Abstract
The law with respect to interim injunction constitutes one of the most difficult sections of our law. The difficulty exists not because the law is recondite but because the ascertained principles of law must be subjected at all times to a
rather amorphous combination of facts which are perpetually different in every case. These are not my words. They are the words of G.B.A Coker, JSC in Ladunni v. Kukoyi & Ors (1972) 3 & 4 SC 30 at 33. The grant of an Exparte
Order of Injunction is the exercise of a very extra-ordinary jurisdiction given to a Court to make a temporary Order to meet emergency situations of real urgency, not self-imposed urgency. When granted, such an Order should not be allowed to hang on the opposing party forever. However, this extraordinary jurisdiction has been abused and sometimes misused by a few judicial officers who have made Exparte injunction the most controversial of all temporary Orders. To guide against abuses, the appellate Courts have warned trial Court to exercise caution in granting such an Order. This article seeks to examine the extent of Exparte Order of interim injunction in judicial proceedings. The paper emphasizes the need to balance the discretionary power of Judges in view of the principles of fair hearing that no man is to be condemned unheard. The article concludes with the NJC Policy direction of May 11, 2022 which seeks to prevent the multiplicity of litigations at different Courts of coordinate jurisdiction across the
nation, resulting in conflicting Orders on the same issues and facts. The article recommends that Judges should be alert and careful in granting interim Order of Injunction except in clear and deserving cases.
Keywords: Exparte Order, Interim Injunction, Fair Hearing, Judicial Discretion, Judicial Proceedings