Appellants sued respondents at the High Court, Nsukka claiming inter-alia, a declaration that the appellants are the owners of the land in dispute and are therefore entitled to the statutory right of occupancy over the land, recovery and possession of the land in dispute and an order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from further entering into the disputed land and from carrying on any activity thereon.

The suit was filed on 26/9/92. on the following day 23/6/92, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion Ex-parte before the court seeking for an order of interim injunction against the Defendants pending the hearing and determination of the Plaintiffs application for an interlocutory injunction as a result which the court on 25/6/92 made the following orders:

On being served with the above order, the Defendants on 7/7/92 filed a motion on Notice paying the court to discharge the orders.

There is no indication on the records when the motion was argued, but a Ruling was delivered on 13/8/92, In the ruling the learned trial judge refused the application. In other words the court refused to discharge the ex-parte order made on 25/6/92 set out above.

Dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial court, the Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal holden at Enugu. Having regard to the nature of the application and the order made by trial court, the Court of Appeal was of the view and rightly so to my mind that the only issue for its determination was

Whether in the circumstances of this case, the trial court had exercised its discretion judicially and judiciously when its refused to discharge the order made on…… in its ruling dated 12/8/99.

The issue was carefully examined and in a unanimous judgment, the court of appeal held that the appeal had merit. The appeal was allowed. The order of interim injunction made by the trial court on 25/6/92 was vacated with cost in favour of Defendants.

Being aggrieved with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the applicants appealed to the Supreme Court.