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