UNIT 3

INJUNCTION

An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts. It is used to prevent harm that cannot be adequately remedied by monetary damages. Injunctions can be prohibitory (preventing a party from doing something) or mandatory (compelling a party to do something). See section 13 of the High Court Law of Lagos State which provides for the power of the court to grant injunctions and the case of Obeya Memorial Specialist Hospital v. A-G Federation (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 60) 325, where the Supreme Court emphasized the need for the applicant to show a prima facie case. The principles for granting injunctions includes the following;

1. There must be a serious issue to be tried.
2. Damages would not be an adequate remedy.
3. The balance of convenience must favor the applicant.
4. The applicant must make an undertaking to pay damages if it is later found that the injunction should not have been granted.

TYPES OF INJUNCTIONS

1. Interim or interlocutory injunctions: These are temporary orders issued before the final determination of the case. They are meant to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable damage. See the case of Kotoye v. CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419, where the Supreme Court laid down the principles for granting interlocutory injunctions.
2. Perpetual injunctions: These are permanent orders issued after the final determination of the case. They are meant to provide a lasting remedy. See the case of Akaninwo v. Nsirim (2008) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1093) 439, where the court granted a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s property.

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

Specific performance is an equitable remedy that compels a party to perform their contractual obligations. It is usually granted when damages are inadequate to compensate for the breach of contract. See the case Odusoga v. Ricketts (1997) 7 NWLR (Pt. 511) 1, the court granted specific performance for the sale of land, emphasizing the unique nature of real estate which makes damages inadequate and the case of Okafor v. Nnaife (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 64) 129, where the Supreme Court ordered specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. Principles for Granting Specific Performance includes the following;

1. The contract must be valid and enforceable.
2. There must be mutuality of obligation.
3. Damages must be an inadequate remedy.
4. The applicant must have performed or be willing to perform their part of the contract.

RESCISSION

Rescission is an equitable remedy that cancels a contract and returns the parties to their pre-contractual position. It is granted in cases of misrepresentation, mistake, duress, undue influence, or breach of a fundamental term. See the case of Ojukwu v. Umezurike (2004) 2 NWLR (Pt. 855) 234, where the court granted rescission on the grounds of misrepresentation and the case of Alhaji Musa v. Alhaji Auta (2000) 4 NWLR (Pt. 652) 579, where the court rescinded a contract for the sale of land due to fraudulent misrepresentation. Principles for Granting Rescission includes the following;

1. There must be grounds for rescission such as misrepresentation or mistake.
2. The party seeking rescission must act promptly.
3. Restitution must be possible.

RECTIFICATION

Rectification is an equitable remedy that allows the correction of a written document to reflect the true intention of the parties. It is granted where there is a mutual mistake or where one party’s intention has been fraudulently or erroneously recorded. See the case of Tsokwa Oil Marketing Co. v. B.O.N. Ltd (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt. 777) 163, where the court granted rectification of a lease agreement to reflect the true intention of the parties and the case of Obasuyi v. Business Ventures Ltd (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 658) 668, where the court rectified a contract due to a mutual mistake. Principles for Granting Rectification includes the following;

1. There must be a mutual mistake or a mistake induced by one party.
2. The true intention of the parties must be clearly established.
3. There must be clear evidence of the mistake.

DELIVERY UP

Delivery up is an equitable remedy that compels a party to deliver up possession of property or documents to another party. It is often used in cases involving intellectual property or where property has been wrongfully retained. See the case of Niger Chemists Ltd v. Nigeria Chemists (1961) 1 All NLR 171, where the court ordered the delivery up of infringing goods in a trademark case and the case of Amadi v. Nwosu (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 241) 273, where the court ordered the delivery up of a title deed wrongfully retained. Principles for Granting Delivery Up includes the following;

1. There must be a right to possession of the property or document.
2. The property or document must be wrongfully retained by the defendant.

CANCELLATION OF DOCUMENTS

Cancellation of documents is an equitable remedy that nullifies a document to prevent its misuse or fraudulent use. It is often sought where a document has been fraudulently obtained or is being fraudulently used. See section 5 of the Conveyancing Act 1881, applicable in Nigeria, which gives the court power to order the cancellation of documents in cases of fraud or mistake and see also the case of Onyekaonwu v. Ekwubiri (1966) 1 All NLR 32, where the court cancelled a deed of assignment obtained by fraud and the case of Anakwenze v. Louis Mbanefo & Sons Ltd (1995) 7 NWLR (Pt. 410) 744, where the court cancelled a power of attorney obtained by undue influence. Principles for Granting Cancellation of Documents includes the following;

1. There must be evidence of fraud or misuse.
2. The document must be capable of causing harm if not cancelled.

CONCLUSION

These notes provide a detailed and clear understanding of the equitable remedies of injunction, specific performance, rescission, rectification, delivery up, and cancellation of documents, along with relevant Nigerian cases and statutes.