ADORSU AND OTHERS vs. SOKPOLI

JUDGMENT OF APATU PLANGE J. On 28 May 1982, the defendants herein filed a motion in this court for an order that the plaintiff should provide substantial cash security or enter into a bond with justified sureties to secure the payment of any costs that may be awarded against him in this action. The application was brought under the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), Order 65, rr. 4 and 5 and Order 52, r. 1. Counsel for the plaintiff objected to the application on the grounds that under Order 30, r. 5, since the application is being brought after summons for directions, it should have been brought by summons and not by way of motion. He therefore submitted that the application is incompetent and ought to be struck out. Counsel for the defendants in reply submitted that under Order 65, rr. 4 and 5, there is no form provided by which such an application can be brought. He argued that the absurdity of the objection means that an application for interim injunction after ...