THE SIGNIFICANCE OF INJUNCTIONS IN THE DISPENSATION OF JUSTICE IN NIGERIA

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF INJUNCTIONS IN THE DISPENSATION OF JUSTICE IN NIGERIA

  • The Complete Research Material is averagely 85 pages long and it is in Ms Word Format, it has 1-5 Chapters.
  • Major Attributes are Abstract, All Chapters, Figures, Appendix, References.
  • Study Level: BTech, BSc, BEng, BA, HND, ND or NCE.
  • Full Access Fee: ₦7,000

Get the complete project » Instant Download Active

Abstract

The topic of this research is „THE SINIFICANCE OF INJUNCTIONS IN THE DISPENSATIN OF JUSTICE IN NIGERIA‟. Injunctions are court orders prohibiting someone from doing some specified act or commanding someone to undo some wrong or injury. Injunctions are ordinarily and properly elicited from proceedings in courts. The main feature of injunction is the maintenance of the res or status quo that is the subject matter of the dispute or litigation. The problem treated in this research work arose from the literatures reviewed and the practical experience of the writer in the area of the research. The legal requirements and procedure for applying for the grant of the equitable remedy of injunction are so difficult to be met by an applicant for the injunctive order, requirements such as the need that an applicant must prove that he has a legal right to be protected over the subject matter he is seeking injunction for. This research work critically looked at this problem with the view to proffering solutions to them. This research work aimed at identifying the significance of the equitable remedies of interim and interlocutory injunctions in justice dispensation in Nigeria. Furthermore, the objectives this research work set out to achieve includes; critical discussion and analysis of interim and interlocutory injunctions. The methodology employed in this research work is mainly doctrinal. It has been conducted mostly in the library through the use of both primary and secondary sources of law. It has been observed that there exist a fundamental contradiction or legal conflict between the constitutional doctrine of Audi altera patem rule for the fair hearing of all the parties before the court decide on a matter on the one part and the rules of courts and the various High court Rules which specifically provide and empower the courts to hear one party, consider and grant or refuse the application where the court is faced with an application for interim injunction. It is recommended that the two legal principles be allowed to subsist as each one is important for the determination of the case.

CHAPTER ONE; GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1       Background of the study

The process of instituting an action in court in order to redress a wrong takes

considerable time. Owing to the peculiar state of affairs in Nigeria, calling the court

into action to determine the respective rights of parties consumes considerable time

with possible harm to the subject matter of the suit. The subject matter in law is

commonly referred to as the “res”. The res, in deserving circumstances would need to

be preserved from waste, destruction or dissipation by any of the parties.

The history of injunction could be traced to the later part of the 16th century

when quarrel between common and Chancery over the power of the Chancery to issue

injunction in the cases before it became manifest1. Justice Coke was the Chief Judge

of the Common Law Counts while Lord Ellesmere was the Lord Chancellor in

Chancery. Chancery‟s jurisdiction was challenged by Justice Coke, notably its power

to grant common injunction restraining the enforcement of judgment decided by the

Common law courts. Justice Coke threatened to issue a writ of prohibition against

Chancery‟s interference with judgments/decisions of the Common law courts by its

issuance of common injunction2.

Nevertheless, Lord Ellesmere of the Chancery division pronounced that

Chancery had the power to grant common injunction against the judgments of the

Common law courts that were oppressive or without conscience. The conflict was

settled in the case of Earl of Oxford which was decided in favour of the Chancery that

it can give an injunction against the judgments of the Common law courts.

1          Koddinye, G. An Introduction to Equity in Nigeria. Spectrums Books Limited, Ibadan (2008)P. 3

2         Usman A. K., the Law and Practice of Equity and Trust, Faith International Printers, Zaria (2012) P. 12.

1


The ruling in the case Earl of Oxford was also to the effect that equity should

prevail whenever there is a conflict between it and common law. However, after series

of deliberations to gain autonomy for the Chancery by Lords Ellesmere and others,

Common Law Procedure Acts of 1854 and 1860 also empowered the Common Law

Counts to apply the rules of equity to cases before them, regardless of those rules

being in disagreement with the established common law rules. This was done to solve

the incidence of double litigation in respect of the same cause of action3. This is in

order to save litigants time and expenses in the cause of litigation. In another vain,

Chancery courts were empowered to decide all actions of common law without

making any reference to the Common Law court. By Chancery Amendment Act of

1852, limited power was also given to Chancery in some cases such as awarding

damages in addition or in lieu of injunction and breach of contract.

Nonetheless, the entire reform was represented by the Judicature Acts of 1873

to 1875 and the Administration of Justice Act of 1880. All existing superior courts

were abolished by the above mentioned Acts and in their place Supreme Court of

Judicature consi


You either get what you want or your money back. T&C Apply





Share a Comment


You can find more project topics easily, just search

Quick Project Topic Search