Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Azuh V. Union Bank (2014) CLR 5(m) (SC)

Judgement delivered on May 16th 2014

Brief

  • Concurrent Jurisdiction
  • Interim and Interlocutory Injunctions
  • Injunction – Purpose of
  • Criminal proceedings
  • Non Joinder of Parties
  • Order 8 Rule 7 (2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1988 of the defunct Bendel State
  • Section 23 of the Police Act
  • Section 160 of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 174 (1) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 6 (6) (a) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)
  • Section 211 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)
  • Section 41 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)
  • Section 6 (6) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)
  • Section 272 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)

Facts

The Appellant in this appeal is a staff of the Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, the Respondent, being the Branch Manager of the Bank at Asaba, was charged with other accused persons at the Asaba Chief Magistrate Court for stealing the sum of N89, 958,931.46 belonging to the Respondent. The Appellant and his co-accused persons were granted bail by the High Court No.5 Asaba and the Chief Magistrate's Court Asaba respectively pending their trial. The Respondent which was not happy with the release of the Appellant on bail in particular, went to High Court No. 12 Asaba of Delta State and filed a civil suit No. A/188/2001 on 20th November, 2001 against the Appellant as the sole Defendant and claimed 6 declaratory and injunctive reliefs. All the reliefs claimed against the Defendant now Appellant were predicated on the charge No. CMA/250C/2001 in the criminal case against the Appellant and others charged along with him pending before the Chief Magistrate Court 1, Asaba and not on the outcome of the civil case filed at the High Court. Accompanying the Writ of Summons at the High Court was an Ex-parte motion also filed by the Respondent on the same day and time as the Writ of Summon on 20th November, 2001 seeking the following reliefs –

  • a
    "An order of interim injunction restraining the Defendant from travelling out of this country and/or place pending the determination of the motion on notice.
  • b
    An interim order directing the Sheriff of this Honourable Court to take possession of the International Passport and other travelling documents of the Defendant pending the determination of the motion on notice.
  • c
    An interim order directing the Nigerian Immigration Service not to allow the Defendant to travel abroad pending the determination of the motion on notice."

It is very significant to observe that although the Respondent as the Applicant before the High Court sought the 3 reliefs in the Ex-parte motion pending the hearing of the motion on notice, there was no such motion on notice filed by the Respondent/Applicant which was to be heard on the return date fixed by the High Court at 7th December, 2001 after granting all the reliefs sought the Ex-parte motion on 20th November, 2001. The Respondent/Applicant's main grounds for approaching the trial High Court ex-parte were that if the reliefs were not granted ex-parte as a matter of urgency, the Defendant/Appellant would frustrate his trial in the Chief Magistrate Court by escaping out of the Country and this could be prevented by not putting the Defendant/Appellant on notice. The Defendant/Appellant's appeal to the Court of Appeal Benin Division against the Ex-parte orders of the trial High Court having been dismissed on 25th March, 2004, the Appellant is now on further appeal to this Court.

Issues

Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were right in holding...

Read More