MUSA & ORS. vs. ORUME & ORS.(2022)LCN/17163(CA)
ISSUE: INTERIM INJUNCTION-Whether the subsistence or pendency of a suit is a condition precedent to the filing and granting of an application for interim injunction.
PRINCIPLE:
“From the summations above, the Appellants’ Counsel argument goes to the issue of jurisdiction, which is a key substance in the matter to be pointed out with. I also viewed the issue as fundamental to reckon with in finding the solution to the problem.
Therefore, by a careful look at the brief of the Appellants on this issue, one must go along with them. Where it was clearly stated that the Ex-Parte Motion was not anchored on any existing suit and same was not simultaneously accompanied by a Motion on Notice, hence the legal effect is that the trial Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain same and granting the Orders by the trial Court are null and void in law and this Honourable Court is entitled Ex Debito Justitiae to have them set aside. Where the Appellants’ relied on AFRIC MINING CO. LTD. Vs. NIDB LTD. (SUPRA).
I also hold the view that jurisdictional issue is paramount and fundamental in nature. It is also important to be resolved before any other issue at hand in an appeal of this magnitude. See OKOCHA SAMUEL OSI Vs. ACCORD PARTY & ORS. (2016) LPELR-41388 (SC) (Pp. 14-15 Paras. F) As Per SANUSI, JSC, and thus: “Jurisdiction is said to be a threshold issue which is of paramount importance and therefore when raised at any stage, the Court before which it is raised MUST mandatorily look at it at the earliest stage or opportunity and determine whether it has jurisdiction or not. This is more so because any proceeding conducted without jurisdiction, no matter how well or admirably conducted, is a nullity. See ELUABE Vs. OMOKRI (2004) 11-12 SC 60.”
Furthermore, jurisdiction is never treated with laxity because no matter how parties argued an appeal and no matter how good the argument is a nullity. Because once a matter is initiated on a wrong procedure without following the due process of law it cannot activate the jurisdiction of the Court. It is the life wire of the matter. Hence, the Court will become incompetent to hear the suit in question. See also NULEC INDUSTRIES PLC Vs. DYSON TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED & ANOR. (2022) LPELR-57866 (SC) (Pp. 30 Paras. A) As Per NWEZE, JSC, and wit: “My Lords, it has long been settled that a Court is only competent to adjudicate upon a matter when it is initiated by due process and upon fulfilment of the condition precedent to the exercise of its jurisdiction. See MADUKOLU Vs. NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; SHUGABA Vs. UBN PLC (1999) LPELR-3068 (SC); DREXEL ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES LTD. & ORS. Vs. TRANS INTERNATIONAL BANK LTD. & ORS. (2008) LPELR-962 (SC).”
To this end, the above-cited cases reassured the Appellant that a building cannot be raised on nothing-there must a foundation underneath holding to it. The Appellants already pointed out that the Respondents in the trial Court, specifically Relief 2, is an Order of Interim Injunction. Which was Motion Ex-parte for Interim Injunction. In essence, the Respondents filed Motion No: FHC/JAL/M/81/2019 for Interim Injunction alone and not simultaneously with a motion on notice for interlocutory injunction.
Indeed, this Honourable Court deprecated this exact same attitude by plethora of cases cited by the Appellants in their brief. However, this issue is resolved in favour of the Appellants and against the Respondents.” Per ABUBAKAR, JCA.