Appellant had sued respondent demanding for a declaration that the respondent was not a shareholder, member or director of the appellant company along with an order in perpetuity restraining respondent from entering the premises of the appellant company.

Appellant also filed for a motion on notice but before the motion was heard, the respondent filed a notice of preliminary objection to the suit stating that the suit violated section 303 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 1990. He based his arguments on the fact that the instruction to sue was given by members who hold only 3 shares out of the 100,000 shares which constituted a derivative action requiring the leave of the court which was not obtained.

The preliminary objection was dismissed.

Respondent then moved an exparte application for an order of interim injunction against Clive Emuh (appellants representative) restraining him from disrupting the business operations.

The injunction was granted along with two orders (suo motu) one of which declared respondent to be still in control of the company.

Respondent again filed a motion on notice seeking the same relief it had claimed in the motion ex-parte while the appellant filed a motion seeking to discharge the motion ex-parte. Both applications were heard together.

The court granted respondent's application but disallowed the appellant's application to discharge the earlier motion made ex-parte.