A Magistrate Court sitting at Obehie in Ukwa West Local Government Area of Abia State, has dismissed a motion for interlocutory injunction against the conduct of election into the executive positions of Ikpokwu Youth Association, Ozar West in Ukwa West.
In Suit No. MUK/3/2025, Arch. Enyioko Victor Chinedu has dragged Mr. Light Munachimso Loveday and two others before the Obehie Magistrate Court over the affairs of the Ikpokwu Youth Association.
Ruling on the motion for the interlocutory injunction, the presiding Magistrate, His Worship, Nnenna Nwaogwugwu Ibiama (Mrs), said:
“This is a ruling in respect to a motion brought by the applicant dated 7th day of April 2025 and filed on the 15th day of April 2025 praying this honourable court for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants/respondents, agents, servants or anybody acting for or under them from conducting any election into the executive positions of Ikpokwu Youth Association, Ukwa West LGA, Abia State pending the determination of this suit. Also an order restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering with the affairs of Ikpokwu Youth Association.
According to the Magistrate, the issue for determination was whether the application had garnished the condition for the grant of interlocutory injunction. His lordship maintained that the applicant must establish that he possesses the legal right requiring protection and also that the balance of convenience was in his favour.
“The application needs to show that it is just and equitable to preserve the status quo pending the determination of the substantive suit. The above principle of law has been constantly affirmed by the Supreme Court See KOTOYE VS BANK OF NIGERIA 1989 1 NWLR (PT98) 419, the courts stated.
His lordship, Nnenna Nwaogwugwu Ibiama (Mrs) highlighted that in paragraph 4 of the affidavit in support of the motion, the applicant admitted that his tenure of office expired on the 20th day of August 2024, hence the court did not think he will suffer any damages if the election is conducted by the defendants.
Continuing, the court said, “From the content of the exhibit B there is no where it is explicitly stated/contained that the executives whose tenure has expired will be the one to conduct a fresh election.”
In addition, the Magistrate states, “the court is of the opinion that since the tenure of the applicant Exco has expired that there is nothing to preserve as sought in the application, and therefore ruled: “Based on the above, I hereby dismiss this application and I make no order as to cost.”
