A Yola High Court in Adamawa state on Friday dismissed an application seeking to stop the state government from demolishing shops at the Jimeta ultra modern market.
Justice Abdul-Azeez Waziri gave the ruling on the motion exparte brought under order 10 rules 1 and 2 and order 11 rule 2 of the State High Court (Civil Procedure) rules, 2013 and section 6(6) (a) of the 1999 Constitution by Auwal Ahmed Garba through his counsel, Hassan G. Maidawa.
The plaintiff, Garba of Damilu ward in Jimeta, Yola North LGA earlier prayed for the order to restrain the defendants jointly and severally by themselves, their privies and servants from demolishing shops at the Jimeta main market along Mahmud Mustapha way pending the determination of the substantive suit.
Garba joined Adamawa State Government, Attorney General and Commissioner Ministry for Justice, Urban Planning and Development Authority, Yola, Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Usman Daware( Chairman Taskforce Committee on Occupation of Modern Market) as 1st to 5th defendants in a suit brought before the court.
The motion exparte dated and filed on 31st January, 2020, and supported by a 22 paragraph affidavit and attached with 25 exhibits, the plaintiff's counsel, Hassan G. Maidawa, urged the court to grant the application.
While on their part, the defendants respondents upon receiving the said motion, filed a counter affidavit consisting of 18 paragraphs deposed to by Hayatu Abdulmalik, one of the counsels with the ministry of justice, on 20th March, 2020.
When the motion came up for hearing on the 9th March, 2021, the respective counsels to the parties adopted their written addresses as their oral arguments/submissions for and against granting of the application.
Ruling on the motion, Justice Abdul-Azeez Waziri, held that for application to succeed for the grant of an interlocutory injunction, it must show the existence of legal rights; that there is a serious question to be tried in the substantive suit and must show the balance of convenience.
Justice Waziri further stated that the application must show that the damages cannot be adequate compensation for the damage or injury if it succeeds at the end of the day, saying that it must equally show that the conduct is not reprehensible and must establish that the injunction is necessary to preserve the rest which are in imminent danger of being destroyed unless the court intervenes with the order.
He declared that granting such an injunction is within the discretion of the court, and that the court has the duty of exercising discretion judicially and judiciously.
In this circumstance, according to him, the court is unable to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant, saying that the application has failed and is liable to be greeted with an order of dismissal.
However, the court adjourned the case to the 26th March, 2021 for commencement of trial.
Reacting on the ruling, counsels to the plaintiff and defendants respectively, Hassan G. Maidawa and I. S. Barde thanked the court for the ruling.
No comments:
Post a Comment