Environmental Protection: Rights Group, HEDA Secures Restraining Order Against MTN, ATC, IHS

Human and Environmental Development Agenda (HEDA Resource Centre) has secured an order of interim injunction restraining the ATC Nigeria Wireless Infrastructure Limited, and MTN Nigeria Communications from commencing, continuing or completing the or erection or installation of any Base Transceiver Stations/Towers/Masts (“BTS”) within close proximity to IHS’ existing BTS or operating any BTS within close proximity to the IHS’ existing BTS pending the determination of the Motion on Notice for interlocutory Injunction filed by the Centre.

Justice Yellim Bogoro of the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos, granted the order in suit number FHC/L/CS/2359/2023, filed by Incorporated Trustees of HEDA Resource Centre against the Federal Ministry of Environment and Ecological Management (1st Defendant), Minister of Environment and Ecological Management (2nd Defendant), National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (3rd Defendant), ATC Nigeria Wireless Infrastructure Limited (4th Defendant ) and MTN Nigeria Communications Plc.(5th Defendant) respectively.

Justice Bogoro also restrained the 5th Defendant (MTN Nigeria Communications Plc) whether by its servants, agents, privies and/or assigns from moving, relocating, transferring any of its telecommunications equipment to any BTS site being or that has been constructed, erected or built by the 4th Defendant which is in close proximity to the IHS’ existing BTS, pending the determination of the Motion on Notice
for interlocutory injunction.

At the resumed hearing of the matter on Thursday, Mr Adegoke, SAN led the team for the plaintiff, while Mr. Nicholas Okafor appeared for the 4th Respondent (ATC) and Prof Fabian Ajogwu SAN led the team for the 5th Defendant (MTN).

However, the 1st to 3rd Defendants were unrepresented.

The 4th and 5th Defendants’ counsel informed the court that they have pending motions to set aside the ex parte order as well as to dismiss/strike out the suit (preliminary objections).

Mr Adegoke also informed the court about the Plaintiff’s pending motion for interlocutory injunction.

Upon the readiness of all counsel, the court agreed to proceed with the pending applications.

Prof Ajogwu moved his motion to set aside the ex parte order while Mr Adegoke adopted the Plaintiff’s Counter-Affidavit in opposition.

Although Prof Ajogwu filed a Further Affidavit & Reply to the Plaintiff’s Counter-Affidavit, same was not adopted.

Mr Okafor moved his motion to set aside the ex parte order while Mr Adegoke adopted our Counter-Affidavit in opposition. Mr Okafor did not file any Further Affidavit or Reply.

Prof Ajogwu thereafter argued his preliminary objection while Mr Adegoke adopted and argued the Counter-Affidavit filed by the Plaintiff.

Although Prof Ajogwu filed a Further Affidavit & Reply to our Counter-Affidavit, again same was not adopted.

Mr Okafor sought to move his preliminary objection which he filed the previous day but the court did not proceed to hear it as there was no proof that the said motion was served on us or any other party in the suit.

However, Counsel to the Plaintiff, Mr Adegoke sought to move the motion for interlocutory injunction but counsel for the 4th and 5th Defendants said they were served with a Further Affidavit and Reply to their Counter-Affidavit as well as Motion for leave to file a further Affidavit & Reply that morning, in open court.

Thus, they would need time to look through the process and digest same, and the court obliged their request.

Mr Adegoke thereafter urged the court to direct parties to maintain status quo pending the rulings of the court and the court directed counsel to prevail on their clients on the need to maintain status quo.

The court thereafter adjourned the matter to the 14th day of February 2024 for rulings.