respondents satisfied, in all the circumstances of this case, the conditions for the grant of an ex parte order of interlocutory injunction.”

The Respondents also filed a brief and identified two issues for determination as follows: