AG & COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, ANAMBRA STATE & ORS V.

OKAFOR & ORS

(1992) LPELR-3156(SC). (1992) 2 NWLR, PT 224, PG 396

I must emphasize the fact that although a

mandatory injunction is sometimes classified as an

interlocutory order of injunction in that it may be

granted upon an interlocutory application, it is a

different type of injunction, with its own features,

and requiring a consideration of its own distinct

principles. It is noteworthy in this respect that it is

usually targeted upon a completed act and the

order therefore may be made, for an example, to

order a building which had been erected to be

pulled down if it is established that the defendant

erected it stealthily in order to steal a march on the

plaintiff on having noticed that an injunction was to

be taken out against him: see Daniel v. Ferguson

(1891) 2 Ch. 27; also Van Joel v. Hornsey (1895) 2

Ch. 774, C.A .

An order of interlocutory injunction is, on the other hand,

negative and restrictive in nature and, so, is made to

preserve the res pending

AG & COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, ANAMBRA STATE & ORS V. OKAFOR & ORS
40

litigation or to prevent a breach. Also there is

difference in the quality of evidence necessary to

entitle an applicant to relief in the two types of

injunctions. In an application for an interlocutory

injunction, all that the applicant needs to show are

that there is a serious issue to be tried, that the

balance of convenience is on his side, that his

injury, if the defendant is not restrained, cannot be

adequately compensated with damages and that he

is ready to enter into an undertaking as to

damages: see Obeya Memorial Hospital v. Attorney-

General of the Federation (1987) 3 N.W.L.R.

(Pt.60) 325; Kotoye v. Central Bank of Nigeria

(1989) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt.98)419 .

But in an application for a mandatory injunction, the

courts have usually shown more reluctance to make

the order: See Blakemore v. The

Glamorganshire Navigation (1832) 1 My. & K. 155 .

Before it is granted, the courts require a higher degree

of assurance that at the trial it would still appear that

the order of mandatory injunction was rightly made; see

Shepherd Homes Ltd. v. Sandham (No.1) (1971)

Ch. 340. Furthermore, the court must consider the

fairness of the order, bearing in mind the fact that

such an order is usually irreversible.

ELIAS & ANOR V. ECOBANK (NIG) PLC

(2015) LPELR-41003(CA)

EQUITABLE REMEDY - MANDATORY INJUNCTION- When will the court invoke its jurisdiction to grant a
mandatory injunction

"The trial vacation judge seems to have invoked the restorative order to deal with the Appellants who
apparently does not have any respect for the Court because if they did, they would not have demolished
the property, after all they were the ones(as claimants) that instituted the action against the
Respondent before the lower Court. Since it was not possible for the lower Court to grant an order of
interlocutory injunction restraining the Appellants from demolishing the property which had already
been demolished before the Respondent's application was filed, the lower Court invoked its power to
not only prevent the Appellants from benefiting from their own wrong but also to ensure that the
deserving respect of the Court of law is preserved and maintained. This position was echoed by the
Supreme Court in OHAKIM v. AGBASO [2010] 19 NWLR (PT. 1226) 172 at 228, where Per Onnoghen JSC,
reiterated that an order of mandatory injunction is often seen as a restorative order invoked by the
Court to deal with a defendant who has no respect for the Court of law. Ipso facto, this Court in H.R.H
ALHAJI SULU-GAMBARI & ORS v. SAADU BUKOLA [2004] 1 NWLR (PT 853] 122,(2003) LPELR 5686p. 21,
paras C - D; F - G, Per Onnoghen JCA (as he then was), held: A restorative mandatory injunction can be
lnvoked by Court to deal with a defendant who, as in the instant case, for all intents and purposes has
no respect for the Court of law... Depending on the facts and circumstances, restorative order of
injunction can be granted to set aside completed, acts and restore the parties to the status quo ante
bellum if the defendant sought to be restrained, completed the act after having been served with a
notice of motion seeking to restrain the act which he hurrledly completed before the date on the motion
for hearing.

Per OBASEKI-ADEJUMO ,J.C.A ( Pp. 24-25, paras. A-D )

TOBIN V. IDAIBIFIBERESIMA & ANOR

(2019) LPELR-49023(CA)

TOBIN v. IDAIBIFIBERESIMA & ANOR

EQUITABLE REMEDY - MANDATORY INJUNCTION- Guiding principles governing the grant of a mandatory
injunction

"Mandatory Injunction is an order of Court requiring a party to do a specific act or acts; it is often seen
as a restorative order invoked by the Court to deal with a defendant who has no respect for the Court of
law. In most cases, it is granted to undo what has already been done, that is why it is usually referred to
also as restorative injunction. It is a settled principle of law that a restorative or mandatory injunction
can be invoked by the Court to set aside completed acts and restore the parties to the "status quo ante
bellum", if the defendant sought to be restrained completed the act in defiance of an existing Court
order and or a pending suit, see VASWANI TRADING CO. VS. SAVALAKH & CO, (1972) 1 ALL NLR (PT. 2) P.
483; SULU - GAMBARI VS. BUKOLA (2004) 1 NWLR (PT. 853) P. 122; PLATINUM HABIB BANK LTD V TARI
INTERNATIONAL LTD (2008) LPELR-4855-CA and OHAKIM V AGBASO supra. The trial Court therefore has
the inherent power, to grant such an injunction even suo moto to restore the parties to parity, after the
Appellant had forcefully taken over the property in dispute."

Per MUSTAPHA ,J.C.A ( Pp. 22-23, para. F )

HON. MINISTER F.C.T V. FAYODE & ANOR

(2015) LPELR-41674(CA)

EQUITABLE REMEDY - MANDATORY INJUNCTION- Nature of a mandatory injunction and its purpose

"?Mandatory injunctions on the other hand require a party to do a specific act or acts; they are meant
to be restorative by nature, they are invoked mainly to deal with parties who have little respect for
Courts; see ANAMBRA STATE v. OKAFOR (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 224) page 396 and MILITARY GOVERNOR OF
LAGOS STATE & ORS v. ADEBAYO ADEYIGA & ORS (2012) LPELR-78336(SC). An injury of some sort must
have been suffered before a mandatory injunction is granted; by the 1st respondent's own account he
was served with a quit notice on the 3rd of June, 2009, and evicted on the 17th of August, 2009."

Per MUSTAPHA ,J.C.A ( Pp. 16-17, paras. F-C )

ABUBAKAR & ORS V. UNIPETROL (NIG) PLC

(2002) LPELR-50(SC)

EQUITABLE REMEDY - MANDATORY INJUNCTION- Effect of a mandatory injunction

"It is now a firmly established principle that a mandatory injunction will lie to reverse a step already
taken by a party to litigation in an interlocutory application, if the step taken by the other party is to
steal a match on the applicant. See the case of Ojukwu v. Military Governor of Lagos State

Per KUTIGI ,J.S.C ( Pp. 6-7, paras. F-A )

AG & COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, ANAMBRA STATE & ORS V. OKAFOR & ORS

(1992) LPELR-3156(SC). (1992) 2 NWLR, PT 224, PG 396

EQUITABLE REMEDY - MANDATORY INJUNCTION- Nature of a mandatory injunction and its purpose

"I must emphasize the fact that although a mandatory injunction is sometimes classified as an
interlocutory order of injunction in that it may be granted upon an interlocutory application, it is a
different type of injunction, with its own features, and requiring a consideration of its own distinct
principles. It is noteworthy in this respect that it is usually targeted upon a completed act and the order
therefore may be made. I must emphasize the fact that although a mandatory injunction is sometimes
classified as an interlocutory order of injunction in that it may be granted upon an interlocutory
application, it is a different type of injunction, with its own features, and requiring a consideration of its
own distinct principles. It is noteworthy in this respect that it is usually targeted upon a completed act
and the order therefore may be made, for an example, to order a building which had been erected to be
pulled down if it is established that the defendant erected it stealthily in order to steal a march on the
plaintiff on having noticed that an injunction was to be taken out against him: see Daniel v. Ferguson
(1891) 2 Ch. 27; also Van Joel v. Hornsey (1895) 2 Ch. 774, C.A."

Per NNAEMEKA-AGU ,J.S.C ( P. 39, paras. C-F )

OGUNDIMU & ORS V. AKINYEMI

(2020) LPELR-49681(CA)

EVIDENCE - DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE- Whether documentary evidence is the best evidence

"One of the issues that came up in this appeal is the weight to be attached to documentary evidence. It
is settled law that documentary evidence is the best evidence in the proof a case. Once produced, a
document is the best proof of its contents. It is in permanent form and hence more reliable than oral
evidence and may be used to test the credibility of oral evidence. See CIVIL DESIGN CONSTRUCTION NIG.
LTD. SCOA (NIG.) LTD (2007) 6 NWLR (pt. 1030) 300;EZEMBA VS, IBENEME & ANOR (2004) 14 NWLR (pta
894) 617; SKYE BANK PLC & ANOR VS. AKINPELU (2010) 9 NWLR (pt. 1198) 179; OGOLOGO VS. UCHE
(1998) 11 NWLR (pt. 572) 34; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF RIVERS STATE VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
BAYELSA & ANOR (2013) 3 NWLR (pt. 1340) 123. In BFI GROUP CORPORATION VS. BUREAU OF PUBLIC
ENTERPRISES (2012) 18 NWLR (pt. 1332) 209 at 236 paras D - E, the Supreme Court per Fabiyi JSC held
thus: "An appellate Court will not interfere with findings of fact except where wrongly applied to the
circumstance of the case or vital documents tendered where jettisoned on conclusion arrive at was
patently perverse or wrong. See NWOSU VS BOARD OF CUSTOMS & EXCISE (1993) 5 NWLR (pt. 93) 225;
NNEJI VS. CHUKWU (1996) 10 NWLR (pt. 378) 265. And where there is conflict in the evidence of
witnesses documentary evidence will serve as a hanger on which the truth shall be resolved. Documents
tendered as exhibit are very vital as they do not embark on falsehood like some mortal beings. see
OLUJINLE VS. ADEAGBO (1998) 2 NWLR (pt. 75) 238."

Per OJO ,J.C.A ( Pp. 61-63, paras. E-A )

ODEGBO & ORS V. MOFUNANYA & ORS (2016) LPELR-42107(CA)

EQUITABLE REMEDY - INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION- Attitude of Court when entertaining an application

for interlocutory injunction in a chieftaincy matter

"When an application for interlocutory injunction is sought pending the determination of the
substantive suit, the Court exercises its discretionary powers in granting or refusing such interlocutory
injunctions having regard to the affidavit evidence placed before it. The discretion of the Court is one
which must be exercised judicially and judiciously. Judicially being the application of the law and
judiciously; the careful consideration of the facts and circumstance. The Supreme Court has established
a dichotomy in the determination of interlocutory applications in Chieftaincy matters. Where some
necessary steps are yet to be taken to give finality to the fitting of a vacant stool, the Court would grant
an injunction restraining the acts from being carried out pending the determination of the suit.
However, once the installation process has been completed and a Traditional ruler has been rightly or
wrongly installed, the Court should not, in my humble view, in an interlocutory application, ask such
Traditional Ruler to vacate the stool pending the determination of the suit. Even if the Traditional Ruler
loses the suit at the trial Court, an application for stay of execution of the judgment ought to be granted
as a matter of course. In Salawu Olagunju Adeyeye v. Alhaji Ajiboye (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 432, an
action was filed challenging the installation of the Onijagbo of ljagbo. The High Court dismissed the
action. The Plaintiff/Appellant lodged an appeal against the decision and the Court of Appeal, Kaduna
allowed the appeal. An application for stay of execution of the judgment was refused by the Court of
Appeal. In a further application for stay of execution to the Supreme Court, Aniagolu JSC had this to say;
"Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is hereby stayed pending the said determination of
this appeal. Above all, it is necessary to maintain peace in the area and this can best be done if matters
are left as they are until this Court decides the issues in the appeal. " In an unreported decision of the
Supreme Court in Appeal No. SC/190/1997 delivered on 07/12/1998 between Oba Olufemi Fasade v.
Prince Akande Tanimowo Gbadebo, the plaintiffs who were appellants at the Court of Appeal sued the
respondents claiming among others a declaration that the nomination and/or selection of the 1st
defendant as the Owa of lgbajo elect is contrary to the procedure of nomination and selection in the
Chieftaincy Declaration of Aringbajo of lgbajo and is therefore null & void. The trial judge dismissed the
case of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant was installed as the Owa of lgbajo. The appellant, dissatisfied
with the judgment, proceeded on appeal and was successful. In spite of precedents, the Justices of the
Court of Appeal refused the application for stay of execution of the judgment. In essence, the Oba was
to vacate the throne pending the determination of the appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
held in unanimously granting the application for stay of execution of the judgment of the Court of
Appeal that a Traditional Ruler will not, on an interlocutory application, vacate the stool pending the
determination of an appeal. The above compellingly confirms the consistency of the Apex Court in its
view that a Traditional Ruler will not be de-facto removed pending the determination of a substantive
suit or Appeal. In Oyeyemi v. lrewole Local Government (1993) 1 NWLR Pt. 270 Pg. 462, the Supreme
Court held that the whole purpose of an order to maintain status quo is to preserve the res in the
litigation from being wasted, damaged or filtered away with the result that if the action succeeds, the
result would be nugatory in that the successful party would reap an empty judgment."

Per OGUNWUMIJU ,J.C.A ( Pp. 28-31, paras. E-F )

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A. (Pp 31-33, para. G-A), Opinion.

It is my humble but firm view that

due to the important roles played by Traditional Rulers in our society and the attendant ignominy and
likelihood of breach of peace when someone who has been installed by Government whether rightly or
not is substantively dethroned by an order of injunction against him, Chieftaincy matters should, in line
with the reasoning and consistent attitude of the Supreme Court, be given accelerated hearing by our
Courts and injunctions of this sort should be utterly discouraged.

I have conceded to the conclusion reached by my learned brother because the Appellant was not
formally recognized until after the matter was instituted in Court. Therefore there were still steps to be
taken to fulfill the installation procedure. The Appellant knew that the suit was pending before he
presented himself for recognition and was recognized by the Anambra State Government.

I have to state that a Chieftaincy stool is not a perishable res and the tenure of Chieftaincy stools are
generally for life, there is no need for haste. Since longevity of office is assured, contenders should be
patient to fully exhaust the judicial process before assuming the stool, once and for all and most
importantly, in peace, not in bits and pieces with injunctions here and there.

The law is trite that a document, including a judgment of the court, speaks for
itself, and one cannot read into the text what is not contained therein. See
Ahmed v Central Bank of Nigeria (2013) 11 NWLR (pt. 1365] 352 at 374
paragraphs A C.
COURT’s DECISION

The Claimant’s cause of action against the Defendants in this suit is the refusal of the Defendants to
release a document referred to as “Former Employer’s Reference” to the Claimant’s current employer,
Skye Bank Plc. The Claimant did also aver in his Statement of Facts that the reason given by the
Defendants for refusing to release the said reference is that the Claimant has “Outstanding Obligation”
with the Defendants. It is on this basis that the Claimant sought, among other reliefs in the Complaint, a
declaration that the act of the Defendants in continuing to withhold the reference letter on grounds of
alleged outstanding obligation is unreasonable and an unfair labour practice. I have also read the
Statement of Defence of filed by the defendants, and I see that the Defendants, besides contending that
they are not under any obligation to issue any testimonial or reference letter to the Claimant, also
maintained that the Claimant has outstanding issues with regards to a loan he disbursed to one of the
3rd Defendant’s customers, Noble Global Link Ventures, to regularise with the Defendants. The
pleadings of the parties have raised contentious issues, which issues have direct bearing on the instant
application of the Claimant. In my view, whether or not the Defendants should be made to issue the
reference letter to the Claimant depends on how the issues are resolved.

The orders sought by the Claimant in the motion is not merely to restrain the Defendants from doing
any act which will jeopardize the Claimant’s current employment with Skye Bank Plc; but it will also
have the effect of ordering the Defendants to release the reference letter to the Claimant. This is
because, the act being complained of by the Claimant, both in the substantive suit and in this motion, as
affecting the Claimant’s employment with Skye Bank is the refusal of the Defendants to release the
reference letter to the Claimant. That is to say, the orders sought by the Claimant in this application
have the effect of releasing the reference letter to the Claimant, even when the controversy with
regards to the Claimant’s entitlement to the reference letter has not been resolved. It seems to me that
delving into the merit of the application is no more than determining the substantive suit at an
interlocutory stage. I do agree with the Defendants counsel’s submission that granting this application
will amount to deciding the substantive suit through this motion.

The duty placed on a court in the determination of an interlocutory application pending the trial of a
substantive suit is that care should be taken not to make pronouncements which may prejudice the
claims in the substantive suit. The law is trite that at the stage of interlocutory applications, the court
should avoid the resolution of complex and intricate issues of fact which touch on the merit of the
matter in controversy, else it is tempted to determine the case at that stage, thus leaving nothing for the
just and proper determination of the suit after hearing. See DUWIN PHARMACEUTICAL AND CHEMICAL
CO. LTD vs. BENEKS PHARMACEUTICAL AND COSMETICS LTD (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 414) 1420 at 1437;
ONYESOH vs. NNEBUDUN (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 229) 315 at 348; AGBOGU vs. OKOYE (2008) All FWLR (Pt.
414) 1494 at 1524.
It is the law that where an issue comes up in an interlocutory application and same issue is likely to
come up in the substantive suit, courts have been admonished that the correct action to be taken in
such a situation is to refuse the application and hear the substantive suit. See NIGERIAN CIVIL SERVICE
UNION vs. ESSIEN (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt. 12) 306; OBIDIEGWU ONYESOH vs. NZE CHRISTOPHER NNEBEDUN
(1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 229) 315. In the circumstance of this case, the Claimant’s motion must fail.

(12:42:53 PM) EQUITABLE REMEDY - MANDATORY INJUNCTION- Guiding principles

governing the grant of a mandatory injunction
"Generally Courts have always been, and are still reluctant to issue orders for mandatory injunction
except in very clear cases. They have always required the clearest evidence as well as very high standard of
proof so as to make sure that at the trial it will still appear that the order of the mandatory injunction
was rightly made, as grave consequences could follow such an order. In practice therefore, there must be
either a trial of a claim for mandatory injunction or at least a substantive prayer in an application for it in
clear terms followed by undisputable evidence of the infringement that entitled the applicant to the order.
The principles to guide the grant of order of mandatory injunction has been enunciated in the case of ATTORNEY-
GENERAL ANAMBRA STATE V. OKAFOR (1992) 2 NWLR(PT.224) 396 and they are

as follows: (a) Whether in the circumstance as they exist after the breach, a mandatory order and if so

What kind of mandatory will produce a fair result. The benefit which the order will confer on the

plaintiff and the detriment which it will cause the defendant. A plaintiff should not be deprived of a

relief to which he is justly entitled merely because it would be disadvantageous to the defendant. A
plaintiff should not be permitted to insist on a form of relief which will confer no appreciable benefit on
himself and will materially be detrimental to the defendant. See MODILE V. LAGOS STATE
GOVERNMENT & 7 ORS. (2004) 12 NWLR (PT.887) 354 at 383."

Per BA'ABA ,J.C.A ( Pp. 24-25, paras. F-B

(12:45:47 PM) Kwankwaso v. Gov. of Kano state and ors, (2006) LPELR -11617 CA

Generally, Courts have always been, and are still

reluctant to issue orders for mandatory injunction
except in very clear cases. They have always required
the clearest evidence as well as very high standard of
proof so as to make sure that at the trial it will still
appear that the order of the mandatory injunction
was rightly made, as grave consequences could follow
such an order. In practice therefore, there must be
either a trial of a claim for mandatory injunction or at
least a substantive prayer in an application for it in
clear terms followed by undisputable evidence of the
infringement that entitled the applicant to the order.