LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Injunctions — Distinction Between Interim Orders and Interlocutory Injunctions on Ex-Parte Applications
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Ex-parte applications for injunctions are properly interim in nature, made without notice to keep matters in status quo for a short period or until the respondent can be put on notice. They are for cases of real urgency, with emphasis on "real."
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in Unibiz Nigeria Limited v. Commercial Bank Credit Lyonnais Ltd. (2003) NLC-152001(SC) at p. 15; Paras A–D.
"I think it is correct to say that 'ex-parte' in relation to injunctions is properly used in contradistinction to, 'on notice' — and both expressions, which are mutually exclusive, more strictly rather refer to the manner in which the application is brought and the order procured. An applicant for a non-permanent injunction may bring the application ex-parte, that is without notice to the other side or with notice to the other side, as is appropriate. By their very nature, injunctions granted on ex-parte applications can only be properly interim in nature. They are made, without notice to the other side, to keep matters in status quo to a named date, usually not more than a few days, or until the respondent can be put on notice. The rationale of an order made on such an application is that delay to be caused by proceeding in the ordinary way by putting the other side on notice would or might cause such an irretrievable or serious mischief. Such injunctions are for cases of real urgency. The emphasis is on 'real.'"
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Ex-parte injunctions are interim, for real urgency. The principle applies to civil procedure. They are short-term to preserve the status quo. The rule distinguishes between interim and interlocutory injunctions. The court will not grant ex-parte orders without genuine urgency. The principle is well-established.