unless the material available to the court at the hearing of the application for
an interlocutory injunction fails to disclose that the plaintiff has any real
prospect of succeeding in his claim for a permanent injunction at the trial, the
court should go on to consider whether the balance of convenience lies in
favour of granting or refusing the interlocutory relief that is sought "
53.
It must be stated in clear terms that the point of law which cannot be over
flogged in the consideration of an interlocutory application is, that the court
should first consider whether, if the plaintiff were to succeed at the trial in
establishing his right
to a permanent injunction, he would be adequately
compensated by an award of damages for the loss he would pave sustained as
a result of the defendants continuing to do what was sought to be enjoined
between the time of the application and the time of the trial.
54.
It has been said that if damages in the measure recoverable at common law
would be adequate remedy and the defendant would be in a financial position
to pay the1n, no interlocutory injunction should normally be granted, however
strong the plaintiff's claim appeared to be at that stage. However, if damages
would not provide an adequate remedy for the plaintiff in the event of his
succeeding at
the
trial, the
interlocutory injunction upon
court would then
consider granting the
an undertaking to pay damages at the final
conclusion of the case.
55. The applicant in her affidavit evidence deposed in paragraphs 2 and 3 that she
was appointed a director of Administration of ECOWAS Executive Secretariat on 20th
March 2000 having been seconded from the Civil Service of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria in the interest of the public and that she was dismissed from the service of
the Executive Secretariat on 2nd September 2004 by the. lst defendant.
56. In reply to those paragraphs the defendants deposed in paragraph 4 of the Court
affidavit the circumstances that caused the 1st defendant to set up a disciplinary
committee to investigate the plaintiff between 24th August 2004 and 27th August 2004