Interim Injunction and Interlocutory Injunction: Is Buhari Really In Contempt of the Supreme Court Order Made on Exparte Application? By Nwani Tailorson, Ogun State Based Legal Practitioner.(pegasuslawyers@gmail.com)

It is a given that interim injunction is an order obtained from the Court in cases of real Urgency on Exparte Application (one sided Application) pending the determination of Motion on Notice which will be heard inter-parties from which Interlocutory injunction may ensue.

The word interim means a less complete part of something to be given in full later. it equally mean meanwhile, in the Nigerian Judge, Hon. Justice Niki Tobi, JSC., (as he then was) submitted thus:-‘’ An interim injunction is not granted for all times. This is certainly not the meaning of the word interim. An interim injunction is an injunction granted meanwhile.’’Black law Dictionary defines Exparte Injunction as an Injunction which comes from a Court which has heard only one side, the moving side of the controversy. Therefore, Interim Injunction is granted Exparte.

The Latin Expression meaning from only one side to a lawsuit. In Kotoye Vs. CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419; Vol 2 ACLC, 111, [2004] 9-12 SCM (pt.2) 222 where Nnaemekagu JSC (as he then was) submitted thus:- ‘’ I think it is correct to say that an Exparte in relation to injunction 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 exparte, this is without notice to the other side, as is appropriate. By their very nature injunctions granted on exparte application can only be properly interim in nature.

They are made, without notice to the other side….’’As always, lawyers often take interim injunction to be the same as interlocutory injunction but legally speaking they are not the same thing. Interim injunction is usually obtained exparte in cases of extreme urgency to maintain statusquo ante bellum ( the situation before the war breaks out) whose life span is often very short, ranging from 7 to 14 days in some States Civil Procedure rules depending on the tenure of the order as granted by the Court.

On the other hand, interlocutory injunction takes off where interim injunction abates after hearing the parties on motion on notice. Interlocutory injunction usually subsists till judgement is delivered on the matter when perpetual injunction will take over subject to appeal alone depending on the issuing court.Flowing from the above, there is obvious difference between interim injunction and interlocutory injunction as the Court has clearly ruled on the differences. In Oyefeso. Vs. Omogbehin (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 187) 596.

The Court of Appeal held that while an interim injunction could be granted at the instance of the applicant, basically on exparte application, an interlocutory injunction can only be granted on a motion on notice where the respondent has an opportunity of replying to the motion. This is because at the stage of interlocutory injunction, the motion is no more exparte but inter- parties.

Also in Nigerian Industrial Development Bank. Vs. Olaloni Industries Ltd (1995) 9 NWLR (pt.419)) 338 where Abdullahi JCA (as he then was) held thus:- ‘’ Be that as it may, it appears to me that there is an indiscriminate use of the words ‘’interim injunction’’ and interlocutory injunction’’, even though they are not synonymous, in the sense that an interim injunction is really Interim in nature in that it is more appropriately and generally applied for and granted on exparte application in an emergency situation, while on the other hand, an interlocutory injunction is applied for pending the determination of a substantive suit or an appeal.

I think a number of legal practitioners and some of the Courts are tempted to make a general assumption that since both expression ‘’interim and interlocutory’’ share a common feature in the sense that a particular action or a thing is suspended until some future date, then the expression can be interchangeable. I think this is a wrong assumption. Each of the two expression should be given effect to what it stands for. Interim to be interim and serve the emergency situation for which it has been designated and interlocutory should be understood in the context for which it is designated.’’It is submitted with utmost sense of responsibility that His Lordship as he then was aptly captured the true meaning of the two expressions. Therefore, it is established that interim injunction is granted exparte and it cannot outlive an interlocutory injunction which is granted on notice. With the copious authorities cited on the issue, it is now obvious that one is more interim than the other despite the fact that they both have interim in their meaning. An interim injunction ideally last for few days, an interlocutory injunction lasts until judgement is delivered.Listen to Pats-Acholonu JCA ( as he then was) in Global Medicare (UK) Ltd. Vs. Medicair (West Africa) Ltd where His Lordship submitted on the difference between interim and interlocutory injunction thus:- ‘

’ It is important to make clear distinction between an interim and interlocutory injunction. Interim injunction is temporarily persuasive order usually limited to such a time as the motion on notice on the same subject matter will be determined. On the other hand, interlocutory injunction is a prohibitive order the duration of which by its singular nature may be conceived to last till the determination of the matter in the court seised with the proceedings.’’

Going by the legal authorities cited above, the Supreme Court interim injunction granted on the 10th of February, 2023 abates at the next adjourned date which is 16th of February, 2023 as it gives way to the hearing of the motion on notice from which an interlocutory injunction may ensue from and subsists till the final determination of the substantive suit. Thus, there is no outstanding order of the Court which could be violated as alleged by the various opinions on the controversy trailing the newly designed Naira notes cum CBN monetary policy.

I am tempted to submit that going by the defendant’s preliminary objection which is pending before the Apex Court which must be heard first or together with taking the various application on the issue. If the Apex court grants the preliminary objection as sought by the Defendants, that will be the end of the entire saga. But on the contrary, if the apex court grants the application of the applicants, then an interlocutory injunction must have ensued which is capable of being violated.