In the 1970s, English law introduced four interim remedies, which were largely adopted by Nigeria, with some modifications. The remedies, decided in a series of cases known as the Quartet of Cases, aimed to provide assistance to parties seeking redress in court. The cases, which included Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs & Excise Commissioners, American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd, Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers, and Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd, revolutionized the way courts handled interim applications. These remedies allowed for the disclosure of information, freezing of assets, and preservation of evidence.
Nigeria adopted two of these remedies, Mareva and Anton Piller, which have been incorporated into the country's laws and rules. The Mareva injunction, which allows for the freezing of assets, has been applied in various cases, including S otuminu v Ocean Steamship (Nig) Ltd, and is now part of the Lagos Rules 2019 and Federal High Court Rules 2019. The Anton Piller order, which permits the preservation of evidence, has also been welcomed in Nigerian courts, as seen in Akuma Industries v Ayman and Okwara v Efanodor. These remedies have benefited banks, oil majors, and trademark owners.
However, Nigeria distorted one of the remedies, American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd, by insisting on a strong prima facie case with probability of success, which is pre-Cyanamid law. The Supreme Court, in cases such as Obeya Memorial Hospital v AG Federation and Kotoye v CBN, has maintained this requirement, which Lord Diplock had abolished to avoid mini-trials on affidavit. This has created a challenge for applicants seeking interim relief.
The fourth remedy, Norwich Pharmacal, has been completely ignored in Nigeria. This remedy, which allows for the disclosure of information, is crucial in cases where a party needs to obtain evidence from a third party. Without Norwich Pharmacal, applicants face a Catch-22 situation, where they are required to show a strong prima facie case to obtain an interim injunction, but need the information to establish that case.
The recent decision in Gadzama v LPDC may potentially provide a constitutional basis for the adoption of the Norwich Pharmacal remedy in Nigeria. The case may unwittingly pave the way for the use of this remedy, which could have significant implications for the country's legal system.
The benefits of the Norwich Pharmacal remedy cannot be overstated. In cases where a party suspects wrongdoing, but lacks evidence, this remedy can provide a crucial lifeline. For instance, if N100 million disappears from a bank and the account holder suspects the manager, the bank holds the logs, but the account holder needs access to this information to establish a strong case.
The interplay between the various interim remedies and the Nigerian legal system is complex. While the country has adopted some of these remedies, the absence of Norwich Pharmacal has created a significant gap. The potential return of this remedy, facilitated by the Gadzama decision, may provide a more comprehensive framework for interim relief in Nigeria.
Key points
- The Gadzama v LPDC decision may provide a constitutional basis for the adoption of the Norwich Pharmacal remedy in Nigeria.
- Nigeria has adopted some English interim remedies, including Mareva and Anton Piller, but ignored Norwich Pharmacal.
- The absence of Norwich Pharmacal has created a Catch-22 situation for applicants seeking interim relief in Nigeria.
