Ayeni argued that his clients are the legal and beneficial owners of the land and accused the 4th and 5th defendants of “surreptitiously erecting structures” and alienating parts of the land to third parties in an attempt to “foist a fait accompli on the court.”

He added, “The 4th and 5th defendants have continued to use the support of the 1st and 2nd defendants to enter the applicants’ lands, start construction works, and alienate the land up to the present time and will continue unless restrained. Damages would not be adequate to compensate the applicants if judgment is ultimately in their favour.”

Ayeni further submitted that granting the application would not prejudice the defendants, stressing that it was in the interest of justice to preserve the status quo ante bellum pending determination of the substantive suit.