Injunction

The challenge however, is that the injunctive reliefs sought by the Appellant are with respect to completed acts. It is the law that Courts do not restrain a completed act. This Court in IDEOZU VS OCHOMA (2006) 4 NWLR (Pt. 970) 364 at 395, at C-E Per Tobi, JSC held thus:
"In AJEWOLE VS ADETIMO (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt. 431) 391, this Court held that when a Court is asked to restrain a party from doing an act pending the decision in a matter before it, but the act has been done, no order to restrain will be made. This is so because, what is sought to be prevented had happened. In other words, an interlocutory injunction is not a remedy for an act, which has already been carried out."

There is no controversy on the fact that the Court is empowered to, in an appropriate circumstances, grant an order of injunction to protect the existing right of a person from unlawful invasion by another. Generally, the claim for an injunction is won and lost on the basis of the existence of competing legal rights. Therefore, where the applicant for an injunction has no legal right recognisable by the Court, there is no power to grant the applicant an injunction. But injunction being an equitable remedy, he who comes to equity, must come with clean hands. See; Chief T.A.L Akapo (Ojora of Lagos) Vs. Alhaji H.A. Hakeem-Habeeb & Ors (1992) 7 SCNJ 119; (1992) NWLR (Pt. 247) 266; (1992) LPELR 325 (SC) Engineer S. D. Yalaju Amaye Vs. Associated Registry Engineering Contractors Ltd & Ors (1990) 6 SC 157; (1990) NWLR (Pt. 145) 22; (1990) LPELR- 3511 (SC).

The holding of the lower Court which learned cross appellant counsel seems to be obsessed with must be read along with the orders made by the court in respect of the other reliefs to appreciate the Lower Court's strictures on the plaintiffs' case. He was at the court of trial and thence to the lower Court over an event, the 1st respondent's primaries for the Federal Constituency seat. The evidence on record shows, that the event in respect of which he claims a right to the reliefs, after all, did not occur! The ratio in the court's finding is to the effect that what the appellants urged the court to preserve no longer existed. The law is that an injunction is only issued to restrain a threatened wrong to a right and not to restrain the lawful enjoyment of a legal right. SeeAlhaji A. W. Akibu & 4 Ors V. Alhaja Munirat Oduntan.