"Simply put, I think the learned counsel for the Appellant was wrong to have imagined that the balance of convenience ought to be held in the Appellant's favour on the basis of its depositions on the cancellation of the Appellant's registration licence. This is because, the required balance of convenience is and must necessarily be in relation to the Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction and not in relation to the substantive suit before the trial Court. Secondly, it is trite that in an application for an injunction pending the determination of the substantive claim, the Judge has a duty to ensure that he does not in the determination of the application, determine the same issue or issues that would arise for determination in the substantive suit. See:GROUP DANONE & ANOR VS. VOLTIC (NIGERIA) LTD (2008) 34 SC 32 it is only necessary for the Applicant to establish a legal right and an issue to be tried in the substantive case. The purpose of the injunction is to keep the parties in status quo pending the determination of the substantive suit. OBIDIEGU ONYESOH VS. CHRISTOPHER NNEBEDUN & 3 ORS (1992) B SCNJ 129 and NNPC VS. FAMFA OIL LTD & ANOR (2009) 5-6 SC (PT. 1) 191. Relatedly, the Court when considering an application for interlocutory injunction should not try to resolve conflicts of evidence on affidavits as to facts on which the claims of either party may ultimately depend or decide difficult questions of law which call for detailed argument and consideration. See. SUNDAY A. ODUNTAN VS. GENERAL OIL LTD (1995) 4 SCNJ 145."

Per OWOADE, J.C.A. IN MARINE & GENERAL ASSURANCE CO. LTD v. HON. MINISTER OF FINANCE & ORS