TEMPLARS i. The Respondents had on October 4, 2015, written, published and

disseminated/transmitted on their webslte a publication captioned "$50 billion oil fraud: Diezani, Aliko, Aiteo, Sahara Energy, Omokore, Wagbatsoma for trlal"contalnlng false,

injurious and defamatory/libelous words concerning the Applicant.

Also on the October 6, 2015, written, published and disseminated/transmitted on their

webslte a publication captioned "How Sahara Energy fraudulently acquired Egbln Power Plant" containing false, injurious and defamatory/libelous words concerning the Applicant.

iii. Both malicious and injurious publications are the subject matter of this instant suit

before this Honourable Court.

iv. Upon the dissemination/transmission of both publications on their website, the

Applicant promptly and respectively objected to both malicious and Injurious publications and demanded that the Respondents expunge the libelous words from the publication or take down the entire publication. Unfortunately, the Respondents

have failed refused and/or neglected to comply with the Applicant's reasonable and

noble request.

v. Both publications which were accessed by a large but unquantifiable number of

persons globally, particularly in Lagos, have inflicted grave injury to the business

interest and goodwill of the Applicant.

vi. It is highly expedient that this application be granted and the Respondents are

enjoined from further publishing and/or transmitting/disseminating the same or similar

defamatory/libelous publications against the Applicant pending the determination of

this suit.

e4ç ADEWALEATAKE J

GODWIN OMOAKA

EVANS OGBEIDE

IZUCHUKWU OHAJINWA

Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant

TEMPLARS & ASSOCIATES

5th Floor, the Octagon

13A, A.J. Marinho Drive

Victoria Island Annex, Lagos

Tel: 01.2799398

Email: wtake@tem2Iat -1w&Qm

OCTOBER, 2015

D TRUE COP?

Page 2 of 20

1ST DEFENDANTS

MR. JACKSON UDE

224 W.35'1 'STREET NEW YORK,

NY 10001,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

2N0 DEFENDANTS

MR. BEN YOUNG

224 W.35'1' STREET NEW YORK,

NY 10001,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

3R0 DEFENDANTS

UDUMA MBA

224W.35t1' STREET NEW YORK,

NY 10001,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

4TH DEFENDANTS

POINT BLANK NEWS

224 W.35th STREET NEW YORK,

NY 10001,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

TEMPLARS 10

CCRTIFIED TRUE COPY

Page 3 of 20

TEMPLAS IN THE HIGH COURT LAGOS STATE

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

I SUIT N0...................

BETWEEN

SAHARA ENERGY RESOURCES LIMITED - CLAIMANT/APPLICANT

AND

5. MR. JACKSON UDE

6. MR. BEN YOUNG DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

7. UDUMA MBA

8. POINT BLANK NEWS

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION ON NOTICE

I, Emmanuel Gbahabo Male, Christian, Nigerian Citizen, of 7 Oluwa/Fowler Road, Ikoyi, Lagos,

do hereby make oath and state as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. I am a General Manager in the employment of Sahara Energy Resources Limited, the

Applicant herein and Head of the Legal Department of the Applicant company.

2. I have the consent and authority of the Applicant; my employer, to make this affidavit

in support of this application for interlocutory injunction.

3. By virtue of my position aforesaid, I am familiar with the facts and matters in issue in

these proceedings. The facts and matters to which I depose to in this affidavit are

derived partly from my personal knowledge, and partly from the documents and

sources to which reference is made in the body of this affidavit. Where the facts are

within my knowledge, they are true and where the facts are not within my knowledge,

I verily believe them to be true.

CERTIFIED TRUE COPY

Page 4 of 20

m444qss*.

TEMPLARS PARTI ES

4. The Applicant is a privately owned company incorporated under the laws of the

Federal Republic of Nigeria, and having its registered office at No. 7 Oluwa/Fowler

Road, lkoyi Lagos. The Applicant is a leading oil trading company and an affiliate of the

Sahara Group of companies, a conglomerate with substantial interests in Power,

Energy, Gas and Infrastructure and actively operating in the downstream, midstream,

upstream, infrastructure and power sectors. The Applicant has offices overseas and

customers in Nigeria, Ghana, Cote D'Iviore, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom,

Switzerland and Singapore and substantial business interests and contracts in the

United States of America.

5. The 1st 2nd and 3dRespondents are journalists and respectively hold the positions of

"Publisher", "Senior Editor, Africa" and "Editor, Nigeria" in the publication of contents

hosted on the URL "ww.wpointsb!anknews.com" ("the website"). The 15t 2nd and 3rdRespondents jointly and severally manage, control, edit, and transmit/disseminate all

contents found on the website.

6. The 4thlRespondent owns and hosts the website, an online news and information

resource center, and has its head office at 224 W.35th Street New York, NY 10001, USA.

THE LIBELOUS PUBLICATIONS

7. On October 4, 2015, the Respondents published and disseminated on their website,

www.pointblanknews.com a publication captioned: "$50 Billion Oil Fraud: Diezani,

Aluko, ,4iteo, Sahara Energy, Omokore, Wagbatsoma for Trial", which contains several

false, defamatory, and injurious statements in connection with an alleged impending

trial of a former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Mrs Dieziani Allison-Madueke, for

fraud and money laundering.Copy of the said publication is hereby attached as marked

Exhibit PBN 1.

8. In the said publication, the Respondents wrote, published and disseminated of and

concerning the Applicant, on their website www.pointblanknews.com, particularly on

the U RL: http://pointblanknews.com/pbn/exclusivel5 obiIlion-oil-frauci-diezanialuko-

omokore-aiteo-sahara-energy-omokore-wagbatsoma-for-trial/ the following false,

defamatory and injurious words:

"$50 Billion Oil Fraud: Diezani, Aluko, i4iteo, Sahara Energy, Omokore,

Wagbatsoma for Trial"

CERTIFIED TRUE Copy

I'ie 5 01:20

TEMPLAIS 1~7s "... Others slated to face trial for varying degrees of fraud and

money laundering are: Transfigura which is unable to account for

$8omillion, Ontario Oil which defrauded the oil sector of $135million, Aiteo

$15omillion, Sahara Energy $12 omillion and Ocean Marines, PPP Fluid

Mechanics. Those linked to the companies are: Ton ye Cole, Tope Osinubi, 61 Ade Odunsi, Tunde Ayeni, ldahosa Wells Okunbo, Walter Wagbatsoma,

Benny Peters."

9. Curiously, on October 6, 2015, barely 48 hours after its initial publication, the

Respondents launched another scathing and malicious attack against the person and

good will of the Applicant on its website. By a publication captioned: "How Sahara Energy fraudulently acquired Egbin Power Plant", the Respond entswrote, published

and disseminated of and concerning the Applicant, the following false, defamatory and

injurious words on the website www.pointblanknews.com particularly on the

U R L: h ttp://poin tblanknew5.comjpbn/excluive/howsaharaenergy-frauciu ten tl -

acquired-egbin-power-plant/

"Fresh facts have emerged as to how Sahara Energy, an oil services company, fraudulently acquired the biggest power plant in Nigeria at Egbin, Ijede, in Lagos state.

Sahara Energy, owned by Tope Shonubi, Ton ye Cole, and Acie Odunsi, is one of the big players neck deep in the large scale fraud in the oil sector. The trio benefited immensely from former petroleum minister, Diezani Alison-Madueke sleazy administration.

Point blanknews.com learnt that the $1.2 Billion asset was purchased for a paltry sum of $470 million with the connivance of some rogue officials...

NNPC had requested Sahara Energy, with its Switzerland subsidiary, Sahara International Pte Limited at 7, Quai du Mont-Blanc, Geneva to refund N6.034 billion ($37.5 million) of subsidies unless a 'credible explanation' can be provided on the subject it oil swap transactions. They never did.

A Swiss report stated that Sahara Energy is entirely unable to justify a bank statement showing another $33.7 million while it is among the companies that have not imported the quantities that they should have but who have nevertheless been able to continue their importing activities with flagrant impunity...

The Egbin Power Plant was sold on the basis of a willing buyer and willing seller basis while all the other power plants were sold via bids from various investors.

The intended sale was not announced to the potential investors thereby making the transaction less than transparent.

Page 6 of 20 CERTIFIED TRUE COPY

1' TEMPLARsSg/i

Also, the NERC rule specifically dictates that no distribution company should own more than 20M Ws of generation.

The Sahara group via KEPCO Energy Limited owns majority shares of both the Egbin Power Plant and Ikeja Distribution Company. Do understand that these rules were put in place to protect the country.

Owning the largest power plant and distribution company in the country definitely poses a national security risk and could be used as economic sabotage if and when the company is negotiating with the Government.

This is evident with the numerous threats made by Sahara to NERC that It will refuse to pay the Bulk Trader collections from its Ikeja Disco if Egbin is not paid in full. Actions like this could severely hamper the privatization process.

This transaction has been on the fore front of many allegations including a petition about this transaction submitted to the EFCC in December 2007 but never followed up upon..."

Copy of the said publication is hereby attached as marked Exhibit PBN 2

10. The words complained of at http://polntblanknews.comJpbn/exclusive/how-sahara- energy-fraudulentIy-acquired-egbin.power-plant/were in their natural and ordinary

meaning, meant and were understood to mean as follows:

I. The Applicant acquired Egbin power plant, ljede in Lagos State by means of fraud; ii. The Applicant is neck deep in the large scale fraud in the oil sector;

iii. The Directors of the Applicant benefited immensely from former petroleum

minister; Diezani Alison-Madueke's sleazy administration; iv. Egbin power plant was purchased with the connivance of some rogue officials; V. NNPC had requested the Applicant, with its Switzerland subsidiary, Sahara

International Pte Limited at 7 Quai du Mont-Blanc, Geneva to refund N6.034 billion million) of subsidies and they never did;

vi. The Applicant is entirely unable to justify a bank statement showing another $33.7 million

vii. The Applicant is among the companies that have not imported the quantities of petroleum products that they should but who have nevertheless been able to

continue their importing activities with flagrant impunity; viii. The Applicant and its affiliated companies via KEPCO Energy Limited owns majority

shares of both the Egbin Power Plant and Ikeja Distribution Company; ix. The Applicant poses a national security risk and is capable of economic sabotage

against the Government of Nigeria;

CERTIFIED TRUE COPY

Page 7 of 20

TEMPLARS

X. The Applicant is in the habit of threatening NERC and has made numerous threats

to the industry Regulator NERC that it would refuse to pay legitimate collections

to the Bulk Trader;

xi. The Applicant's actions threaten the privatization process in Nigeria;

xii. This transaction has been on the fore front of many allegations including a petition

to the EFCC in December, 2007 but was never followed up upon by the EFCC.

11. At all material times, the website was open to general access by any user of the World

Wide Web and attracts a wide range of viewers from all over the globe.

12. At all relevant times the World Wide Web had millions of users all of whom had free

and open access to the words complained of. It can be inferred that a iiarge but

unquantifiable number of users read the publications. In particular the Respondent

transmitted and published or caused to be transmitted and published the articles

captioned "$50 Billion Oil Fraud: Diezani, Aluko, Aiteo, Sahara Energy, Omokore,

Wagbatsoma for Trial"and "How Sahara Energy fraudulently acquired Egbin Power

Plant" to the Applicant's business partners, bankers, and employees and their families

and friends in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.

13. By the Respondent's own account, the website can be assessed by a "minimum [of]

half a million page views from fifty thousand unique visitors daily". Copy of the

Respondents' "About Us" page, printed from the Respondents' website, which

describes their activities is hereby attached and marked Exhibit PBN3

14. The words set out in Paragraph 5 above were transmitted and/or caused to be

transmitted and published by the Respondents at terminals on the World Wide Web

from date of their publication till date.

15. The words complained of at http://pointblanknews.com/pbn/exclusive/5 o hill ion-oll-

fraud-diezan Vat uko-omokore-aiteo-sctharc1-energy-Qmokore-wagbatsoma-for-trial/ were

in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant and were understood to mean that the

Applicant and its directors were slated to face trial for varying degrees of fraud and

money laundering and particularly for defrauding the oil sector to the tune of

$120million connected with a $50 billion oil fraud alongside Diezani, Aluko, Aiteo,

Omokore, Wagbatsoma.

CERTIFIED TRUE COPY 16. Further or alternatively as the Respondents well knew, once the articles were

published on the World Wide Web, they could and would be accessed by a substantial

but unquantifiable number of subscribers to the following other online news websites

in Nigeria and around the world:www.nairalancLcom, www.abusidiqu.com;

www.new5247.com.ng, www.nigerianewspapers. coma nd www.noijadailies.com which.

republished the words complained of at the following URLs:

Page 8 of 2o

L1i .

TEMPLAR

i. http://www. nairaIancLcon'26412 69/5 obi!Iion-QiI-fraucI-ciiezani-aluko; ii. http://abusiciiqu.com/sobiIlion-oiI-fraud-diezani-5-others-to-face-trial/;

iii. http;//www. news247.com.ng/news/5obi!Iion-oiJ-fraud-embatt!eddiezc2ni-

insoup/;

iv. https://nigerianewspapers.com,ng/how-sahara-energy-fraudulently-acqu[red egbln

Wanttand V. http://nzlJaclaIIies.corn/How-SaharaEnergy:frauduIentJy-acquircd-EgbInpId nt

17. The Respondents knew and intended that the said articles should be so republished

and/or such republications were the natural and probable consequences of the

Respondents publications of the articles on the World Wide Web.

18. The Applicant limits its claims for foreign publication to the foreign countries set out in

Paragraph 1 above where the offending publications are also actionable.

19. Without verification as to the genuineness, veracity or authenticity of the material facts

contained in the above publication, the Respondents recklessly and maliciously

published and disseminated the above false and injurious statements against the

business reputation of the Applicant.

20. Upon the publication of the erroneous and the injurious contents, the Applicant

promptly wrote letters to the Respondents dated 5th and 8th October respectively

demanding that the libelous words be expunged or the entire publications be taken

down, in order to curtail the already spiraling damage to the Applicant's goodwill being

caused by the publication. The Applicant's letters, receipt of which was duly

acknowledged by the Respondents by email, were sent to the 15tResponclents official

email address: jacksonpointblanknews.com on s and 8th October, 2015

respectively. Copies of Applicant's letters dated 5th and 81h October, 2015, respectively,

and the email correspondence between the Claimant and Respondents regarding both

letters are jointly attached and marked Exhibit PBN4 and PBN5 respectively

21. Regrettably, the Respondents have failed, refused and/or neglected to comply with the

Applicant's reasonable and noble request. At all material times prior to the institution

of this action, the Respondents have published and continue to publish and

disseminate the said libelous publication to the injury of the Applicant's business.

CERTIFIED TRUE copy

Page 9 of 20

TEMPLARS

22. None of the above inferences about the Applicant is true. The Respondents recklessly

and maliciously published and disseminated the above publication without recourse to

the Applicant in order to confirm the veracity or authenticity of the contents of the

publication.

PARTICULARS OF LIBEL

23. Tonye Cole, Tope Osinubi, anclAde Odunsi all referenced and highlighted in the above

excerpts from both publication, are the founding partners/proprietors, and remain the

alter-ego of the Applicant. The Respondents knows, or at least is expected to know

that any disparaging comments addressed to them will injuriously impact on the

business interest and goodwill of the Applicant.

24, The Applicant reasonably believes that both publications by the Respondents were

deliberately designed to damage its reputation and that of its affiliated companies in

the market place as well as divert business away from it and its affiliated companies.

25. The Respondents made no attempts to verify the authenticity of the material facts

prior to their publication and circulation knowing fully well that the statements will

tarnish the reputation of the Applicant.

26. By uploading the said libelous publications on its website, the Respondents knew, or at

least is reasonably expected to know, that the publications could be, and would be

assessed by a large but unquantifiable number of subscribers to the World Wide Web

with millions of users, all of whom have access to the words complained of. The

publications were accessed and downloaded by a large but unquantifiable number of

people from all over the globe and particularly in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this

Honourable Court.

CERTIFIED TRUE COPY 27. Given the large number of Media Partners associated with the Respondents, and the

high traffic and visits to its website by the public, the Respondents knew and intended

that the libelous publications would be republished and/or such republication was the

natural consequence of the Respondents' upload of the publication on its website. As

at the time of institution of this action, the publication has been republished on the

aforementioned websites, each of which has its own wide spread outreach.

28. The publications were, by their ordinary and natural meaning calculated to undermine

and lower the Applicant in the estimation of every right thinking member of the

society. The said publications were recklessly published and disseminated to third

parties and are highly defamatory/libelous of the Applicant.

Page io of 20

!

V TEMPLARS ( 29. In the consequence, the Applicant's reputation has been seriously damaged. Since the

publications were uploaded on the website, the Applicant's proprietors, executives

and staff have received calls and enquiries from friends, relatives and business partners

all over the globe, especially in Lagos, Nigeria.

451 30. The Applicant reasonably believes that unless the Respondents are restrained by this

Honourable Court, the Respondent will further publish or cause to be published, the

said or similar words defamatory of the Applicant.

31. There is a serious question or substantial issue to be tried between the parties in this

suit.

32. The Applicant's conduct in this matter is not reprehensible.

33. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, damages cannot be an

adequatemonetary compensation for the injuries to be suffered by the Applicant is not

restrained to restrain the Respondent from further disseminating/transmitting the said

defamatory/ libellous publications which has greatly decimated the Applicant's

goodwill, corporate image, integrity.

34. That the balance of convenience is in favour of the Applicant. For the following

reasons, the Applicant will suffer more hardship if the Respondents are not restrained

from further writing, printing, publishing, and transmitting/disseminating the said

defamatory/libelous publication or similar publications:

Since the publication of this article, the staff of the Applicants have been a

subject of constant ridicule in the oil and gas industry and this will continue so

long as the Respondents are not restrained from further publication of

defamatory/libelous matter; CERTIFIED TRUE COPY

Most of the Applicant's current business associates and partners from around

the globe have become hesitant to proceed or conclude on pending

transactions with the Applicant for fear of being labelled by the media as

accomplices to the fraudulent acts which the Applicants were falsely alleged to

have committed in the said publications;

iii. So long as these defamatory/libelous publications are allowed to remain on the

said websites, they are prone to constant republication by any other media

platforms hence occasioning further decimation of the corporate image of the

Applicant;

Page ii of 20

TEMPLAR iv. Given the fact that the Respondents were able to upload two highly injurious

and defamatory publications against the Applicant within a space of .8 hours,

there is the plausible fear that the Respondents may further upload similar

defamatory/libelous publications to the detriment of the Applicant's corporate

image;

35. The Respondents have little or nothing to lose if they are restrained from further

writing, printing, publishing and transmitting/disseminating of the said

libelous/defamatory publications or similar publications..

36. The Applicant undertakes to indemnify the Respondents for any damages that they

may suffer if it turns out that the order of interlocutory injunction ought not to have

been made in the first place.

37. At the hearing of this Application, the Applicant shall be relying on all documents

pleaded in the Statement of Claim

38. I make this Affidavit in good faith, conscientiously believing same to be true and

correct and In accordance with the Oaths Act, Cap. 01, Laws of the F -ation of

Nigeria, 2004. /7

DEPONENT

SWORN to at the High Court Registry, Lagos

Thisay of October, 2015

CERTIFIED TRUE COPY

o s BEFORE Of 0

ato

OS

011

COMMISSIONER ORO VHVPO~

Page 12 of 20

i,umt.. ...._ .-w in

, IN THE HIGH COURT LAGOS STATE

TEMPLAR

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BETWEEN

IM SAHARA ENERGY RESOURCES LIMITED

AND

714~~ r

1. MR. JACKSON UDE

2. MR. BEN YOUNG

3. UDUMA MBA

4. POINT BLANK NEWS

WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION ON NOTICE

1. Introduction: CERTIFIED TRUE copy 1.1. These are the Claimant/Applicant's(Applicant) Written Submissions In support of the Motion on

Notice for Interlocutory Injunction dated 12th October, 2015 (the application).

1.2. The application is brought pursuant to the provisions of Order 39 Rule of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2012, and under the Inherent jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.

1.3. In this application, the Applicant seeks the following relief from the Court:

1. AN ORDER OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION restraining the Respondents whether

by themselves, agents, servants, privies or otherwise from publishing or causing to

be published, whether on, by and/or through their website or any other medium, the

defamatory/libellous publication dated October 4, 2015 and captioned "$50 Billion Oil Fraud: Dtezani, Aluko, Aiteo, Sahara Energy, Omokore, Wagbatsoma for Trial and the defamatory/libellous publication dated October 6, 2015 and captioned "How Sahara Energy fraudulently acquired Egbln Power Plant" or any words similarly defamatory of the

Applicant pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

ii. AND FOR SUCH ORDER OR OTHER ORDERS as this Honourable Court may deem fit t'o make in the circumstances

Page 13 of 20

V TEMPLARS o_lz 1.4. The application is supported by a 34 paragraphs affidavit deposed to by Emmanuel Gbahabo,

the Group I-lead, Legal of the Applicant.

1.5. In arguing this application, the Applicant shall rely on all paragraphs of the supporting affidavit,

the Exhibits attached as well as these Written Submissions.The facts upon which the

application is predicated are as contained in the affidavit in support of this application.

2. ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

2,1. The Applicant submits that given the facts and circumstances of this case, the sole issue which

falls for determination is:

"Is this a proper case in which this Honourable Court should exercise its discretion to

grant interlocutory reliefs being sought in this application?"

3. ARGUMENTS ON THE ISSUE:

a. It is our humble submission that this Honourable Court has the unfettered discretion to

grant an interlocutory injunction in deserving circumstances. We submit further that the

present case constitutes a deserving case for which the Court can grant the interlocutory

Injunction sought.

b. My Lord, the conditions to be satisfied by an Applicant for interlocutory injunction have

been laid down by our courts in a plethora of judicial authorities. These conditions are:

1 COE

ii) Whether there is a serious question to be tried; oc iii) Whether the balance of convenience is in favour of granting the application;

iv) Whether damages will be an adequate compensation for the Applicant's

damage or injury;

v) Whether there is a need to keep matters in status quo;

vi) Whether the applicant has given a satisfactory undertaking as to damages

vii)Whethcr the applicant's conduct is reprehensible

c. The Applicant respectfully refers the Honourable Court to the cases of Obeya Memorial

Hospital v. A.G. Federation & Anor. [1987] 3 NWLR (Pt. 60) 325 @ para. G;Kotoye v. CBN

(1989)1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419; Globe Fishing Ind. Ltd. v. Coker (1990] 7 NWLR (Pt. 162) 265;

Oyeyemi v. Ircwole Local Government, Ikire (1995] , NWLR (Pt. 270) 462;Akapo v. HaLceem

Habeeb [1992] 6 NWLR (Pt. 191) 266; Buhari v. Obasanjo [2003] 17 NWLR (Pt.80) 587 @452,

paras. A-D; Unibiz (Nig.) Ltd. v. CBCL Ltd. (2003) 6 NWLR (Pt. 816) 402 @ 430, para. D, 431;

para.D.

Page 14 of 20

I) Whether there is a legal right to be protected;

TEMPLAI

d. My Lord, we shall demonstrate in the subsequent parts of this written submission that the

Applicant has fulfilled the requirement of the law as decided in the above cited and other

decided cases.

THE APPLICANT HAS LEGAL RIGHTS/SERIOUS QUESTIONS TO BE TRIED

e. It is settled law that a court will grant an interlocutory Injunction to protect the violation of

an Applicant's legal right. Thus, an Applicant must show his entitlement to a cognizable

legal right for which he seeks injunctive protection of the court. In Reckitt & Colman Ltd. v.

Gongoni f2001J 8 NWLR (Pt. 716) 592 the court held at p. 612, para. D-E as follows:

"All that an applicant for a relief for Injunction, interlocutory or

otherwise, needs to establish first is that he has a legal right which

ought to be protected pending the determination of the

substantive action and second that there is a serious issue on the

evidence before the court between the parties to be tried in the

substantive action..."

f. We submit that in demonstrating the existence of a "serious question to be tried", the

Applicant is not necessarily required to prove that the case will succeed on the merits but

that there is "a right threatened which needs to be protected pending the hearing of the

case". See Reckitt & Colman Ltd. v. Gongoni(supra); Oyeyemi v. lrewole Local Government,

Ikire (supra) at 477-478, Paras. C-A; and Kotoye v. CBN (supra).

g. In considering this requirement, the Applicant respectfully refer Your Lordship to

particularlyparagraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,

27, 28 29and 300f the affidavit in support of this application.

h. The gist of those paragraphs is that the Applicant is a one of the major players in the oil and

gas industry and has built an enviable reputation, goodwill, credibility and corporate image

over the years making it one of the forces to be reckoned with in the industry. The

corporate image built over the years has being brazenly violated by the online

defamatory/libelous publications of the Respondents on their website:

www.pointblanknews.com. In the publications, the Respondents had libelled the Applicant

by portraying it as a fraudulent organisation who engages in all manner of fraudulent

practices and whose actions represent a major threat to the Government of Nigeria

Respondents. The Applicant was further falsely portrayed as one of the fraudulent players

in the oil and gas sector to be tried along with the former Minister of Petroleum Resources.

All attempts by the Applicant to make the Respondents retract the injurious publications

and/or desist from further publication of libellous materials against it has proved abortive,

hence the institution of this action.

CERTIFIED TRUE COpy

Page 15 of 20

4

TEMP LA kS I. In the circumstances therefore, it is respectfully submitted, that the Applicant has a legal

right which ought to be protected. The case In support of this right is aptly made out from

the supporting affidavit of Emmanuel Gbahabo which raises serious triable issues

bordering on the right of the Applicant, which it seeks the protection of this Honourable

Court.

THE BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE IS IN FAVOUR OF GRANTING THE APPLICATION.

j. An Applicant for an order of interlocutory injunction must demonstrate that the balance of

convenience Is In favour of granting the application. See Buhari v. Obasanjo (supra); Ejio for

v. Emejulu [2008] 17 NWLR (Pt. 1117) 459 @ 661.

k. In the affidavit in support of the application, particularly paragraph 34, the Applicant has

aptly demonstrated why the balance of convenience is in its favour. Clearly, the ongoing

decimation of the corporate image and business interest of the Applicants weighs strongly

against any rights or freedom of expression that the Respondents may have.

As indicated in paragraph 35 of the Affidavit, the Applicant and Its staff have been an

object of scorn and ridicule within the International community and the oil and gas

industry; most of its partners and business associates are currently foot-dragging with

regards to pending transactions with the Applicant for the fear of being labelled

accomplices In the fraudulent acts which the publication falsely alleges against the

Applicant. In the consequence, the business interest of the Applicant is greatly affected

negatively and is most likely to continue the Respondents are not restrained from the

continual writing, printing, publishing and transmission/dissemination of the said

publications or similar publications. In any event, the Respondents stand to lose little or

nothing by the grant of this Application especially when weighed against the monumental

damage being occasioned on the business Interest and corporate image of the Applicant.

m. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully submits that the balance of convenience in this

action weighs in favour of the Applicant whose business interest and goodwill is currently

being decimated by the publications currently being transmitted/disseminated on the

Respondents' website. Accordingly, justice of this case demands that the Respondents be

enjoined from further writing, publishing, disseminating/transmitting the said publications

or similar defarnatory/libelloLls publications which continually ruin the business interest of

the Applicant for no justifiable cause. CERTIFIED TRUE COPY

THERE CAN BE NO ADEQUATE MONETARY COMPENSATION FOR THE APPLICANT'S DAMAGE

OR INJURY.

n. The law is settled that an Applicant for an interlocutory injunction is also required to show

that damages will not be adequate compensation. The Supreme Court in Saraki v.

Kotoye(19901 4 NWLR (Pt. 143) 144 at 187 explained what the court Is expected to look out

for in determining irreparable damage In the context of an application for interlocutory

injunction. Agbaje, JSC stated as follows:

Page 16 of 20

Lop

TEMPLARS

"In the context of an application for interlocutory injunction, It Is

necessary to bear in mind the meaning of the expression "an

irreparable injury" and when such injury is established or not

established as the case may be. Volume 21 Halsbury's Laws of

England 3rd Edition P. 352 paragraph 739 says as to the meaning of

irreparable injury - by the term "irreparable damage" is meant

injury which is substantial or materialand could never be

adequately remedied or atoned for by damages, not In jury which

cannot possibly be repaired and the fact that the Applicant may

have a right to recover damages is no objection to the exercise of

the jurisdiction by injunction, if his rights cannot be adequately

respected or vindicated by damages". See also Victory Merchant

Bank v. Pelfaco Ltd.f19931 9 NWLR (Pt. 317) 340 @ 355."

o. My Lord, going by the affidavit in support of this Application, it is beyond cavil, that there

can be no sufficient pecuniary compensation for the grave depleting effect of the

Respondents' false and malicious publications on the business Interest of the Applicant. My

Lord, it is submitted that no amount of monetary compensation will atone for the damage

that would have been done the Applicant's interest by the Respondents' actions. As the

saying goes, "take a man's money, he can get it back, but take his dignity, it's all gone".

p. My Lord, just as In man, the dignity of the Applicant is comprised in the Applicant's long

standing corporate Image which it has laboured to build over the years, hence allowing the

said publications to continually run on the Respondents' website, during this pendency of

this suit will most certainly have a devastating effect on its corporate image for which

there can never be an adequate monetary compensation for the Applicant Thus, we urge

this Honourable Court to grant the injunction on this score.

WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN AN UNDUE DELAY IN BRINGING THIS APPLICATION AND THE

APPLICANT'S CONDUCT IS REPREHENSIBLE.

q. My, Lord, it is also trite law that one of the conditions considered by a court In exercising its

discretionon whether or not to grant an injunction of this nature is the conduct of the

applicant. See Saraki v Kotoye (supra)

r. In the instant case before Your lordship, the Applicant has shown by the affidavit in

support of the application that immediately it became aware of the Respondents' false and

malicious publications, it did not take the laws into its hands but immediately took steps to

make the Respondents rectify the wrong by writing the Respondents on both the 5th and

8th October, 2015 respectively, demanding that the Respondents immediately expunge the

defamatory/libelous words from the said publications or in the alternative take down the

entire publication.

TRUE COpy :

Page 17 of 20

s. On the other hand, the Respondents have demonstrated grave and highly reprehensible

conduct by their blatant failure, refusal and/or neglect to either expunge the unwarranted

and highly defamatory words from the said publications or take down the entire

publication In line with the Applicant's demands in their said letters, thus rebuffing all

attempts by the Applicant hence the instant action.

t. Accordingly, the Applicant is constrained to bring this timeous application because of the

recalcitrant stance of the Respondents and It will serve the best course of justice if the

Respondents are restrained from further publishing and transmitting/disseminating the

said publication at the expense of the Applicant's business interest pending the

determination of this suit.

u. Against the above backdrop, we submit that the Applicant has not, In any manner

whatsoever conducted itself in a reprehensible manner and should therefore be entitled to

the grant of the injunctive relief sought herein. Furthermore, the Applicant Is not guilty of

undue delay as the application was filed expeditiously in order to forestall the soaring

devastating effect of this action on the Applicant's corporate image.

v. Accordingly, we urge my Lord to grant the application on this score.

WHETHER THERE IS AN URGENT NEED FOR THE GRANT OF THE INTERLOCUTORY RELIEF.

w. My Lord, it is submitted that if the Respondents are not restrained, their actions would

have an adverse effect on the Applicant whose corporate image and goodwill is currently

under attack by the continued publication and transmission/dissemination of the said

publication on the Respondent's website. Accordingly, we submit that where the resin this

regard (i.e. the goodwill and corporate Image of the Applicant)is threatened, or likely to be

injured, the court has an unfettered discretion to grant an order of injunction in order to

preserve the res which is in imminent danger of being destroyed. See Obeya Memorial

Hospital v. A.G. Federation & Anor (supra) andOlowu v. Building Stock Ltd. [2004] 4 NWLR

(Pt.864)445@ 458 Para E.

x. These facts having been clearly stated in the Affidavit in support of this application, the

Court has a duty to protect the rights of the Applicant and to prevent an irreparable

damage being done to the Applicant. See Olowu v. Building Stock Ltd. (supra);Oyeyeml v.

Irewole Local Govern rnent,l kire (supra); and Llshie v. Edet 12010J 6 NWLR (Pt. 1190) 386.

WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS GIVEN A SATISFACTORY UNDERTAKING AS TO DAMAGES:

y. My Lord, It is trite law that for an Applicant to succeed in obtaining an interlocutory

injunction, he will have to undertake to Indemnify the Respondents in the event that It is

discovered that the interlocutory injunction ought not to have been granted. See Kotoye v

CBN (supra)

CERTIFIED TRUF COPY

Page iS of 20

I.,.

\. .

I ft

z. We refer My Lord, to paragraph 33 of the affidavit In support of this application where the

Applicant has expressly undertaken to Indemnify the Respondents in the event that it is

discovered that the order of Interlocutory injunction ought not to have been made in the

first place. Accordingly, we submit that having given such satisfactory undertaking as to

damages that it is entitled to grant of this application.

CONCLUSION

aa. On the backdrop of the foregoing, we humbly submit that the Applicant has fulfilled all the

requirements for the grant of this Application and accordingly, we urge this Honourable

Court to exercise Its discretion in favour of the Applicant and grant this Application.

bb. We are grateful for My Lord's indulgence.

1111411912.1511

1. Akapo v Hakeem Habeeb [1992] 6 NWLR (Pt. 191) 266;

2. Buhari v. Obasanjo [2003] 17 NWLR (Pt. 850) 587;

3. Ejiofor v. Emejulu [2008] 17 NWLR (Pt. 1117) 459;

4. Globe Fishing Ind. Ltd v. Coker [1990] 7 NWLR (Pt. 162) 265;

5. Kotoye V. CBN (1989]l NWLR (Pt. 98) 419;

6. Obeya Memorial Hospital v. A.G. Federation & Anor [1987] 3 NWLR (Pt. 60) 325;

7. Olowu v. Building Stock Ltd. [2004] 4 NWLR (Pt.864)445;

8. Oyeyeml v. Irewole Local Government, Ikire [1993] 1 NWLR (Pt. 270) 462;

9. Reckitt & Colman Ltd. v. Gongoni [2001] 8 NWLR (Pt. 716) 592;

10. Saraki v. Kotoye [1990] 4 NWLR (Pt. 143)144;

ill Unibiz (Nlg.) Ltd. v. CBCL Ltd. [2003] 6 NWLR (Pt. 816) 402; and

12. Victory Merchant Bank v. Peifaco Ltd.[1993] 9 NWLR (Pt. 317) 340.

DATED THIS 141h OCTOBER, 2015

0 ADEWALEATAKE

GODWIN OMOAKA

EVANS OGBEIDE

p -fr IZUCHUKWU OHAJINWA

Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant

TEMPLARS & ASSOCIATES

5th Floor, the Octagon

13A, A.J. Marinho Drive

Victoria Island Ann'x, Lagos

Tel: 01-2799398

Email: wale,atake@templars-iaw.com

Page 19 of 20

3