Trucks Transit Parks: Court discharges injunction against Onwubuariri

Ogunsakin Mustapha
4 Min Read

The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos Wednesday discharged an injunction which temporarily restrained Mr. Jama Onwubuariri from his position as Managing Director (MD) of Trucks Transit Parks Ltd (TTP).

Justice Akintayo Aluko had on August 11, 2022, made the interim order restraining TTP co-founder Onwubuariri, pending the hearing and determination of the firm’s Motion on Notice in suit FHC/L/CS/1501/2022.

This followed an ex parte application by Chinedu Anaje, holding the brief of Ghoyega Oyewole, SAN.

But Onwubuariri through his counsel, Mrs Funke Agbor, SAN, filed an application seeking a stay of execution and discharge of said injunction.

When the matter came up on August 23, for arguments on the application to discharge the interim order, Agbor argued, among others, that the plaintiff misled the court into granting the order by concealing several material facts.

She contended that the plaintiff did not disclose to the court in the application for injunction, facts such as the existence of an order of status quo earlier granted by Justice Daniel Osiagor also of the Federal High Court on July 20, 2022, respect of the same facts and the violation of the status quo order by the deponent of the affidavit supporting the plaintiff’s ex parte application for the interim order, Mr. Temidayo Adeboye.

Responding, the plaintiff’s counsel opposed the application for discharge, arguing that it made a disclosure of all the relevant facts and prayed the court not to discharge the order.

Upon resumption on Wednesday, Justice Aluko upheld Onwubuariri’s argument that the ex parte injunction against him would not have been granted in the first place if the plaintiff fully disclosed the existence of the order of 20th July 2022 by Justice Osiagor and other matters before the judge.

Justice Aluko held: “The subject matter, in this case, bears great similarity and affinity with the one pending before Osiagor J.

“I agree with the plaintiff’s counsel that the plaintiff made somewhat disclosure in paragraph 26 of the affidavit in support of the ex parte application regarding pending cases between the parties.

“I also agree with counsel to the defendant that such disclosure is not a full disclosure the law expects from an applicant like the plaintiff to get an interim order of injunction by way of ex parte application.

“The seeming disclosure in paragraph 86 of the affidavit in support of the ex parte application is so scanty or inadequate and cannot be described as anything close to disclosure…

“I, therefore, agree with the applicant’s counsel that if all these material facts – which I consider fundamental – were disclosed by the plaintiff before applying for this ex parte order, the order of this court made on the 11th of August 2022, would have been declined.

“The appropriate order to make in the circumstances is one discharging the said order.

“The application hereby succeeds. Consequently, the ex parte order of this court made on the 11th of August 2022 is hereby discharged.”

The suit resumes on September for hearing of pending applications.

Dear readers, we really need your support to keep on serving you with authoritative, truthful, and juicy stories everyday. For your support, please reach out to the editor

Share This Article