GH - MICHAEL AMAFU-DEY vs MICHAEL AMAFU-DEY

On 13/07/2018 when the writ of summons was taken from the Registry of this Court, apart from the statement of claim field by Plaintiff, he also filed a motion for an order of interlocutory injunction.

The deposition in support is to the effect that Plaintiff/Applicant [herein after referred to as Applicant] has endorsed a number of Reliefs in respect of vehicle with Registration Number GN3478-15. Furthermore, the deposition showed that applicant has worked with respondent Bank for twenty-two years and due to retire on 16/07/2018 on the rank of Executive Advisor, Legal Affairs.

In conclusion, applicant contended that respondent must be restrained from interfering in the manner of use of the vehicle.

And that officers of that rank upon retirement are permitted to buy their official vehicle.

But he is being denied the same opportunity in circumstances that amount to discrimination and this constitute administrative injustice.

There are EXHIBITS ‘MADI, 2, AND 3’ annexed, and this Court has examined them There is an affidavit in opposition, but there is also a counter-motion for interlocutory injunction order in respect of the same vehicle field by the Defendant/Respondent herein.

This motion as filed on 31/08/2018, with an affidavit and statement of case in support.

The relief sought in the motion paper reads: “… Defendant/Applicant herein praying the Court for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining Plaintiff/Respondent from using the Toyota High LANDER vehicle No. GN 3478. ”The deposition in support showed that the manner of use of the vehicle by Plaintiff/Applicant is detrimental to the Defendant/Applicant.

And to prevent waste, and deterioration on the vehicle, defendant contends that applicant must be restrained from using the vehicle.

The facts in the deposition of the defendant are the same as what has been stated in the affidavit in opposition to Plaintiff’s application.

In effect whilst Plaintiff is seeking a prohibitory, injunctive order against defendant, restraining it from interfering with his use of the vehicle, the latter is also seeking a similar order against the former, from using the vehicle.

I have found that the vehicle is presently in the custody of Plaintiff, who has proceeded on retirement effectively from 16/07/2018. The principles, relevant to interlocutory injunction applications apply to this case as well.

It is trite that an applicant must establish on the affidavit evidence that he has a right or interest

In conclusion, applicant contended that respondent must be restrained from interfering in the manner of use of the vehicle.

And that officers of that rank upon retirement are permitted to buy their official vehicle.

But he is being denied the same opportunity in circumstances that amount to discrimination and this constitute administrative injustice.

This motion as filed on 31/08/2018, with an affidavit and statement of case in support.

And to prevent waste, and deterioration on the vehicle, defendant contends that applicant must be restrained from using the vehicle.

The facts in the deposition of the defendant are the same as what has been stated in the affidavit in opposition to Plaintiff’s application.

It is trite that an applicant must establish on the affidavit evidence that he has a right or interest

MICHAEL AMAFU-DEY vs MICHAEL AMAFU-DEY

Areas of Law

RULING