The Case That Turned on Four Words

In a groundbreaking 2025 decision, Digbani & Anor v. Ogaji & Ors (2025) LPELR-80689(SC), the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered a crucial lesson for judges, lawyers, and litigants. A court’s intention to grant an injunction is not the same as actually granting one.

The dispute, which began in 1972, centered on a piece of land in Rivers State. The plaintiffs won at trial, and the judge declared:

"I will grant the plaintiffs the injunction sought."

But those words alone did not create an enforceable order. Decades later, the Supreme Court had to decide, was this statement enough to bind the defendants? Their answer reshaped the understanding of injunctions in Nigerian law.

The Supreme Court’s Decisive Ruling

Justice Agim's lead judgment cut through decades of confusion with crystalline clarity:

"For a pronouncement to qualify as an order, it must clearly command or direct a person to do or refrain from doing something."

The Supreme Court identified three fatal flaws in the trial judge ruling:

1. No specified parties: The order failed to identify who exactly was

restrained

2. No prohibited actions: It did not define what conduct was forbidden

3. Future tense fallacy: Using "I will grant" rather than "I hereby grant"

rendered it prospective rather than operative

‍

This trifecta of vagueness meant the supposed "order" was legally stillborn. Despite dismissing the appeal, the Court used its powers under Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act to finally grant the injunction 50 years after the case began.

This was a rare but necessary step to prevent injustice, showing that while courts must be precise, the Supreme Court can correct historic oversights.

The takeaway is unmistakable:

"In law, what matters is not what judges mean to say but what they actually say."

What do you think? Should the Supreme Court have intervened after 50 years, or was this an overreach? Share your perspectives in the comments.