1.BABATUNDE ADENUGA
2. HASSAN DAUDA AHMED
3. O.N.OSUNDE
4. M.A.BISIRIYU
5. V.A.OGUNLAYA
6. EQAUINCE IRONO ADEROJA
v.
1.J.K. ODUMERU
2. S. B. ALOBA
3. S.O. NZEKWE
4. S.O.A. SOSANYA
5. J.C. NWOKORO
6.M.B. MU’AZU
7. B.O. OYEFODUNRIN
8. ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL ACCOUNTANTS OF NIGERIA
2001-LD-SC-825
Supreme Court
19th January, 2001.
Justices:
Adolphus Godwin Karibi-Whyte, J.S.C
Michael Ekundayo Ogundare, J.S.C
Sylvester Umaru Onu, J.S.C
Godfrey Okay Achike, J.S.C
Samson Odemwingie Uwaifo, J.S.C
Subject Matter(s):
1.Ancillary Claims
2. Interlocutory/Interim Injunctions
Final Order:
Appeal Allowed.
RATIO DECIDENDI
INTERLOCUTORY/INTERIM INJUNCTIONS – Whether An Application For Injunction Must Relate To A Subject Matter That Falls Within The Ambit Of The Substantive Suit
” It is the law, for instance, that where any injunction is claimed, there is need for it to be on a subject-matter within the ambit, scope and effect of the substantive proceedings before the Court. This principle is derived from the views expressed by Winn, J. (and this has stood the test of time) in Winstone v. Winstone (1959) 3 All ER 580.”
ANCILLARY CLAIM(S) – Whether An Ancillary Relief Must Be Connected To And Arise From The Main Claim Presented Before The Court
“But the law is trite that the additional relief sought to be protected by the plaintiffs must first be brought within the purview of his claim with the leave of the Court and not otherwise.”
ANCILLARY CLAIM(S) – Whether An Ancillary Relief Must Be Connected To And Arise From The Main Claim Presented Before The Court
“Hence in an ancillary relief which the application subject-matter of this preliminary objection, is, the relief must fall within the purview of the claim. This is because the remedy is for the protection of the claim, that is an injury which may be occasioned by the violation of applicant’s right in respect of which he will not be adequately compensated in damages – See Daniel Ogbonnaya & Ors. v. Adapalm Nigeria Ltd. (1993) 5 NWLR (pt. 292) 147. The remedy is certainly not available to parties in respect of issues not raised in the action or matters not directly related to the issues raised- See Akibu & Ors. v. Munirat Oduntan (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 171) 1 at 10 .The application by the plaintiffs/appellants seeking for injunctive orders is clearly not within the claim and not directly related to the claim. The application therefore cannot be for the protection of a right before the Court, which may be violated, unless the application was granted. Furthermore, since the reliefs sought are not in respect of or directly related to a claim before the Court, the Court is without competence and jurisdiction to hear it, since it is not in respect of a claim before it. – See Madukolu & Ors. v. Nkemdilim & Ors. (1962) 2 SCNLR, 341 (1962) 1 All NLR 587 . It is therefore in such a circumstance unnecessary to inquire into the existence of a legal right enabling the grant of the relief.”
PLEADINGS – Principles Of Pleadings
“The rules of pleadings dictated by common sense and fair play make it imperative to limit the claims of a party to those set out in his or its writ of summons or statement of claim or those which are set out in their amended pleadings.”
ANCILLARY CLAIM(S) – Whether An Ancillary Relief Must Be Connected To And Arise From The Main Claim Presented Before The Court
“It is settled law which does not require citation of decided cases that any application for relief subsequent to the claim before the Court shall be within the purview and scope of the claim. This is because a plaintiff is limited by his claim as expressed in his writ of summons and statement of claim. Any departure from the claim so endorsed and to make a new claim gives rise to a new cause of action in respect of which the jurisdiction of the Court has not been invoked by the institution of an action. The jurisdiction of the Court is determined by the claim of the plaintiff. This is why any ancillary relief must fall within the scope of the claim in the substantive action.”
INTERLOCUTORY/INTERIM INJUNCTIONS – Definition, Scope And Classes Of Injunctions And Conditions For Granting Same
“An injunction is an equitable order restraining the person to whom it is directed from doing the things specified in the order or requiring in exceptional situations the performance of a specified act. A claim for an injunction is a claim in equity. The order for injunction is available to restrain the defendant from the repetition or the continuance of the wrongful act or breach of contract complained of- See Egan v. Egan (1975) 2 All ER 167. It is generally granted to protect a legal right which is in existence See Union Beverages Ltd. v. Pepsicola International Ltd. & Ors. (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 330) 1 SC . This is with the object of keeping matters in status quo until the question at issue between the parties is determined. Okafor v. Nnaife (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 64) 129 Odumegwu Ojukwu v. Lagos State Government (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 26) 39 . The applicant must show that he has sufficient interest in the reliefs sought – See Abiodun Akerele v. Chief Obafemi Awolowo & Anor. (1962) WNLR 220,224.”
CLAIM(S)/RELIEF(S) – Essence Of Reliefs In A Prayer
“The purpose of the reliefs in the prayers is to ensure the maintenance of the claim pending the determination of the substantive claim which is the subject matter for determination before the Court.”
