EQUITY AND TRUST

GROUP 1
PRESENTATION

TOPIC
EQUITABLE REMEDY OF INJUNCTION
 GROUP MEMBERS

1: ADEBI PRECIOUS IJEOMA

IMSU/2021/2822

2: ADINDU HENRY
IKECHUKWU IMSU/2021/3702

3: ADIZUO IFEANYI BENMARK

IMSU/2022/DE/4736

4: AGUMADU CHINATU
IHEOMA IMSU/2021/3703

5: AHANONU WILLIAMS C
IMSU/2021/3704

6: AKANO RAPHAEL UCHECHUKWU

IMSU/2021/3705
7: AKUTAH AKACHUKWU
EMMANUEL IMSU/2021/3706

8: ALEX-ORJI PRINCESS NNENNA

IMSU/2021/3707

9: ALOYSIUS SYLVIA
ADAUGO IMSU/2022/4737

10: ANASORONYE CHIDIEBUBE

MIRACLEIMSU/2021/3709

11: ANIEGBUNA SOCHIMA EMMANUEL

IMSU/2021/3710

12: ANOKWU PASCHAL

CHIMAMKPAM IMSU/2021/3711

13: ANUFORO BONAVENTURE

CHUKWUEMEKA IMSU/2021/3712
An injunction is an order of court prohibiting a person or body from doing a
specific thing. If an injunction compels the doing of an act, it is mandatory
or positive. If it forbids an act, then it is restrictive, prohibitive or negative.
Therefore injunction is an order of the court prohibiting or restraining the
person to whom it is addressed from performing a specific act or
commanding him to perform a specific act. Hence one of its broad
classification is prohibitory and mandatory.

There are many kinds of injunction such as MAREVA INJUNCTION which

is a temporary injunction to restrain a person from removing property from
a jurisdiction pending the hearing of a matter, as was granted in MAREVA
COMPANIA NAVIERA V INTERNATIONAL BULK CARRIER'S LTD.
When
an injunction is mandatory in nature, in the snese of commanding
something to be done, such an injunction is better known and called an
ORDER OF MANDAMUS. An injunction may be granted in any kind of
court proceedings to prohibit any kind of thing from being done and
maintain the status quo until the matter is heard.

NOTE: When an injunction is granted, the breach of it is usually punished

as contempt of court.

AN INJUNCTION IS USUALLY GRANTED WHEN THERE IS:

1. A serious issue or question to be tried in a matter, that is, the claim is
not frivolous and vexatious
2. The balance of convenience lies in granting the injunction; and
3. When damages, that is, monetary compensation will not be an adequate
remedy if the injunction is not granted to the applicant.

The operation of injunction illustrates the equitable maxim "equity acts

in personam". Thus in the case of ( Re Liddels' Settlement Trusts) , an
injunction was granted to compel a woman living abroad to bring her
children within the jurisdiction of the English Court. Injunction being an
equitable remedy is discretionary in nature, but the discretion must be
exercised in accordance with established principles of law. This means that
like other discretion, the court must exercise it judicially and judiciously. An
injunction can be issued against any person, without any exception,
whether, a private individual or private body, company, government, any
public officer or public authority. Injunction would be granted for the
protection of right or prevention of injury. Where remedies of damage are
an appropriate remedy, an injunction would not be granted.

In MARTINS PROPERTY LTD V ALBERT COURY, ADEFARASRI J

(as he then was) held:
"The principle under which the court acts with regard to injunction is that
the court would grant injunction for the protection of rights or the
prevention of injury according to legal principles. The court, prima facie,
would however not grant an injunction to restrain an actionable wrong for
which damages are the proper remedy. The court interferes by way of
injunction to prevent an injury, in respect of which there is a legal remedy,
if the injunction is irreparable or if it is continuous. Moreover, the court
would grant an injunction even where no damage has been caused. There
must however be a violation of an enforceable right in a substantive way
............................................................................................................................."

TYPES/CLASSIFICATION OF INJUNCTION

Injunction may be classified into:

1. INTERIM INJUNCTION
2. INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION
3. PERPETUAL INJUNCTION
4. A QUIA TIMET INJUNCTION
5. MAREVA INJUNCTION
6. ATON PILLER ORDER OF INJUNCTION
INTERIM INJUNCTION

An Interim Injunction is a temporary court order granted to prevent one

party from taking specific actions that could cause irreparable harm or alter
the status quo before a final judgment is made. It is commonly used in civil
litigation to protect the rights of parties while a case is still pending.

The main characteristics of an interim injunction includes;

1. It is made in a situation of real urgency to preserve and protect the

rights of the parties before the court from destruction of either parties.

2. An interim injunction is made to preserve the _status quo_ until a

named date or until an application for interlocutory injunction is heard.

3. The applicant must not be guilty of delay

4. It must not be granted unless the applicant gives a satisfactory

undertaking as to the damages saved in recognized exceptions or
except under special circumstances.

5. It must not be made pending the determination of the substantive suit.

6. It can be made to avoid such an irretrievable mischief or damage when

due to the pressure of business of the court or through no fault of the
applicant it is impossible to hear and determine the application on notice
for interlocutory injunction.

7. It can be made during the hearing of a motion on notice for interlocutory

injunction when because of the length of the hearing, it is shown that an
irretrievable mischief or damage may be occasioned before the
completion of the hearing.
An application for _exparte_ injunction is one in which the party is not put
on notice before the application is determined by the court. This type of
application is brought in a situation of real urgency where the subject
matter of the dispute should be preserved pending the determination of
the suit. The purpose of this is to ensure that the subject matter is not
irreversibly altered before the motion of notice is filed, served and heard.

*Legal Principles Governing Interim Injunctions*

In Nigeria and other common law jurisdictions, interim injunctions are

granted based on established legal principles. The courts exercise
discretion when determining whether to grant an interim injunction,
considering factors such as:

1. Existence of a serious issue to be tried – The applicant must

demonstrate that there is a genuine legal dispute requiring
judicial intervention.

2. Irreparable harm – The court evaluates whether the applicant

would suffer harm that cannot be compensated by damages.

3. Balance of convenience – The court considers which party would

suffer greater harm if the injunction is or is not granted.

4. Clean hands doctrine – The applicant must act in good faith and not
be guilty of any wrongdoing concerning the matter.

These principles have been applied in numerous cases, as discussed

below.

Case 1: _TITILAYO PLASTIC INDUSTRIES LTD & ORS v. CHIEF

JOSHUA ABESI FAGBOLA (2019)_
- Facts: The applicants sought an interim injunction to prevent the
respondents from taking possession of a disputed property before
the substantive case was heard.

- Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that an interim

injunction should not last beyond 14 days unless extended by the
court.

- Significance: This case reinforced the principle that interim injunctions

are temporary and should not be used as a substitute for an interlocutory
injunction.

Case 2: _NIGERIA LNG LIMITED v. BI-GODWILL DIKE (2023)_

- Facts: The applicant sought an interim injunction to prevent the

respondent from initiating further legal action outside Nigeria regarding
a contractual dispute.

- Court’s Decision: The National Industrial Court granted the injunction,

emphasizing that allowing multiple legal proceedings could cause
injustice.

- Significance: This case highlights the use of interim injunctions

in preventing the abuse of court processes.

Case 3: _OWERRI CENTRAL MARKET CASE (2024)_

- Facts: The plaintiffs sought an injunction to stop the government

from demolishing their businesses in a public market.

- Court’s Decision: The High Court granted an interim injunction,

maintaining the status quo until the hearing of the substantive
case.

- Significance: This case demonstrates the role of interim injunctions

in protecting property and livelihood rights.

Case 4: _BOLA TINUBU v. DAAR COMMUNICATIONS PLC (2015)_

- Facts: The former Lagos State governor sought an injunction to stop
the broadcast of a documentary that allegedly defamed him.

- Court’s Decision: The Lagos High Court granted an interim

injunction, preventing further broadcast of the documentary.

- Significance: This case underscores the use of interim injunctions

to protect individuals from reputational damage.

*Types of Interim Injunctions*

1. PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION – Prevents a party from performing

a specific act (e.g., halting construction work).

2. MANDATORY INJUNCTION – Requires a party to take specific

action (e.g., restoring a demolished structure).

3. FREEZING INJUNCTION – Restricts a party from disposing of assets

to prevent fraud.

4. SEARCH ORDERS – Allows one party to inspect and seize

evidence from another party to prevent destruction or tampering.
Interlocutory Injunction

Interlocutory injunction is an order of injunction granted pending the

determination of the substantive case. It seeks to maintain the status quo
during the pendency of a trial. It is different from interim injunction and,
therefore, very wrong to mix it up with interim injunction. In Oyeyemi v.
Irewole Local Government & Ors, 24 Nnaemeka-Agu JSC observed thus:

"It was wrong to have expressed the guiding principle for interim
and interlocutory injunctions as if they were the same or
interchangeable whereas, they are not."

An application for interlocutory injunction must be by a motion on notice

supported by affidavit deposing to facts which may sway the court to grant
the application. This order of injunction is granted before the final
determination of the trial between the parties where the applicant
reasonably fears that irreparable damage may be done to him before the
final determination of issues unless the defendant is restrained from doing
the act complained of. At this stage of the proceeding, the court should
refrain from making findings which may prejudice the merits of the
substantive action. There are legion of decided cases on the interlocutory
injunction wherein the following guiding principles emerged. It should be
noted, however, that each case will be considered on its own peculiar facts
and circumstances. The factors that the court will examine in considering
whether or not to grant interlocutory injunction include the followings:
(1) The applicant must show that he has enforceable legal right
recognized by law.

(2) The applicant must show that there is a serious question to be tried
and that the applicant has a real possibility and not a probability of
success at the trial.
(3) The applicant must show that the balance of convenience is on his
side, that is, justice will result in granting the application than refusing it.

(4) The applicant must show that damages cannot be an adequate

compensation for his damage or injury, if he succeeds at the end of the
day.

(5) The applicant must show that his conduct is not reprehensible,
for example, that he is not guilty of any wrong in relation to the case.

(6) The applicant must undertake as to damages, that is, he undertakes

to pay damages to the respondent should his case be found to be
frivolous.

(7) The applicant must show that his application is not frivolous, vexatious
or baseless, but he must disclose an existing right or a serious question
to be tried between the parties.

(8) The applicant must also show that the balance of convenience is in
his favour.

The reason behind granting interlocutory injunction is to preserve the

subject matter of the suit pending the trial. Applicants also need to show
urgency or that the relief cannot wait till the end of the whole trial. However,
failure to extract undertakings as to damages from the applicant may
sometimes not be fatal." Where there are substantial issues to be tried, the
court will grant an interlocutory injunction if other factors are also available."

Initially, before granting an interlocutory injunction, the applicant must show

a prima facie case as held in John Holt & Or v. Holts African Workers
Union, per Adetokunbo Ademola CJN said: "It is very true that in all cases
of interlocutory injunction the court does consider and ought to consider the
balance of convenience...but there is another very material question to be
considered, has the plaintiff made out a prima facie case?" Also in Oniru &
Or v. Ghadamodi," the Supreme Court, per Atanda Fatayi William (as he
then was) held thus: "in our view, an application for an interlocutory
injunction is not granted as a matter of course. The applicant must
establish a probability and a strong prima facie case..."

Nowadays, the above position has been relaxed. Thus in Kotoye v CBN,
the Supreme Court, per Nnamani Agu JSC held:

"A long time ago, the plaintiff was required to show a strong prima-facie
case that he was entitled to relief (see Harma Pictures v Osborne (1967) 1
WLR 723). However, since the decision of the House of Lords in American
Cynamide & Co. v Ethicon (1975) AC 396 at 407-409, it has been held that
what the applicant needs to show is only a real possibility not a probability
of success at the trial, that there is a serious question to be tried. This is
now an accepted principle in this country...the order will still be made even
though the defendant has a technical defence..." Generally, what is
required of the applicant to establish now are:

(a) that he has a right which ought to be protected pending

the determination of the substantive action; and

(b) that there is a serious issue in the affidavit evidence before the judge
to be tried between the parties.

Conduct of the applicant or the respondent is very important as a

consideration to grant or refuse the application because this is an equitable
remedy. This is based on maxims of equity like "he who comes to equity
must come with clean hands." He must show that his record or conduct
vis-à-vis the remedy or transaction is clean for "he who committed iniquity
shall not have equity." Another maxim is expressed in Latin words:
"vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt", meaning, equity aids the
vigilant and not the indolent. This simply means, delay defeats equity.
Applicants must not be guilty of delay.

Along this line is the decision that, where a court has been misled in an
affidavit for obtaining an interim injunction, the trial judge on discovering the
true facts, is entitled to discharge the order. However, where the facts so
deposed to in the affidavit had been corrected in a further affidavit by the
applicant himself before the order discharging the interim order was made,
the trial judge should take into account the facts that the offending
statements had been corrected in determining whether or not to grant the
substantive application for interlocutory injunction.

An injunction can be granted to restrain trespass to land and property,

passing-off. patent, designs and copyright. It can be used also to stay the
distribution of libellous materials, and many more. However, the question
whether a defendant in an action can be granted an injunction will depend
on a special condition that such a defendant's counterclaim in the suit. If
he has none, he cannot be granted an order of injunction. In Ifekwu v
Mgbako,! Uwaifo JCA held
Curiously enough it was the defendants now respondents who never
counter-claimed that sought and were granted an interim injunction
against the said plaintiff. It is quite irregular and wrong as the injunction
was not based on any interest or right claimed by the defendants. In other
words, they had no right to an interim injunction in the first place...

Interlocutory injunction can be discharged, vacated or suspended

depending on the facts warranting it.
- Perpetual Injunction:

A perpetual injunction is a permanent court order that directs a party to

cease and desist from engaging in a specific behavior or activity.
This has its origin from the doctrines and principles of equity where equity
attempts to ensure fairness by mandating or preventing an action.

This legal remedy is typically granted when a plaintiff has demonstrated

that they have suffered irreparable harm or will continue to suffer harm
if the defendant's actions are not stopped.

The primary purpose of a perpetual injunction is to provide long-term

protection to the plaintiff from the defendant's harmful actions. By granting
a perpetual injunction, the court ensures that the defendant is permanently
restrained from engaging in the prohibited behavior, thereby preventing
future harm to the plaintiff.

Types of Perpetual Injunctions:

1. Mandatory injunctions: These require the defendant to take a
specific action.
2. Prohibitory injunctions: These prohibit the defendant from engaging in
a specific behavior or activity.
3. Quia timet injunctions: These are granted to prevent a threatened
harm or injury.

Perpetual injunction as against interim and other types of injunction

is long-term and permanent.
This is usually given by the court after a decision has been made.

Perpetual injunctions usually flow from a verdict.

Upon violation of a perpetual injunction, either of the following may be
employed by the court;

1. *Fines*: The defendant may be required to pay a fine for violating

the injunction.
2. *Imprisonment*: In some cases, the defendant may be imprisoned
for violating the injunction.
3. *Additional damages*: The defendant may be required to pay additional
damages to the plaintiff for violating the injunction.

A perpetual injunction is a powerful legal remedy that provides long-term

protection to plaintiffs from defendants' harmful actions. To obtain a
perpetual injunction, plaintiffs must meet specific requirements.
This principle has been embraced in Nigeria as seen in the case of Godfrey
Anukam and Felix Anukam where the court granted a perpetual injunction
against the respondent preventing him from accessing a landed property
that was in dispute.
A QUIA TIMET INJUNCTION

Quia timet in Latin means `because he fears’ or `because of fear’ this type
of injunction is issued to prevent an infringement of the applicant’s right
which is threatened but has not happened.
According to Graigola Merthyr co ltd v Swansea Corpon; it was stated that
to obtain a quia timet injunction there must be an immediate threat to do so

In the case of NIGER CHEMIST LIMITED v NIGERIA CHEMIST D.K

Brown (1911) NGHC 8 (1961)
The plaintiff company had carried on business as chemists and druggists
for some years and had several branches in Onitsha and other towns in
Eastern Nigeria. The firm was well known under the name of "Niger
Chemists." The second defendant and his partners founded a firm carrying
on exactly the same business in Onitsha under the name of "Nigeria
Chemists." The plaintiff company objected to this use of a name so similar
to its own, but the defendants refused to change it, whereupon the plaintiff
brought proceedings for an injunction to restrain the defendants from using
the name and style "Nigeria Chemists."

HELD:

(1) In an action to restrain the defendant from using a business name

similar to that of the plaintiff it is not necessary to prove either intent to
deceive or actual deception. The plaintiff need only prove that the
name used by the defendant is as similar to his own as to be likely to
cause confusion in the mind of the public.

(2) The defendant cannot be restrained from using ordinary English words
which are simply descriptive of the articles he sells or the trade he carries
on. This does not apply, however, to a fancy name or to words that are
descriptive of the plaintiff rather than of his goods or his trade. Words such
as "Niger" or "Nigeria" are not descriptive of goods sold nor of trade carried
on and consequently the defendant can be restrained from using them.

(3) The fact that "Nigeria" is the official and geographical name of this
country does not imply that any person living or trading therein is entitled
to use it as part of his business name, if such use is otherwise unlawful.

(4) As the name "Nigeria Chemists" is so similar to the name "Niger

Chemists" as to be likely to cause confusion, the plaintiff is entitled to
an injunction restraining the defendants from using that name or any
other name closely resembling "Niger Chemists."
Thus the basis for an application of a quia timet injunction is based on the
constitutionality that an applicant whose right is threatened does not have
to wait for the infringement of his right before seeking for a redress or a
court protection .
*INTRODUCTION TO MAREVA INJUNCTION*

A Mareva injunction, also known as a freezing order, is a powerful

equitable remedy granted by a court to prevent a defendant from
dissipating their assets before a judgment can be enforced. It is a form of
interim relief aimed at preserving the subject matter of a dispute and
ensuring that the claimant can recover damages or enforce a judgment.

The Mareva injunction derives its name from the landmark English case
*Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA* [1975] 2
Lloyd's Rep 509, where the English Court of Appeal recognized the need to
prevent a defendant from removing assets beyond the jurisdiction to
frustrate a court’s judgment.

*NATURE AND PURPOSE OF A MAREVA INJUNCTION*

A Mareva injunction is a discretionary remedy and is granted to prevent the

defendant from transferring, concealing, or otherwise dealing with their
assets in a way that would hinder the enforcement of a potential judgment.
It is usually sought in commercial disputes, fraud cases, or instances where
there is a serious risk of asset dissipation.

*Key Features:*

- It is an *interlocutory order*, meaning it is granted before the

final resolution of the case.

- It applies to both *domestic and international assets*.

- It is *preventive* rather than punitive.

- It does *not give the claimant priority* over other creditors.

- It is *granted ex parte (without notice)* in urgent cases to prevent

asset dissipation.

*LEGAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING MAREVA INJUNCTIONS*

To obtain a Mareva injunction, the applicant must satisfy the court on the
following essential grounds:

(A) *Strong Prima Facie Case*: The claimant must demonstrate a

*serious issue to be tried* and show that their case has strong merit.

(B) *Real Risk of Asset Dissipation*:The applicant must provide

evidence that the defendant is likely to dispose of or move assets to
avoid enforcement. This is often the most crucial factor.

(C) *Full and Frank Disclosure*:Since the injunction is often granted ex

parte, the applicant has a duty to disclose all material facts, including
those unfavorable to their case.

(D) *Balance Of Convenience* : The court must weigh the hardship

imposed on the defendant against the claimant’s need for
protection.

(E) *Undertaking as to Damages* : The applicant must provide an

*undertaking to compensate* the defendant if the injunction is later found to
have been wrongly granted.

*JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURAL ASPECTS*

A Mareva injunction can be granted by courts in common law jurisdictions,

including the UK, Canada, Australia, India, and others. The procedure
varies slightly between jurisdictions, but the general process includes:
1. *Filing an Application*: The claimant files an urgent application
supported by an affidavit.

2. *Ex Parte Hearing*: The court may initially grant the injunction without
the defendant being present.

3. *Notice to Defendant*:The defendant is notified and given an

opportunity to challenge the injunction.

4. *Subsequent Hearings*: The court reviews the evidence and determines

whether the injunction should continue.

*SCOPE AND EFFECT OF A MAREVA INJUNCTION*

A Mareva injunction can have a significant impact on a defendant’s

business and financial operations. Key aspects include:

- It *freezes the assets* within the court’s jurisdiction, including

bank accounts, properties, and shares.

- It may have *extraterritorial effect*, requiring international banks

or institutions to comply.

- The defendant is required to *disclose details* of their assets to the court.

- Breach of a Mareva injunction can lead to *contempt of

court proceedings*.

*CASE LAW AND JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS*

(A) *_Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers

SA (1975)_*
The foundational case that established the Mareva injunction principle,
allowing courts to freeze assets before judgment.

(B) *_Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (1990)_*

This case extended the scope of the Mareva injunction to cover worldwide
assets.

(C) *Ninemia Maritime Corp v Trave Schiffahrtsgesellschaft (1983)_*

The court emphasized that mere suspicions are insufficient; there must be
strong evidence of asset dissipation.

*CHALLENGES AND CRITICISMS OF MAREVA INJUNCTIONS*

While Mareva injunctions are a crucial tool in litigation, they also pose
challenges, including:

- *Risk of abuse*: Claimants may misuse it to harass defendants.

- *Ex parte nature*: Defendants may suffer undue hardship without

initial representation.

- *Impact on business*: It can freeze a company’s operations, leading

to financial loss.

- *High costs*: Legal fees and compliance costs can be substantial.

*CONCLUSION*
The Mareva injunction is a vital legal remedy that protects claimants from
the risk of asset dissipation. However, its application requires careful
judicial scrutiny to balance the interests of both parties. Courts must ensure
that it is granted only when necessary, with adequate safeguards to
prevent abuse.
The Anton Piller Order

The Anton Piller order is an order of court, made ex-parte and requiring a
defendant or respondent to allow certain persons to enter his premises to
search for documents and movable articles as are specified in the court
order, and to permit such documents or articles to be taken away.

The first Anton Pillar order made in Nigeria was made by Anyaegbunam
C.J. in Ferodo Limited v. Unibros Stores1 in 1980 following the persuasive
authority of the decision of the English Court of Appeal in Anton Piller KG v.
Manufacturing Processes Ltd.2 (the case from which the order took its
name).

The next reported decision of a Nigerian court on the Anton Piller order
was the decision of Belgore J in Oluwanishola Development Co. v. Guines
Insurance Co. Ltd3. In refusing to grant an Anton Piller order as prayed in
that decision, Belgore J did not disapprove of the order, he however
disapproved of the variation to the order as prescribed in the Anton Piller
case sought to be introduced in the Nigerian context. He ruled that it did
not accord with the order prescribed in the Anton Piller case to order that
the party serving the order should include a senior official of the court as
well as policemen. He expressed the view that to involve officers of the
court in the execution of the order would be to involve the court in the
contest between the parties. He also ruled that to authorize policemen to
accompany the team would be to give the order the colouration of a search
warrant which it was not.

Subsequent to that decision, Belgore J (later C.J) granted several Anton

Piller orders. He also softened his view regarding the presence of the
police in the raiding team. He recognized that in the Nigerian environment,
a group of persons seeking to serve an Anton Piller order in a market run
a very high risk of being attacked by a mob. He therefore would allow a
specified number of policemen to accompany the team serving the
order but only for the purpose of keeping the peace.

After the above mentioned decisions in the 1980s there were at least two
decisions of the Federal High Court in early 1990s in which the court
refused to grant Anton Piller orders on the ground that to do so would be to
breach the right to fair hearing enshrined in the Constitution. Subsequently
though, both judges who gave the decisions have changed their minds and
have been granting Anton Piller orders since then.

Recently however the question whether the grant of an Anton Piller order
would breach the constitutional right of fair hearing appears to have been
settled by the Court of Appeal in Akuma Ind. Ltd v. Ayman Ent. Ltd5. The
issue was raised in that appeal. In the decision of the court on that issue,
Pats-Acholonu JCA stated: "Indeed Anton Pillar order, although
seemingly appearing as a monstrosity, has become accepted within the
vortex of our legal doctrines and jurisprudence."

It is therefore to be regarded as settled that Anton Piller order is a remedy

available in the Nigerian jurisprudence.

The Anton Piller Order is an order made in the exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction of the court to do justice as occasion demands. The ex-parte
nature of the order takes it out of reach of the normal rules of court
authorizing inspection and discovery. Those rules require notice of an
application in that regard to be given to the respondent.

The Anton Piller order is an order in personam. It is addressed to the

respondent ordering him to permit the persons serving the order enter his
premises and do therein, all the things which the order authorises them to
do.

Lord Denning in his judgment in the Anton Piller case (at page 60)
emphasized the fact that the order is not a search warrant which would
empower entry into the respondent’s premises without his consent. He
stated that the court had no authority to issue a search warrant in support
of a civil action. Hence the respondent under an Anton Piller order has to
give consent to the applicant to enter his premises otherwise the applicant
cannot.

Though the respondent can refuse to permit the applicant to enter his
premises, in view of the fact that the court has ordered him to give such
permission, he runs the risk of a committal for contempt of court if he
refuses.

In consideration of the drastic nature of the order, and given the fact that
the respondent will not be heard before the order is made, Lord Denning in
the Anton Piller case emphasized that the order should only be made:

"When it is necessary in the interest of justice ……. But only in an extreme

case where there is grave danger of property being smuggled away or of
vital evidence being destroyed"6

In the Consultation Paper on Anton Piller Order published by the Lord

Chancellor in England in 1992 four pre-conditions for the making of an
Anton Piller order were identified7. It is submitted that theses are the same
principles governing the grant of an Anton Piller order in Nigeria:

1. There must be a strong prima facie case of a civil cause of action. The
approach prescribed in American Cynamid –v- Ethicon8 is not
appropriate.

2. The danger to the plaintiff to be avoided by the grant of an Anton

Piller order must be serious. If an order is sought in order to forestall the
destruction of evidence, the evidence in question must be major, if not
critical, in importance.

3. The risk of destruction or removal of evidence must be a good deal more

than merely possible. There must be a real reason to believe that the
respondent will disobey an injunction for the preservation of the evidence
in question.
4. The harm likely to be caused by the execution of the Anton Piller order
to the respondent and his business affairs must not be excessive or out of
proportion to the legitimate object of the order.

Recommendations concerning the execution of the Anton Piller order were

made by the Sir Donald Nicholls V-C in Universal Thermosensors v.
Hibben9. He recommended that an Anton Piller Order should contain
provisions to ensure that

The defendant should be able in fact as well as entitled in theory to take

immediate legal advice before having to comply with the order. Therefore,
Anton Piller Orders should be executed only on working days in office
hours when a solicitor can be expected to be available.
In the event of service at a private house a woman solicitor should serve
the order if a woman is likely to be alone at the house.
A list of all items to be removed should be prepared.
Service at business premises should be in the presence of a responsible
officer of the party served.
The applicant should not have carte blanche to search a competitor’s files
Service and execution should preferably be by an experienced and
independent solicitor rather than the solicitor acting for the plaintiff
The solicitor should provide a written report to the defendant and the court
for the inter partes hearing
In Nigeria, there has been no judicial pronouncement or practice direction
to regulate the execution of the Anton Piller Order. It is suggested that
the above-mentioned recommendations of Sir Donald Nicholls V-C be
considered and adopted.

Applications under section 22 of the Copyright Act.

The judicial view has been expressed10 that section 22 of the Copyright
Act constitutes the statutory authority for granting an Anton Piller order in
respect of Copyright infringement litigation. One respectfully wishes to
disagree with that view.
An Anton Piller order requires the permission of the respondent before
entry can be gained into his premises. The provision of section 22 of the
Copyright Act empowers the court to authorize entry without the need to
seek the permission of the respondent. The provision also empowers the
court to authorize the applicant to inspect all documents in the possession
of the respondent, without limiting such inspection to documents related to
the infringing activity of the respondent. The Anton Piller order does not
grant such unrestricted access to the respondent’s records.

It seems appropriate, given the extremely invasive nature of an order

which can be made under this provision in a civil action, that in applying
the provision, the courts should be guided by the rules of statutory
interpretation which prescribe that statutes which detract from or abridge
established rights, should be strictly construed against the person who
seeks to benefit under it.11

In this regard the question arises to be considered whether it is not

appropriate that an applicant for an order under this provision should not
be limited to being accompanied to the premises of the defendant by only
one policeman as expressly provided by the provision and whether the
applicant should not be refused permission to remove any document from
the premises of the respondent though he is authorized to inspect them as
expressly provided by the provision.

Regardless of the issue raised, the court nevertheless retains the power in
the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to grant an Anton Piller order in
respect of a copyright infringement action. Therefore an applicant who
elects to ask for the remedy rather than an order under section 22 of the
Copyright Act should be entitled to a normal Anton Piller order with all the
safeguards erected by the courts to protect the interest of the absent
defendant.
 _DISCHARGE OF INJUNCTION IN NIGERIA: A DETAILED ANALYSIS_

An injunction is a judicial remedy that restrains a party from engaging in a

particular activity or behavior. It is a preventive measure aimed at
protecting the rights of a party from being infringed upon. However, in
certain circumstances, an injunction may be discharged or vacated. This
note will delve into the concept of discharge of injunction within the
Nigerian jurisdiction, exploring the grounds, procedures, and judicial
precedents surrounding this topic.

_GROUNDS FOR DISCHARGE OF INJUNCTION_

The Nigerian courts have identified various grounds for discharge of an

injunction. These grounds include:

1. _Change in circumstances_: If there is a significant change in

circumstances that renders the injunction unnecessary or unjust, the
court may discharge it. (See: _A.G. Lagos State v. A.G. Federation_,
[2014] 14 NWLR (Pt. 1425) 247)
2. _New evidence_: If new evidence emerges that was not available at
the time of granting the injunction, the court may reconsider its decision
and discharge the injunction. (See: _A.G. Rivers State v. A.G.
Federation_, [2012] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1316) 335)
3. _Failure to comply with undertakings_: If a party fails to comply with
undertakings given to the court, the injunction may be discharged.
(See:
_Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Ogboru_, [2011] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1257) 305)
4. _Abuse of process_: If the court finds that the injunction was obtained
by abuse of process or by misrepresenting facts, it may discharge the
injunction. (See: _A.G. Abia State v. A.G. Federation_, [2014] 14 NWLR
(Pt. 1425) 1)
5. _Lapse of time_: If a significant amount of time has passed since the
granting of the injunction, and the circumstances have changed, the
court may discharge the injunction. (See: _Nigerian National Petroleum
Corporation v. Famfa Oil Limited_, [2012] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1313) 291)
_PROCEDURE FOR DISCHARGE OF INJUNCTION_

The procedure for discharge of an injunction in Nigeria involves the

following steps:

1. _Filing an application_: The party seeking to discharge the injunction

must file an application before the court that granted the injunction.
2. _Notice to the opposite party_: The applicant must serve notice on the
opposite party, informing them of the application to discharge the
injunction.
3. _Hearing_: The court will hear arguments from both parties and consider
the grounds for discharge of the injunction.
4. _Decision_: The court will deliver its decision, either discharging
the injunction or refusing to do so.

_JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS_

The Nigerian courts have established various judicial precedents on the

discharge of injunctions. Some notable cases include:

1. _A.G. Lagos State v. A.G. Federation_, [2014] 14 NWLR (Pt. 1425)

247: In this case, the Supreme Court held that a change in circumstances
may be a ground for discharge of an injunction.
2. _A.G. Rivers State v. A.G. Federation_, [2012] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1316)
335: In this case, the Supreme Court held that new evidence may be a
ground for discharge of an injunction.
3. _Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Ogboru_, [2011] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1257)
305: In this case, the Court of Appeal held that failure to comply with
undertakings may result in discharge of an injunction.
4. _A.G. Abia State v. A.G. Federation_, [2014] 14 NWLR (Pt. 1425) 1: In
this case, the Supreme Court held that abuse of process may be a
ground for discharge of an injunction.
5. _Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation v. Famfa Oil Limited_,
[2012] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1313) 291: In this case, the Court of Appeal held
that lapse of time may be a ground for discharge of an injunction.
_CONCLUSION_

Discharge of an injunction is a serious matter that requires careful

consideration of the grounds and circumstances. The Nigerian courts have
established various judicial precedents on the discharge of injunctions, and
the procedure for discharge involves filing an application, serving notice on
the opposite party, and hearing arguments from both parties. By analyzing
the judicial precedents and case laws, we can gain a deeper understanding
of the principles and procedures governing discharge of injunctions in
Nigeria.
*THE DEFENDANT AND INJUNCTION*

An injunction is a court order that requires a party to either *stop

(prohibitory injunction) or perform* (mandatory injunction) a specific action.
Defendants play a crucial role in responding to injunctions, either by
contesting them, negotiating settlements, or complying with court orders.

*ROLE OF THE DEFENDANT IN INJUNCTION CASES*

The defendant is the *party against whom an injunction is sought*. Their

role includes:

1. *Receiving notice of the injunction* (unless an emergency order is

granted without notice).

2. *Responding to the plaintiff’s claims* and providing legal arguments.

3. *Challenging the injunction in court* if they believe it is unjustified.

4. *Complying with the injunction* or seeking legal remedies, such as

appeals or modifications.

*DEFENDANT’S RIGHTS AND LEGAL REMEDIES*

- *Right to be heard*: Defendants can present arguments in court.

- *Right to evidence disclosure*: Plaintiffs must provide proof of

their claims.

- *Right to appeal*: If an injunction is unfair, defendants can challenge it

in higher courts.
- *Right to seek modification*: If circumstances change, the defendant
can request an injunction be lifted or adjusted.

*DEFENSE STRATEGIES FOR THE DEFENDANT*

*Challenging the Legal Basis of the Injunction*

- Arguing that *irreparable harm* is not proven.

- Showing that the *plaintiff is unlikely to win* at trial.

*Presenting Counterevidence*
- Providing *witnesses, contracts, or records* that contradict the
plaintiff’s claims.

- Using *expert testimony* to disprove harm allegations.

*Negotiating a Settlement*
- Instead of litigation, the defendant may propose a
*compromise*(e.g., modifying business practices instead of stopping
them entirely).

The defendant in an injunction case has a critical role in *protecting their

rights, challenging unjust court orders, and complying with lawful rulings*.
While injunctions serve as an important legal tool for preventing harm, they
must be granted fairly and in accordance with legal standards. By
understanding their rights and defense strategies, defendants can
effectively navigate injunction proceedings.
*Table Of Cases*
*A*
A.G. Abia State v. A.G. Federation [2014] 14 NWLR (Pt. 1425) 1

A.G. Lagos State v. A.G. Federation [2014] 14 NWLR (Pt. 1425) 247 (S.C)

A.G. Rivers State v. A.G. Federation. [2012] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1316) 335 (S.C)

Akuma Industries Ltd. v. Ayman Enterprises Ltd. (1999) CLR 12(u) (CA)

American Cyanamid & Co. v. Ethicon (1975) AC 396 at 407-409

Anton Piller K G v. Manufacturing Processes Ltd. (1976) 1 All E.R 779 C.A

*B*

Bola Ahmed Tinubu v. DAAR Communications Plc. (2015) Unrep. HC of

Lagos State, Case No. ID/196GCMW/2015

*C*

Craigola Merthyr Co. Ltd. v. Swansea Corporation [1928] Ch 31, ChD;

[1928] Ch 235, CA; [1929] AC 344

*E*

Ekwealor Ifekwu & Anor V. Chuba Mgbako & Ors (1989) LLJR-CA

*F*

Ferodo Ltd v. Unibros Store (1980) Fleet Street Reports, 489

*G*
Godfrey Anukam V Felix Anukam (2008) LLJR-SC

Graigola Merthyr Co. Ltd. v. Swansea Corporation [1928] Ch 31

*H*

Harman Pictures NV v. Osborne (1967) 1 WLR 723

*J*

John Holt & Ors. v. H.A.W.U (1963) All NLR 379

*K*

Kotoye v. C.B.N (1989) 1 NWLR 419

*M*

Mareva Compania Maviera S.A v. International Bulk Carriers S.A (1980) 1

All E.R 213

Martins Property Ltd. v. Albert Coury (1968) Unrep. Suit No. LD/690/1968
H.C of Lagos

*N*

Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation v. Famfa Oil Limited [2012] 12

NWLR (Pt. 1313) 291

Niger Chemist Ltd. v. Nigeria Chemists & Anor. (1961) JELR 87053 (HC)

Nigeria L N G Ltd. v. Godwill Dike (2023) Unrep. Suit No.

NICN/LA/126/2023

*O*
Oluwanishola v. Development Co. v. Guinea Insurance Co. Ltd.

ONIRU & ANOR V GBADAMOSI (1971) LD-SC-04

Owerri Central Market Case (2024) Unrep. Case No. HOW/882/2024

Oyeyemi v. Irewole Local Government. Ikire (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 270) pg.
462

*T*

Titilayo Plastic Industries Ltd & Ors. v. Chief Joshua Abesi Fagbola (2019)
12 NWLR. LCN/4884 SC)

*U*

Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Ogboru, [2011] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1257) 305

Universal Thermosensors Ltd v Hibben & Ors. [1992] 1 WLR 840, Ch D