UPDATE: Chocolate City v. Brymo Record Contract Battle | View Official Court Injunction Order/Documents Against Brymo

Folks, below find a copy of the filed injunction by Chocolate City Counsel as well as the accompanying order.

A few things to note:

1. An interim injunction was filed. You use this as opposed to the interlocutory injunction I mentioned  when I did not have much facts, except the quote, when there is an “emergency” like action. Once you are done with this, you follow up with the request for an interlocutory injunction under Nigeria’s legal system.

2. Notice an “Ex parte application” was filed. Typically in litigation, there are long extended periods that each person has to comply with where motions are concerned. Well, if you want someone to stop doing something that is harming you ASAP, you can’t wait for the regular process of the motion mandated by the rules. You need to get into court ASAP and ask the judge for what you want. You do that through an ex parte application. In the US, you MUST notify the other party and there must be a huge urgency to the issue i.e. “irreparable harm or damage” as the legal lingo usually states.

It appears in Nigeria, at the initial request for an interim injunction and going ex parte, you do not need to inform the other side.

So, now we know the battle is real, as I suspected already.

Several other things and then we wrap this up. Brymo, really needs to get off twitter. He claims he was never served a notice of this ex parte application which is supported by the type of injunction filed.

Even better. His lawyer will focus on getting this judgment/order set aside, so long as Brymo gets off twitter and gets working in unison with the lawyer he may hire. I am pretty sure the first thing his lawyer will tell him is to get off twitter because his tweets are and should serve as evidence against him, among other documents/videos he has shared online, as to what appears to be a solid breach of contract claim against him by Chocolate City.

Again AML artists, it is absolutely unacceptable for you to check out of your life’s drama and obstacles by sitting on the sidelines and hoping it all goes away. Worse, talking and talking, and talking on twitter about nothing will not make your issues disappear. Face your fears/issues and beat it down, legally speaking, or at least reduce the bleeding.

(NOTE: This injunction is applicable to Brymo and any and all persons that work in his behalf i.e. his agents, representatives et al. Also note the next court date for this two to duke it out is November 11th, 2013. That is when the Interlocutory Injunction hearing I discussed at the following link will take place:  (ANALYSIS) Should Nigerian Record Labels Like Chocolate City Have the Right to Stop Artists Like Brymo From Recording for Others, Where the Artist Breaches the Label Contract? )

I’ll catch you all sometime next week.

Have a great day. I’m out.

Cheers,
Uduak

Court doc. images/photos via Linda Ikeji

“INTERIM INJUNCTION
By an application for interim injunction, the applicant seeks a temporary order of court to restrain another person from doing an act or series of acts or to command a person to undo an act or series of acts towards the applicant or towards the subject matter of a suit pending the happening of an event-usually the hearing and determination of a motion on notice4. By its very nature, it has a very short lifespan5.

It is only being granted as a temporary measure pending the hearing of an application for interlocutory injunction. The purpose of interim injunction is to leave matters in status quo pending the hearing of the motion on notice.

An application for interim injunction is usually by ex-parte motion supported by an affidavit which must state facts, why the order should be granted without notice to the other party?

There are two main circumstances which, as decided in Leedo v. Bank of the North7 in which an application ex-parte could be made. These are (i) when, from the nature of the application, the interest of the adverse party will not be affected and (ii) when time is the essence of the application. In any of these situations, a court may rightly exercise its discretion by granting a motion ex-parte.

In Ogujiefor v. F.R.N it was stated that interim injunction is not granted as a matter of course because the power of the court to grant it is of a very extra-ordinary jurisdiction. Application for interim injunction may be properly made by a plaintiff in a case of extreme urgency. It should only be used when the case is one of real urgency requiring relief immediately as opposed to relief in a few days.

The applicant is required to file an affidavit to show in his affidavit facts sufficient to show why delay in granting the order sought would entail irreparable damage or serious mischief to him. He must show that there is real urgency what is required is real urgency and not self induced urgency. In Adenuga v. Odunewu11 the court explained “real urgency” to mean urgency between the happening of the event which is sought to be restrained by injunction and the date the application could be heard if taken after due notice to the other side12. Order 8 rule 8 of Oyo State High Court Civil Procedure Rules 1988 provides:

“A motion ex-parte shall be supported by affidavit which in addition to the requirements of rule 3, shall state sufficient grounds why delay in granting the order sought would entail irreparable damage or serious mischief to the party moving”.

It is important to note that the application to succeed, the accompanying affidavit must show the applicant’s legal right which has been breached or the breach of which is being threatened. The application may not be favourably considered unless it is accompanied by a motion on notice asking for interlocutory injunction . . .” NigeriaLaw.Blogspot.com