INJUNCTION: THE MEANING AND RELEVANCE OF INTERIM INJUNCTION, WHEN CAN THE COURT GRANT IT?

Meaning Of Injunction 

An injunction is an order of the court which is usually given to stop a person or group of persons from carrying on a specific thing. An injunction can come as a preventive, mandatory, or restrictive order.

The court of appeal in the case of 7-up bottling Co limited v. Abiola (1995) 4 nwlr (PT. 389) 287 ca. Held on the object an essence of injunctive order and duty on court in respect thereof- "An interim or interlocutory injunction is an equitable remedy granted by the court before the substantive question raised in the case is finally determined. Its object is to keep matters in status quo while the case is still pending. The essence of the grant of such injunction is to protect the existing legal right or of recognisable right of a person from unlawful invasion by another. Thus, the claim for an injunction is won and lost on the basis of the existence of competing legal rights and as such the court has no power to grant an injunction where the applicant has not established a recognisable legal right."

Injunction is subdivided in terms of the injunctive duration, they are: interim injunction interlocutory injunction and perpetual injunction which is final.

For the purpose of this work a quick appraisal of what an interim injunction is will be made.

Meaning Of Interim Injunction 

Interim injunction is an order of injunction that is granted to maintain an existing state of affairs for a short period of time. An interim injunction is usually granted upon ex parte application brought by an applicant to maintain a state of affair ex parte application means an application that is brought on one side only or from one party only.

The court of appeal in the case of Adolo Okotie-eboh v. Jadesimi (2001) 10 NWLR (Pt. 720) 52, held on the features of interim injunction thus: 

"The main feature which distinguishes interim injunctions from interlocutory injunctions is that interim injunctions are made to preserve the status quo until a named date or until further order or until an application on notice can be heard. They are also for cases of real urgency…" 

Also, The Court in UNIVERSAL TRUST BANK LIMITED AND ORS V. DOLMETSCH PHARMACY(NIGERIA) LIMITED (2007) LPELR-3413(SC) Per Tobi JSC held that:

"The purpose or object of granting an order of interim injunction is to make sure that the subject matter of the litigation is kept in status quo pending or until the litigation. It is to maintain the status quo between the parties… It is aimed at meeting a situation of real urgency or emergency before the respondent can be put on notice. "

Interim injunctions are not granted routinely and typically have a 14 days to stand. They are usually filed to restrain respondents from taking certain steps until the litigation is finally decided. See also KOTOYE V. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA (1989) 1 NWLR (PT 98) 419 AT 441-442

Granting Of Interim Injunction 

Injunction is a remedy from the doctrine of equity, and as a result of this it is granted based on discretion. The discretion must however be judicially and judiciously. The primary purpose of the injunction is the preservation of the subject matter of the suit or the maintenance of the status quo pending the determination of the suit. However disputes have ensued as regards the meaning of "status quo" in a situation. The status quo to be preserved is the state of things before the dispute and action commenced, it could also mean the situation before the party restrained through the injunction embarked on the activity restrained from.

In UNIVERSAL TRUST BANK LIMITED AND ORS V. DOLMETSCH PHARMACY(NIGERIA) LIMITED (2007) LPELR-3413(SC) (Supra) the court highlighted some consideration for granting an interim injunction, and they are:

1.  An applicant for interim injunction must have a legal right in the subject matter,which he seeks to prevent by the conduct of the defendant to violate.
2. There must exist a serious question or substantial issue or case to be tried.
3. One of the most important principles is the preservation of the res, which is the subject matter of the suit.
4. In the application, the court must consider the balance of convenience, the opposite of the balance of inconvenience.
5. For an interim injunction to be granted, the applicant must show the existence of a real urgency and not a caricature of it.
6. Interim injunction can only be granted in cases of emergency. It should be noted that the word "emergency" is, not synonymous with "urgency." While emergency means an unforeseen event or condition requiring a prompt action, urgency, in its adjectival variant, means calling for immediate attention. 
7. The applicant must not delay in bringing the application. It is a loud doctrine of equity that delay defeats equity. Since interim injunction is by and large an equitable remedy or relief, delay in making the application will certainly defeat it, because the element of urgency, the very essence and basis of the application, is gone. 
8. There must be a subsisting action and relief to found an application for interim injunction. Evidently, an application for interim injunction postulates that the applicant has a right the violation of which he seeks to prevent and in order to do so effectively, to ensure at that stage of the proceedings that the subject matter of the right be maintained in status quo.
9. The court must consider the gravity of injury and the fact that the loss is irreparable.
10. The applicant must establish or show that it is virtually or practically impossible to bring a motion on notice, considering the compelling sudden events.
11. The applicant must show that the award of damages will not be adequate or enough to compensate him.
12. A mere allegation of threat to peace is not enough to grant an application for interim injunction. An applicant should go beyond mere allegation of threat to peace to substantial overt acts of such threat.
13. The omnibus principle is the existence of special circumstances. This includes quite a number of the principles examined above, and more particularly, those mentioned in Kotoye v. CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt.98) 419.
14. The granting of an interim injunction is not a matter of course or routine, slavishly following an application. The court must take into consideration the above principles in their relevance to the facts of the case." Per TOBI, J.S.C.(Pp.27-29, paras.D-G).

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is to be noted that the disobedience of an injunction would be regarded as a contempt of court, hence an injunction must be unambiguous, if must be clear and express. As observed by Lord Hope in the case of ATTORNEY GENERAL V PUNCH LIMITED (2003) 1 AC 1044 thus: "i take as my starting point for an examination of this issue the principle that an injunction must always be expressed with precision and with clarity."

 Also, as Lord Deas put it in a Scottish case, that, if an injunction is to be granted at all, it must be in terms so plain that he who runs may read: Kelso School Board v Hunter (1874) 2 R 228, 230.