Monday, November 22, 2010

PROPERTIES 4 SALE IN LAGOS STATE!


              LIST OF PROPERTIES FOR SALE  IN LAGOS.
1.      Four bedroom with BQ, on 4,000 sq land, Ikoyi lagos. N700 MILLION Asking
2.      Two blocks of four flats each,(8 flats) in Surulere Lagos State. N40 Million
3.      Four bedroom duplex, with 26 concrete functional fish pond, and offices. Festac Town.(Owner Occupier)  N55 million
4.      Four bedroom duplex,+ bq, T8, Festac Town, Lagos State. Vacant. N30 million
5.      6 bedroom duplex, all rooms en-suite, vacant A1 close Festac Town. N60 million
6.      Four bedroom apartment, in Shell Estate Satellite Town Lagos State. N13 Million
7.      Three bedroom, UBA Estate Satellite Town Lagos State .N 11 Million
8.      Three bedroom at CBN Estate Phase2, Satellite Town, Lagos State N14 Million
9.      Two bedroom apartment Satellite town . N7Million
10.  Three bedroom apartment Satellite Town. N14 Million
11.  Four bedroom bungalow on 2 plots of land , off old Ojo Road, N15million
12.  A block of 3 flats, with 2(nos) 2 bedroom flats at Agric, off Badagry Express way.N25 Million.
13.  Land in Satellite Town with C of O N12 million
14.  1 Acre of land in Ikoyi. N900 Million
15.  Properties and land 4 sale in Ikoyi and Lagos Island, depending on request.
16.  Acres of land for Sale at Agbara( N300k per plot), Badagry(N200k per plot) and ikorodu( N300k per plot) respectively.

CONTACT
 MUBAK LEGAL CONSULT                     
 Tel: 080-027289483, 08181718822(Halima), 08023838946(Peter)

Mubak Legal Consult: PULVERIZER ON 4 PLOTS OF LAND 4 SALE.

Mubak Legal Consult: PULVERIZER ON 4 PLOTS OF LAND 4 SALE.: "SOLID MINERAL: 4R 3216 Pulve. Raymond Mill. Capacity - 4.5t/h. Already installed , No housing , On 4 Plots of Land, Ikpeshi, Edo State Niger..."

PULVERIZER ON 4 PLOTS OF LAND 4 SALE.

SOLID MINERAL: 4R 3216 Pulve. Raymond Mill. Capacity - 4.5t/h. Already installed , No housing , On 4 Plots of Land, Ikpeshi, Edo State Nigeria.  please call us on any of these numbers. 08027289483, 0818178822

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

MY SEMINAR PRESENTATION ON INJUNCTION( Part 2)


Written By: Halima Musa-Bakwunye
Principal Partner: Mubak Legal Consult

TYPES OF INJUNCTION.
There are two  main kinds of  injunction, Prohibitory injunction which directs a person not to do or continue with a wrongful act (negative effect) and mandatory which affirmatively directs the doing of an act( positive effect). Other types of injunction include:
 
·         Exparte injunction: A preliminary injunction issued after the court has heard from only the moving party.
·         Interim injunction: interim injunction is a temporary court order prohibiting a person from a specified act or commanding a person to undo some wrong or injury. An interim injunction  is a temporary order made pursuant to motion ex parte pending the hearing and determination of a motion on notice, filed or to be filed before the court. It is an injunction granted to last until a named or defined date or until further order or pending the hearing of a motion on notice between the parties. See Kotoye v CBN [1989] 1 NWLR pt98 pg419, Onwudilike v Nwokedi [1991] 1 NWLR pt102, pg229 at 232; Ita v Nyong [1994] 1 NWLR pt 318 pg56[1]. Is properly used in contradistinction to “on notice” and both expressions, which are mutually exclusive, more strictly rather refer to the manner in which the application is brought and the order procured.

An applicant for a non-permanent injunction may bring the application ex parte, that is without notice to the other side, as is appropriate. By their very nature injunctions granted on ex parte applications can only be properly interim in nature. They are made without notice to the other side.
·         Interlocutory injunction: this is a court’s order made pursuant to a motion on notice prohibiting someone from doing some specified acts or commanding someone to undo some wrong or injury pending the final determination of the substantive suit. Kotoye  v CBN supra.
·         Mareva  injunction:   Mareva  injunction is a peculiar kind of injunction. Whereas injunctions generally relates to the subject matter of the suit, Mareva  injunction are granted over assets, or res not even subject matter of the suit. The development of this kind of injunction arouses out of the need to secure the position of the possible judgement creditor and prevent a situation where by the prospective judgement debtor will defeat the action by either dissipating his assets or removing them from jurisdiction. The form in which Mareva injunction are applied today arouse out of English case of Mereva companies Naviera SA “The Mareva 1980” l AU ER 213[2].
·         Mandatory injunction: An injunction that orders an affirmative act or mandates a specified course of conduct. Also turned affirmative injunction. Their history is a curious one used when to prevent the breach of an obligation it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing, the court may in its discretion grant an injunction to prevent the breach complained of and also to compel performance of the requiste acts.[3]
·         Permanent injunction: An injunction granted after a final hearing on the merits. Despite its name a permanent injunction does not necessary last forever.
·         Perpetual injunction: this is an injunction granted by the decree made at the hearing and upon the merit of the suit, the defendant is hereby perpetually enjoined from the assertion of a right, or from the commission of an act, which will be contrary to the rights of the plaintiff..
·         Preliminary injunction: A temporary injunction issued before or during trial to prevent irreparable injunction from occurring before the court has a chance to decide the case. A preliminary will be issued only after the defendant receives notices and an opportunity to be heard. Also termed interlocutory, temporary injunction, provisional injunction.
·         Preventive injunction: An injunction designed to prevent a loss or injury in the future.
·         Prohibitory injunction: An injunction that forbids or restrains an acts. This is the most common type of injunction.
·         Quia- timet injunction:(Latin “because he fears”) An injunction granted to prevent an action that has been threatened but has not yet violated the plaintiff’s right.
·         Reparative injunction: An injunction requiring the defendant to restore the plaintiff to the position that the plaintiff occupied before the defendant committed the wrong
·         Special injunction: An injunction in which the prohibition of an act is the only relief ultimately sought, as in prevention of waste or nuisance.[4]                                                                    
Unlike a declaration  some doubts have been expressed on the question whether an order of injunction would lie against the government or any of its departments or officers in their capacity. In addressing this issue we shall be looking at injunction against Public authorities and government respectively.
WRITS AND INJUNCTION.
The provisions of Order 2 Rule1 , makes it clear that the orders which the court can make are the same as those provided for by the Section 46 of 1999 constitution. These orders are the familiar orders of injunction, make declarations, writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.
Writ of Mandamus; A writ of Mandamus is in the form of a command directed to some inferior court, tribunal or board or some corporation or person requiring him to do a duty specified therein. This duty results from official position of the party to whom the writ is directed. The writ compels the tribunal or person to exercise a duty which it possesses but declines to do. This is an appropriate remedy for the enforcement of a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty existing and imposed by law but which the officer or authority refuses or neglects to fulfil.
When to prevent a breach of an obligation it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts the court may in its discretion grant an injunction to prevent the breach complained of and also to compel performance of the requisite acts. This is termed mandatory Injunction. The similarities between a writ of mandamus and a mandatory injunction are worth nothing. In both instances the court has got the power to compel a person to perform a duty which he is bound to do.[5] A writ of ,mandamus is issued when there is a specific legal right but no specific remedy for enforcing it. To get a  writ of mandamus the petitioner must show that he has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by him against whom mandamus is sought and secondly there must be a legal duty incumbent on the officer or authourity in his public character.
Writ of habeas corpus.
The process of Habeas corpus is a safe guard against executive excess and lawlessness, it is not so much against judicial verdict. When persons are in detention in pursuance of a conviction the application of the principle is much stricter. It is the prerogative right by which the reasons and validity of detention of a person is investigated in a summary manner. If the authourity having the custody of the person fails to satisfy the court that the arrest is not malafide or in accordance to law he is entitled for writ.[6]
Writ of prohibition
A writ of prohibition is issued only as a preventive remedy by a superior court to an inferior court or a quasi judicial tribunal when such court or tribunal has usurped jurisdiction, with a view to keep them within bounds of the jurisdiction. It is not a  discretionary writ; it is a writ of right and not of course. It is issued on the application of a party alleging that the tribunal is about to act in excess of its  jurisdiction or assumed jurisdiction when in fact it has no jurisdiction.[7]                                                                                  
Writ of certiorari.
A writ of certiorari is issued for the purpose of correcting an error of jurisdiction ; when the court or tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction or when it is shown that the order of the inferior tribunal suffers from an error which is apparent on the face of the record.
A writ of certiorari may be issued at the instance of the state government when a court acts illegally and there is an error on the face of the record.
Modes of Applying for Injunction.
Motion Ex parte: In civil procedures ex parte motions are used where the interests of the other party will not be prejudiced. If he is not put on notice. Therefore where it is only the interest of the particular applicant that will be affected or where from the nature of the application there will be no opposition to it applications are usually made ex parte.
Motions ex parte are also used whenever the law provides that a particular application may be made ex parte.
It is important to note that the presence in court of a person to be affected by the grant of an ex parte application or order during the hearing of such an application does not have any effect as he has no right of audience in respect thereto.[8]the very nature of ex parte applications requires that full disclosure of facts be made to the court where such disclosure is not made it will be a ground for setting aside any order made or the basis of the application. The court has an inherent power to revoke an order ex parte once it becomes aware that it gave its leave under a misapprehensive or the applicant had suppressed relevant facts[9].      
MOTION ON NOTICE. 
Here, the adverse party or the party interested in the subject matter of the application is given prior notice of it in the sense that the motion is addressed to him and a copy thereof served on him. By being given the opportunity to contest the grant or otherwise of the application by the court.[10]


[1] Ibid pg187
[2] Introduction to civil procedure. Ernest Ojukwu, Chidi N. Ojukwu 2002- Helen Roberts Research and Resources Ltd Pg 189
[3] G. S. Gupta, law of injunctions, orient publishing company pg 493
[4] Bryan A. Garner, Blacks Law Dictionary 7th Edition(1999) pg 788
[5] G. S. Gupta, law of injunctions, orient publishing company pg797
[6] Ibid pg 800
[7] Ibid pg801
[8] Ernest Ojukwu, Chidi N. Ojukwu :Introduction to Civil Procedure. 2002-Pub: Helen Roberts Research and Resources Ltd Pg 172
[9] Ibid Pg 173.
[10] Ibid  Pg 173.

Monday, November 8, 2010

MY SEMINAR PRESENTATION ON INJUCTION.(Part 1)

Written By: Halima Musa-Bakwunye
Principal Partner: Mubak Legal Consult
                                      
The subject matter ‘injunction’ is very wide , this seminar paper may not be able to cover all aspects of injunction. I shall however try to  write on some essential areas of injunction with specific reference to  injunction against Government and public authorities.  As we all know the branch of law that deals with the administration of government Agencies is  known as  Administrative law. It  imposes certain requirements on the agencies in the exercise of the powers and provides remedies against unlawful administrative acts. if a person has a right and that right is violated then such person should be entitled to some remedy, sometimes called compensation, for the violation of the right.[1]
Any good legal system produces efficient remedies which are regarded with utmost importance to the administration of justice. The Nigerian administrative law provides efficient remedies which are classified into three categories namely
(1.)             Constitutional remedy
(2.)             The ordinary private law remedies. Such as damages, injunction and declaration.
(3.)             The public law remedy such as the prerogative remedies- mandamus, certioraris and prohibition. Nigerian administrative law.
This seminar would deal extensively on the second category which is the private law remedies with particular focus on injunction. It is common for individuals to seek for injunction against individuals and corporate bodies, and for Government to seek for injunction against individuals/ corporate bodies but it becomes an issue when individuals or companies seek for injunction against Government and public authourities. Thus with reference to some local and foreign cases we shall find out how practicable this is. To enable you have a proper understanding of this subject  matter,  we shall be looking at the following sub-topics.
(1.)             Historic development of Injunction in Nigeria.
(2.)             What is a remedy?
(3.)             What is an injunction?
(4.)             The different types of injunction.
(5.)             Injunction against public authorities.
(6.)             Injunction against the government.
(7.)             The bais judge
(8.)             Abuse of injunction
(9.)             Special control on abuse of injunction by judges.
(10.)         Conclusion.


Historical Development
In 1862, the British Administration made Lagos a British  colony or settlement and established a court there. Under ordinance No 3 of 1863, the British Administration introduced English law into the colony with the effect from March 4, 1863;[2] the British government came into the territory with their law that is, English law. Since the British government colonised Nigeria they had to introduce the English law which is a by-product of colonisation. The territory, as a colony, had little or no choice in the matter. It is like a baby born into the world which takes it first steps in life instinctively in line with the idiosyncrasies, characteristic and ethos of the matter, its immediate kin[3].
The first statute enacted by the colonialists on the reception of English law in Nigeria is the interpretation Act[4]. While the statute dealt generally with the interpretation matters, section 45 there of  made provision on the reception of English law.  The Section provides as follows:
(1)   subject to the provisions of this section and excepted in so far as no other provision is made by the federal law, the doctrines of equity, together with the statute of general application that were in force in England on the 1st day of January, 1900, shall be in force in Lagos and in so far as they relate to any matter within the exclusive legislative competence of the federal legislature, shall be in force elsewhere in the Federation.
(2)   Such imperial law shall be in force so far as the limits of the local jurisdiction and local circumstances shall permit and subject to any federal law.
(3)   For the purpose of facilitating the application of the said imperial laws, they shall be read with such formal verbal alterations not affecting the substance as to names, localities, courts, officers, persons, moneys, penalties, and otherwise as maybe necessary to the circumstances.
It is as a result of the above section that the English common law principle of interim injunction and injunction generally became part of Nigerian law. An English case that illustrates the position of the English common law’.
In Thomas Edison Ltd V Bullock,[5] Griffith, CJ, said:
“There is a primary precept governing the administration of justice, that no man is to be condemned unheard; and therefore, as a general rule, no order should be made to the prejudice of a party unless he had the opportunity of been heard on defence. But instances occur where justice could not be done unless the subject matter of the suit were preserved, and, if that is in danger of destruction, by one party, or if irremediable or serious damage be imminent, the other may come to the court, and ask for its interposition even in the absence of his opponent, on the ground that delay would involve greater injustice than instant action. ”[6]
In Earl of Mexborough V. Bower,[7] Langdale, MR, held that the granting of ex parte injunction is the exercise of a very extraordinary jurisdiction and therefore the time at which the plaintiff first had notice of the act complained of will be looked at very carefully in order to prevent an improper order being made against a party in his absence.[8]
REMEDY.
 A remedy is anything a court can do for a litigant who has  been wronged or who is about to be wronged. The two most common remedies are judgements that plaintiffs are entitled to collect sum of money from defendants and orders to defendants to refrain from their wrongful conduct or to undo its consequences.  The court decides under the substantive law whether the litigant has been wronged; it conducts its inquiry in accordance with the procedural law. The law of remedies falls somewhere between substance and procedure, distinct from both or overlapping with both.[9]

INJUNCTION
Injunction is a standard equitable remedy in the form of a court order that either prohibits or compels a party from continuing a particular activity. And unlike a declaration an injunction has a sanction attached to the order to be enforced, if necessary by imprisonment, fine or any other sanction at the disposal  of the court.[10]
In a general sense, every order of a court which commands or forbids is an injunction; but in its accepted legal sense, an injunction is a judicial process or mandate operating in personam by which, upon certain established principles of equity, a party is required to do or refrain from doing a particular thing. An injunction has also been defined as a writ framed according to the circumstances of the case, commanding an act which it esteems contrary to equity and good conscience; as a remedial writ which courts issue for the purpose of enforcing their equity jurisdiction; and as a writ issuing by the order and under the seal of a court of equity.[11]
At the very core of injunctive relief is recognition that money damages cannot solve every problem. An injunction may be permanent or temporary. A temporary injunction or preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy granted to restrain activity on a temporary basis until the court can make final decision  after trial. It is usually necessary to prove high likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary  injunction before such an injunction may be granted; otherwise the party may have to wait for trial to obtain a permanent injunction.[12]
In deciding whether to grant an injunction the following conditions must be present  before a grant can be made:
1.      The plaintiff must show a strong prima facie case.
2.      The plaintiff must usually show that he would suffer irreparable damage if the grant were not made.
3.      The balance of convenience must favour the grant.
4.      The applicant must satisfy the court that he has a legal right to be protected  in the interim and  the court should be satisfied that there is a real question to be tried in the substantive suit; That he has an arguable case. At this stage, the applicant is not required to argue with vigour his case as he is expected to do at the trial. All he needs at this stage is to establish a prima facie case .
5.      He must satisfy the court that the situation is one of urgency or emergency calling for the quick or immediate intervention of the court in the absence of which irreparable damage or injury may result to the res.
6.      The court should consider whether, if the plaintiff were to succeed at the trial in establishing his right to a permanent injunction, he would be compensated by an award of damages for the loss he would have sustained as a result of the defendant’s continuing to do what was sought to be enjoined between the time the application and the time of the trial.
7.      The applicant must make an undertaking as to damages, i.e to indemnify or compensate the respondent for any damages he may sustain as a substantive suit proves vexations and frivolous and accordingly.
8.      If otherwise  damages would not provide an adequate remedy for the plaintiff in the event  of his succeeding at the trial, the court should then consider whether in case of the defendant were to succeed at the trial in establishing his right to do that which was sought to be enjoined, he would be adequately compensated under the plaintiff’s undertaking as to damages for the loss he would have sustained by being prevented from so doing between the time of the application and the time of the trial.
9.      If damages would be an adequate remedy and the plaintiff would be in a financial position to pay, there would be no reason in this regard to refuse an interlocutory injunction see Ilechukwu V. Iwugo 1989, N.W.L.R,(Pt 101)99, Igbinigie V. Yusuf (1993)2 NWLR9PT.274 207, Governor of Imo State V Anosike.

In the exercise of its discretion a court should pay particular regard for the public consequence in employing the extra ordinary remedy of injunction. If an injunction will impair public interest, it should be denied.


[1]   P.A Oluyede: Nigerian Administrative law(2007)  pg 491
[2] Obilade: Nigerian legal system pg 18.
[3] Niki Tobi:. The law of interim injunction in Nigeria pg1
[4] Cap 89, laws of federation and lagos, 1958
[5] [1912] 15 CLR 679.
[6] Ibid., at page 681.
[7] [1843] 7 Beav. 127.
[8][8] Ibid., at [age 131. See further in respect of the position of English common law, Fenwick v. East London Railways Co. [1882] 21 Ch.D. 490; Piperno v. Harmston [1886] 3 TLR 219; Fraser v. Whalley, Gartise [1871] All ER Rep. 1456; Bolton v. London School Board [1878] 7 Ch.D 766;Re Johnson ex parte Abrams [1884] 50 LT 184; Allport v. Securities Corporation [1895] 64 LJ CH 618; Lyods Bank Ltd. v. Medway Upper Navigation Co.[1905] 2 KB 259; Beese v. Woodhouse [1970] 1 All ER 769; [1970] 1 WLR 586.  
[9] Bryan A. Garner, Blacks Law Dictionary 7th Edition(1999) pg 1,296
[10] Akinwole Ogunlola, Esq ‘Nigeria Courts Injunctions and Electoral Process’.(Article) www.villagesquare.com
[11] Bryan A. Garner, Blacks Law Dictionary 7th Edition pg 788
[12] Akinwole Ogunlola, Esq ‘Nigeria Courts Injunctions and Electoral Process’.(Article) www.villagesquare.com