SARAKI v. KOTOYE

OBASEKI, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, delivered on the 17th day of April, 1989 which partially reversed the decision of the Federal High Court, Lagos granting an order of interlocutory injunction against the respondent to restrain him from exercising any right in respect of some shares in dispute held in the Bank (Societe Generale Bank (Nigeria) Ltd). After the appeal was entered-in the Supreme Court, the appellant filed a motion for “an interim injunction to restrain the defendant/respondent from exercising any of the rights attaching to the 2.333,000 N, shares in the Society Generale Bank (Nigeria) Limited-pending-the-appeal filed by the plaintiff herein to the Supreme Court.”
After hearing argument of counsel, the court decided to hear arguments in the appeal and decide the issue raised which was similar in nature to the issue raised in the motion. Parties and their counsel were duly invited and notified in open court and the date fixed for hearing of the appeal was brought forward from September 1990 to 3rd February, 1990. The periods for filing briefs were abridged with the concurrence of counsel by the court and the stage was set for the hearing of the appeal.
Before the hearing date, the 1st day of March, 1990 to be definite, learned counsel filed a notice of motion praying-for enlargement of time to file the respondent’s brief. Also filed at the same time was a notice of intention to rely upon preliminary objection to grounds 1(b) and ground 3 and the arguments in the appellant’s brief under paragraphs 3.4, 4.5 and 6. Almost simultaneously with the filing, the plaintiff/appellant filed notice of motion for amendment of ground (111) by substituting identical grounds differently worded. The plaintiff/appellant had earlier also field a notice of motion to amend the notice of appeal by deleting the phrase:
“On the ground that injunction granted reversed the status quo and did not maintain it.”
from ground 1 of the grounds of appeal. The defendant’s/respondent’s motion for enlargement of time to file respondent’s brief being unopposed and of substantial merit was granted as prayed.
The motion for amendment to ground (iii) was not argued and accordingly, I hereby strike it out.
The application for enlargement of time to file respondent’s brief having been granted as prayed, the stage was set for the respondent to argue his notice of preliminary objection which was set out in Part 1 of the brief. It reads:
“The defendant/respondent has already given notice that he will at the hearing raise preliminary objections to
(i) Ground 1(b) which contends that the Court of Appeal ought not to have reversed the decision of the Lagos High Court is vague and has not specified the particulars upon which the appellant relies or the nature of any error which may have been made by the Court of Appeal;
(ii) Ground 3 of the grounds of appeal upon the ground that the particulars of the facts and circumstances referred to therein as grounds upon which the decision of the Court of Appeal.cannot.be supported are not specified therein;
(iii) The arguments in the appellant’s brief under paragraphs 3.4, 4.5 and 6 are not supported by the ground of-appeal filed and should be struck out and the appeal dismissed.
It is necessary at this juncture to set out the three grounds of appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant against the decision of the Court of Appeal and these grounds are as follows:
“(i) The court below erred in law in reversing the decision of the High Court:
Particulars of Error
(a) The jurisdiction of the High Court to grant interlocutory injunction derives from the powers of the court to administer the doctrines of equity and in particular from the provisions of section 18(1) of the High Court Law of Lagos State Accordingly, though the preservation of the status quo may be the most usual basis in cases where the court finds it ‘just and convenient’ to award the remedy of injunction .it is by no means the only basis for doing so.
(b) In the- particular circumstances of this case as disclosed on the pleadings and affidavit evidence, the order made by the High Court on the application for interlocutory injunction pending trial was sound and ought not to have been reversed by the Court of Appeal.
(ii) The court below exercised its discretion wrongly and/or failed to exercise the same judicially in deciding to curtail the scope of the order of injunction pending trial granted by the High Court having regard to their decision on the application of the defendant to stay the order for injunction pending the determination of his appeal. In particular, the court below failed to observe that it was not at liberty to make a fundamental departure from the decisions given in its ruling on the defendant’s application for stay of the order of the High Court pending appeal.
(iii) The decision of the court below cannot be supported having regard to the facts and circumstances before it.”