LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Injunctions — Interlocutory Injunction — Balance of Convenience — Where There Is Clear Breach of Right
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where there is a clear breach of the respondent's right by the unilateral termination of an agreement, the question of balance of convenience should not arise. The wrongdoer must not be encouraged to believe that he may do a wrongful act on payment of damages.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogwuegbu, JSC, in Oduntan v. General Oil Limited (1995) NLC-731992(SC) at p. 8; Paras. A–C.
"Where there is a clear breach of the respondent's right by the unilateral termination of their agreement, the question of balance of convenience should not arise. The termination of the contract was a deliberate act of the appellant. The appellant must not be encouraged to believe that he may do a wrongful act on the payment of a given sum of money as damages if the application was refused."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The balance of convenience may be irrelevant if there is a clear breach of right. The wrongdoer should not be allowed to continue the breach by paying damages. The principle applies to interlocutory injunctions. The court will protect the applicant’s right. The rule discourages deliberate breaches of contract. The court will not allow a party to profit from its own wrong. The balance of convenience is not an automatic defence. The principle promotes respect for legal rights.