CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS
Interlocutory applications cannot be completely discussed without referring to the two different types of injunctions which are Interim injunctions and Interlocutory injunctions. While an Interim injunction is a provisional measure sought during legal proceedings, before trial, an Interlocutory injunction is obtained before, and remains in force until, trial.
1. LEGAL RIGHT: The first challenge an applicant for an injunction has is proving that there is a legitimate right that is in danger and that right ought to be safeguarded. If an applicant for an injunction does not have a legitimate right that the courts have recognized, they cannot award him an injunction. The viability of an injunction claim depends on the presence of conflicting legal rights. In the cases of Ifekwu v Mgbako and Okechukwu v Okechukwu where injunctions were granted in favour of defendants who did not counterclaim; the appeals were successful because the injunctions were not based on any interest or rights claimed, the defendants having not filed counterclaims.
1) SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE TO BE TRIED: This requirement is significant because it brings up a fundamental issue that judges need to be especially aware of. When evaluating an application for an interlocutory injunction, the court should refrain from attempting to settle disputes over affidavits on facts that could ultimately support either party’s claims or from making decisions on complex legal issues that require careful analysis and thorough debate. Stated differently, the court needs to exercise caution when deciding on matters whose resolution could affect the outcome of the substantive complaint. See OBEYA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL VS A.G FEDERATION.
2) BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE: In order to ascertain which side the balance of convenience leans, the court must carefully consider the facts presented in the parties’ affidavits. That is, if the request for an injunction is approved or denied, who will experience greater inconvenience? If the applicant has the greater convenience, an injunction will be granted. See the case of Egbe v Onogun where it was held that the Court would grant an Injunction if the balance of convenience in on the side of the Applicant.
3) IRREPARABLE DAMAGE OR INJURY: In Saraki v. Kotoye, a significant injury that cannot be sufficiently repaired or compensated for by damages was referred to as irreparable damage. In his affidavit, the applicant must present evidence indicating that, should the injunction be denied, he would suffer severe and substantial harm beyond monetary compensation.
4) CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES: In determining an application for interlocutory injunction, the conduct of the parties is one of the relevant factors to be taken into consideration. On the part of an applicant, a reprehensible conduct is enough to deny him a grant of his application. An application for an order of interlocutory injunction should fail if he is guilty of delay. This is because an order of interlocutory injunction is an equitable remedy. It is known that delay defeats equity. An applicant should act timeously so as not to overreach his opponent. In the case of Akapo v. Hakeem Habeeb, the Supreme Court held that where a respondent to an application for injunction relies on the illegality of his actions, he has no right to resist the application of the applicant with a recognized legal right to an order of injunction. This is because injunction, being an equitable remedy, requires that those who come to it must come with clean hands.
5) UNDERTAKING AS TO DAMAGES: A commitment to pay damages in the event that the interlocutory injunction is later determined to have been unwarranted is one of the requirements for the granting of an interlocutory injunction. The undertaking is a legally binding pledge to reimburse the defendant for any potential damages, which will be calculated after the fact. The venture becomes feasible if the plaintiff loses the case on the merits. Nonetheless, the defendant would have to ask the court to investigate the amount of damages incurred as a consequence of the order. If the request for information is not submitted on time, it will be denied.