LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Injunctions — Interlocutory Injunction — American Cyanamid Principles
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The applicant for an interlocutory injunction must show that there is a serious question to be tried, that damages would not be an adequate remedy, and that the balance of convenience favours the grant.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogwuegbu, JSC, in Oduntan v. General Oil Limited (1995) NLC-731992(SC) at pp. 6–7; Paras. D–A.
"The most usual basis for the grant of an interlocutory injunction is the need to protect the applicant by preserving the circumstances which are found to exist at the time of his application until the rights of the parties are able to be finally established by proper procedures. This is weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his legal rights from which he could not be adequately compensated in damages if in the end the substantive case is resolved in his favour. The applicant must show that there is a serious question to be tried, that damages would not be an adequate remedy, and that the balance of convenience favours the grant."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The American Cyanamid principles govern interlocutory injunctions. The applicant must show: (1) a serious question to be tried; (2) damages inadequate remedy; (3) balance of convenience favours grant. The principle applies to all interlocutory injunctions. The court does not decide the merits. The rule protects both parties’ interests. The court will consider the strength of the case. The principle is well-established in Nigerian law. The applicant need not show a probability of success, only a serious issue.