Wetipp Nigeria Limited V. Chief Labiyi Ladipo & Ors (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

OBIETONBARA DANIEL-KALIO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is over the Ruling of the lower court in an application for an order of interlocutory injunction. In the substantive matter, the respondents in this interlocutory appeal had sued the appellant claiming against the appellant the sum of N25 million as damages for wrongfully entering a parcel of land at Ikija Village Idi Ayunre Ibadan without the knowledge and/or consent of the respondents.

The respondents also sought an injunction restraining the appellant, its agents, servants or privies from continuing with the trespass to the land and from carrying on any work on the land to the detriment of the respondents. The respondents’ suit against the appellant was filed on 12/7/06.

Not prepared to wait for the conclusion of the matter before getting a relief, the respondents on 16/1/2007 filed a motion on notice dated 10/1/2007 seeking an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain the appellant, its agents, servants or privies from going on the land or doing anything therein pending the determination of the suit.

The Respondents filed an affidavit of 26 paragraphs, an affidavit of Urgency of 11 paragraphs and a further affidavit of 11 paragraphs in support of their motion on notice. The appellant responded by filing a counter-affidavit of 33 paragraphs.

After listening to learned counsel for the parties, considering the pleadings and the affidavit evidence before him as well as relevant case law on the subject, the learned trial judge in a Ruling delivered on 21/02/2008 felt satisfied that the conditions for the granting of an order of Interlocutory Injunction had been satisfied.

He therefore ordered that the appellant, that is, the defendant before him, by itself and its agents, be restrained from further excavating or doing anything in the land in dispute pending the determination of the suit before him. He also ordered the respondent to give an undertaking to pay damages to the appellant (defendant in the lower court) in the event that the respondents (the plaintiffs in the lower court) did not succeed in getting judgment in their favour. He further ordered N1,000 costs in favour of the respondents.

Aggrieved by the Ruling the appellant pronto, by a Notice of Appeal filed on 22/2/2008, just a day after the Ruling, appealed against the Ruling on 5 grounds. The grounds and particulars of grounds (except for ground 5 which had no particulars) are reproduced hereunder as follows:

1. The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff.

Particulars

(a) When the plaintiffs only deposition in paragraph 22 of the affidavit in support and paragraph 10 of the further affidavit was that they would suffer irreparable damage if the defendant is allowed to exploit the rock on Ojeke hill on the land in dispute without enumerating the specific losses they would suffer;

(b) When the defendant in paragraphs 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28 and 29 enumerated the damages and inconveniences it would suffer if the application is granted as follows:

(i) That defendant has paid N10m to its landlord for the land;

(ii) That the defendant has at least 150 both skilled and unskilled workers on site and that they would be thrown into the unemployment market;

(iii) That the machinery and equipment would become corroded and fall into disuse if they are not run regularly;