This appeal is against the ruling of Hon. Justice R.N. Ukeje (as she then was) of the Federal High Court, Lagos, delivered on the 28/7/1996, wherein she refused to discharge the interim order she granted on 21/2/1996 and made order of interlocutory injunction granting a reversion of the fishing vessel "OCEANUS ALFA", the subject matter of the suit to the respondent.
The learned trial judge in her ruling made certain findings based on the affidavit and documentary evidence as follows:
-
i.
From the preponderance of the affidavit and documentary exhibit before this court, the plaintiff/respondent, Shellborn Nigeria Ltd is the owner of the Motor Trawler herein the "MT Oceanus Alfa".
-
ii.
The Equipment Leasing Agreement herein between the parties dated this 6th day of June, 1996 whether it be taken to be for a term of one year per the plaintiff or 2 years (as posited by the defendant) expired on 29th of June, 1996, as admitted by the 1st and 2nd defendants, severally.
-
iii.
In terms of the Agreement herein, the trawler, which at all times material remained the property of the plaintiff now fully, reverts to the plaintiff. There is therefore no further need to dissolve the interim order of this court made in this matter on 21/2/96. Rather, the Interim Order is hereby converted into an interlocutory injunc¬tion pending the determination of this Suit.
-
iv.
The vessel herein reverts to the plaintiff herein. Accordingly, no¬tional arrest of the vessel "Oceanus Alfa" herein, made on 21/9/96 now moored at Kirikiri phase 11, Apapa is hereby dissolved; and the plaintiff may take possession of the vessel and may trade with the vessel, pending the final determination of the substan¬tive usit herein.
-
v.
Pleadings will be ordered and settled and during trial, all triable issues raised by both parties including:-
-
a.
The actual duration of the agreement herein
-
b.
The effect of EXH. PL 1 which sought to extend the agree¬ment herein;
-
c.
The status EXH, 6- Extract of Police report; and;
-
d.
All other issues shall be determined.
Those are the findings of this court in this ruling.”
Dissatisfied with this ruling, the appellant has appealed to this court.
