Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Ayo-Ayodele Pharm. Chem. V. NIDB Ltd (2000) CLR 4(f) (CA)

Brief

  • Interlocutory injunction (Order of)
  • Reversionary interest of mortgagor
  • Reliefs in Interlocutory application (Status of)

Facts

The fact of case as can be gathered from the record of the proceedings are that appellant applied for and was granted financial assistance to enable her set up a cotton sanitary towel factory at Offa in Oyun Local Government Area of Kwara State. As a security for the loan the appellant mortgage its fixed and floating assets to the respondent.

The appellant later defaulted in the repayment of the loan and the interest making it necessary for the respondent to write several letters to the appellant demanding repayment and threatening to exercise its powers under the mortgage agreement. To pre-empt the respondents from carrying out that threat, the appellant instituted this action in the Federal High Court Ilorin vide a writ of summons filed on 22/2/86 claiming inter alia, that its indebt¬edness to the respondent is only N5.Sm; N5m damages for failure to provide working capital; injunction restraining the respondent from exercising its right of sale over the properties pledged as security, etc.

On the 26/2/96 the appellant through counsel filed a motion on notice praying the court for an order "granting an interlocutory injunction restraining the Respondent its servants, agents, privies or any person or persons acting on its' behalf from:

  • a
    Arrest, Detention and/or Prosecution of the Plaintiffs Directors or any of the Plaintiff's Staff/Personnel before any Tribunal pending the final determination of the substantive suit;
  • b
    Exercising any act of closure, receivership managership or sale oh the plaintiff's factory machinery and/or premises: or any of the mortgaged properties pledged as collateral with the Respondent pending the final determination of the substantive Suit."

    • The application is supported by an affidavit of 20 paragraphs on which the appellant relied.

    In a considered ruling the learned trial judge dismissed the application hence this appeal.

    However, before arguments and ruling on the motion the appellant changed counsel resulting in the present counsel being briefed.

    The new counsel then filed an application for leave to amend the writ and statement of' claim which was opposed. Counsel also filed a further affidavit support of the motion for interlocutory injunction which alluded to the proposed amendments. Therefore in arguing the application at the lower court, learned counsel for the appellant utilized the proposed amended pleadings of the appellant and the issues sought therein to be subsequently introduced at the trial.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether the decision of the Learned Trial Judge refusing the order of...
    • Read More