4) That finally, the sanction of dismissal imposed being consistent with the rules and
procedure in force, the plaintiff has not made full use of the appeal processes provided;
that the revision of the sanction is without effect since the prerequisite of a resignation
has not been fulfilled, the disciplinary measure of 02/09/04 thus remaining applicable.
45. The defendants also point out in their communications of 12 and 13 April 2005
'
that the revision of the sanction is null and void and that the application is
inadmissible vis-a-vis Article 10 of the Supplementary Protocol as to the nonexhaustion of the available appeal processes.
E. CONSIDERATION OF THE ARGUMENTS BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE PARTIES.
46. The issues for consideration in respect of the interlocutory injunction are:
a) whether the applicant has sufficiently justified the granting of the interlocutory
injunction;
b) Whether the defendants have justified the granting of the preliminary objection on the
grounds of incompetence.
c) Whether the granting of the preliminary objection dismisses the substantive matter.
47. On the consideration of the first relief learned counsel relied on several
authorities which provided the legal conditions for the granting of an interlocutory
injunction..
In OBEYA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND ANOR V A.G FED.& ANOR {1987}3
NWLR (PART 60 PAGE 325) ( one of the cases cited by the applicant) , where the
issues before the court were, the purpose of interlocutory injunction and upon what
considerations should a court exercise
its
jurisdiction in favour of an applicant
seeking an interlocutory injunction. The Supreme Court of Nigeria stated that:
a)
The purpose of an interlocutory injunction is to protect a plaintiff against
injury by violation of his for which he could not be adequately compensated
in dan1ages recoverable in the action if the case were resolved in his favour at
the trial, such protection must be weighed against the defendant's need for
protection against injury resulting from his being prevented from exercising
his own legal right if the uncertainty were resolved in the defendant's favour
at the trial; and that,