BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • C.G.C. (Nig) Ltd v. Baba
  • 242
  • 2005-01-17
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

C.G.C. (Nig) Ltd v. Baba

C.G.C. NIGERIA LIMITED

V

ALHAJI HASSAN BABA

COURT OF APPEAL

( KADUNA DIVISION )

MAHMUD MOHAMMED JCA ( Presided )

DALHATU ADAMU JCA (Read the Lead Judgment)

BABA ALKALI BA’ABA JCA

CA/K/32/02

WEDNESDAY, 22 ND JANUARY,  2003

APPEAL - Exercise of discretion of lower court - When appellate court can interfere with

COURT - Interlocutory application - Consideration of by court - Duty of court not to delve into substantive matter

EVIDENCE - Interlocutory injunction - Proof of identity of land to which injunction will relate - Mandatoriness of survey plan in proof of - Rationale for

EVIDENCE - Survey plan - When can be dispensed with in proof of identity of land in dispute

INJUNCTION - Interlocutory injunction - Application for Consideration of -  Relevancy of pleadings to

INJUNCTION - Interlocutory injunction - Application for Consideration of by court - What court must examine

INJUNCTION - Interlocutory injunction - Grant of - Guiding principles to


INJUNCTION - Interlocutory injunction - Nature and purport of

INJUNCTION - Interlocutory injunction - Survey plan -  Mandatory requirement of in proof of identity of land in an application for interlocutory injunction - Rationale for

LAND LAW - Interlocutory injunction - Survey plan in proof of identity of land - Mandatoriness of - Rationale for

LAND LAW - Survey plan - When can be dispensed with in proof of identity of land in dispute

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE -  Discretion of lower court - Exercise of - When appellate court can interfere with

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Interlocutory application - Consideration of by court - Duty of court not to delve into substantive matter

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Interlocutory injunction - Application for - Consideration of by court - What court must examine

Issues:

1.              Whether having regard to the state of affidavit evidence before the lower court it can be rightly said that there is uncertainty as to the area of land in respect of which the respondent sought and was granted the order of interlocutory injunction by the lower court.

2.              Whether going by the reliefs sought by the respondent in the lower court as manifested in the endorsement on the writ of summons and the affidavit evidence the respondent made out a case for the grant of the injunctive orders by the lower court.

Facts:

This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court of Justice Kaduna State, sitting at Kaduna per Dalhatu Jaafaru J delivered on the 22nd day of January, 2002 granting an application for an interlocutory injunction sought by the plaintiff/respondent.

The plaintiff/respondent had earlier filed a suit against the defendant/ appellant claiming as follows:

1.              A DECLARATION that the acts of the defendant through its

agents in creating a thoroughfare in the plaintiff’s farmland situate at Fauta village along Sabon Birni Road Kaduna without the permission/consent or authority of the plaintiff is unlawful and illegal.

2.              A DECLARATION that the said acts of the defendant in creating a thoroughfare in the plaintiff’s farmland constitutes trespass and illegal encroachment on the plaintiff’s farmland.

3.              AN ORDER of injunction in perpetuity restraining the defendants, its agents and privies from carrying out any act which constitutes trespass on the plaintiff’s farmland situate at Fauta village along Sabon Birni Road, Kaduna.

The writ of summons was filed along with a motion ex parte for an interim order of injunction restraining the defendants/appellants from further construction of the thoroughfare through the plaintiff’s farmland and from escavating sand and/or stone from the farmland pending the determination of the substantive motion on notice for interlocutory injunction. Upon the service of the motion on notice for the interlocutory injunction on the defendant/appellant, he filed a conditional appearance and subsequently filed a counter affidavit to the said motion. After argument of both counsel on the motion, the learned trial Judge in his ruling dated 22nd January, 2002 granted the interlocutory orders sought by the respondent. The appellant being dissatisfied with the said ruling, appealed to the Court of Appeal.