BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • Attorney-General, Edo State v. Oribhabor
  • 147
  • 2003-03-24
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

Attorney-General, Edo State v. Oribhabor

1.             ATTORNEY-GENERAL & COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, EDO STATE

2.             COMMISSIONER FOR AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, EDO STATE

3.             D.E. ALOHAN 

V

ANDREW EHIMEN MICHAEL ORIBHABOR

COURT OF APPEAL

( BENIN DIVISION )

NIKI TOBI, JCA ( Presided )

BABA ALKALI BA’ABA, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )

SAKA ADEYEMI IBIYEYE, JCA

CA/B/124/2000

TUESDAY, 12TH JUNE,  2001

COURT - Interlocutory injunction - Exercise  of discretion to grant - What court must consider

COURT - Interlocutory matters before it - Need to refrain from delving into substantive matters

EVIDENCE - Affidavit evidence - Uncontroverted depositions therein Effect of

INJUNCTION - Interlocutory injunction - Exercise  of discretion to grant What court must consider

INJUNCTION - Interlocutory injunction - Nature of rights in an interlocutory injunction - How treated by the court

INJUNCTION - Interlocutory injunction - Principle guiding

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Interlocutory matters - Court not to delve into substantive issues

           Att.-Gen., Edo State vs. Oribhabor                                                1079

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Interlocutory injunction - Object of

Issue:

Whether the plaintiff/respondent has any legal right subsisting upon which  he could be granted an order of interlocutory injunction.

Facts:

The plaintiff/respondent instituted an action against the defendants/ appellants at the High Court of Edo State claiming inter alia a declaration that he is the proper tenant to the defendants/appellants. The respondent followed the filing of the action with an application for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants/appellants from harassing and forcing him out of occupation of the piggery house. In support of the application were an affidavit and a further affidavit wherein the respondent deposed to the hardship he was encountering as a result of the appellants’ threat and the hardship he would be further subjected to if the application was not granted. The trial Judge found that cogent reason had been made out by the respondent for the grant of the application and he so did. The appellants were dissatisfied with the ruling and then appealed.