World Igbo Congress, Inc. (WI) World Igbo Congress Foundation (WICF) Joe N. Eto, in His Capcacity as Chairman of the Board of Directors of WIC v. Chibuzo E. Onwuchekwe, WIC D.C. Nawannedinamba, Grand Hyatt Hotel Washington, D.C. and Venue 1-10 (Now Unknown)

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 19, 2011
• Docket: 14-10-00112-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 19, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-10-00112-CV

World Igbo Congress, Inc.; World Igbo Congress Foundation; and Joe N. Eto, in his Capacity as Chairman of the Board of Directors of World igbo congress, inc., Appellants

v.

Chibuzo E. Onwuchekwe and world igbo congress, inc., Appellees

On Appeal from the 215th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-54832

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this interlocutory appeal, appellants World Igbo Congress, Inc.; World Igbo Congress Foundation; and Joe N. Eto in his Capacity as Chairman of the Board of Directors of World Igbo Congress, Inc. (collectively, “Eto”) present five issues challenging the trial court’s temporary injunction order.  Eto asserts that (1) Chibuzo Onwuchekwe was not an eligible candidate for the 2008 World Igbo Congress, Inc. election; (2) Eto and his co-officers were properly elected to lead WIC in 2008 in accordance with the WIC constitution; (3) the trial court violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution by qualifying Onwuchekwe for the 2008 WIC election; (4) the temporary injunction order is inconsistent with the findings of fact and is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence; and (5) the trial court erred in denying Eto’s motion for res judicata and collateral estoppel and denying his motion to reconsider.  All of these issues relate to the merits of the pending litigation rather than the trial court’s exercise of discretion in ordering temporary injunctive relief.  We affirm the trial court’s order.

BACKGROUND[1]

The World Igbo Congress, Inc. (“WIC”) was formed in Texas in the mid-1990s.  Onwuchekwe was elected chairman of WIC from 2005 to 2008.  He defeated Eto in the 2005 election for the chairmanship.  The original chairman of WIC, J.O.S. Okeke, continued to receive all official correspondence from the Texas Secretary of State regarding the registration status of WIC.  Okeke usually forwarded these documents to the secretary of WIC.  However, Okeke did not forward to any officers certain correspondence from the Secretary of State in 2008 regarding the pending lapse of the corporate registration status of WIC.  Unbeknownst to Onwuchekwe, WIC’s corporate status lapsed in April 2008.

On March 29, 2008, the WIC board of directors selected an Electoral Commission pursuant to the WIC constitution.  The selected commissioners were Chief Godwin Ndukwe, Dr. Stanley Onye, and Chief Ukeje Agu.  As the chairman of the electoral commission, Ndukwe presented proposed election guidelines to the WIC board of directors.  These guidelines were adopted at the June 2008 board of directors meeting.  The board of directors also specified that the 2008 WIC Convention would be held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Tampa Bay, Florida. 

During a July 2008 teleconference meeting of the WIC board of directors, Ndukwe was removed from his position as chairman of the electoral commission and replaced by Chief Titus Osuagwu.  In August 2008, the electoral commission published its list of candidates.  The list, prepared by Ndukwe, did not include Onwuchekwe as a candidate for chairman.  However, at the WIC Convention held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, an election ballot containing both Onwuchekwe and Eto as candidates for chairman was presented to the attendees.  Onwuchekwe won that election.  At another venue not approved by the WIC board of directors, a competing election was conducted, in which Eto participated and won. 

Meanwhile, at the time that WIC’s corporate status had lapsed in April 2008, Okeke consented to the registering of the WIC name with the Texas Secretary of State by an organization named “American Business Consultants.”  This “WIC faction” supports Eto as chairman.  In October 2008, Onwuchekwe completed all Secretary of State requirements and reactivated the original WIC organization under its original number; the Secretary of State permitted the re-registration of WIC under a variation of the original name, substituting “Ibo” for “Igbo,” pending resolution of this dispute.  This “WIC faction” supports Onwuchekwe as chairman.  All the parties agree, however, that there is only one Igbo organization.

Against this backdrop of political in-fighting and a split in the organization, Eto and Onwuchekwe petitioned the trial court for temporary injunctions, among other things, each seeking to have his “WIC faction” declared the proper WIC and his status as chairman of WIC confirmed.  After two evidentiary hearings, the trial court entered the following temporary injunction:

On considering the evidence received and argument of counsel, the Court finds and concludes that both parties are likely to succeed on the merits at trial of their declaration claims; that both the plaintiff and the defendant intend to act as officers of World Igbo Congress Inc. (WIC), and to exercise authority in such capacity based on invalid elections before the Court can render judgment in this cause; that if both plaintiff and defendant carries out that intention, both parties will thereby alter the status quo and tend to make ineffectual a judgment in favor of either party, in that both parties operating with divergent intentions may unnecessarily diminish the resources of the organization and/or bind the organization to incongruent obligations to the organization’s overall detriment, possibly leading to the dissolution of the WIC; and that unless both parties are deterred from carrying out that intention, both the plaintiff and the defendant will be without any adequate remedy at law in that the position which both parties claim may be ultimately extinguished due to the dissolution of the organization.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Joe N. Eto[,] plaintiff[,] and Chibuzo E. Onwuchekwe[,] defendant, are commanded forthwith to desist and refrain from acting as officers of World Igbo Congress Inc. (WIC), and from exercising authority in such capacity until judgment in this cause is rendered by this Court, except as specifically provided in the fourth paragraph of this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the WIC, through the electoral commission elected on March 29, 2008 by the WIC Board of Directors, conduct a new election.  The WIC shall send to all affiliates that were in good standing and eligible to cast a vote in the 2008 convention as of August 20, 2008 packets that shall include:  (1) ballot form, (2) a list of all candidates who were certified as eligible to be elected in either of the elections held in August of 2008 to officer-level positions, including both Chibuzo E. Onwuchekwe and Joe N. Eto, and (3) at the option of each candidate, a three page letter from each candidate as a substitute for their speaking time at the convention.  The election commissioners acting under this order shall designate one of themselves responsible for tallying the votes.  Affiliates shall fill out their ballots and mail them to the election commissioner who is previously designated with the responsibility of tallying votes.  Each Affiliate shall establish its own method for determining its choices for each officer-level position.  This election is to be conducted in conformance with the Election Guidelines approved by the WIC Board of Directors on March 29, 2008, to the extent that said Guidelines do not contradict this order.  The WIC, acting through the Election Commission, shall have fully complied with this order by having tallied all votes and designated new officers on or before 45 [forty-five] days from the issuance of this order.  These designated officers shall serve in such capacity until the next regularly scheduled election.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the WIC executive officers for the 2005 - 2008 period are reinstated for the sole purpose of carrying out this order.  They are restricted from taking any action that is not necessitated by the implementation of this order.

Eto appeals from this temporary injunction order.  To date, no permanent injunction hearing has been held.

ANALYSIS

A.        Temporary Injunctions

The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo of the litigation’s subject matter pending a trial on the merits.  Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002) (subst. op.); Walling v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56, 57 (Tex. 1993) (per curiam).  Temporary injunctions are an extraordinary remedy and do not issue as a matter of right.  Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204; Walling, 863 S.W.2d at 57.  To obtain a temporary injunction, the applicant must plead and prove the following three elements:  (1) a cause of action against the adverse party; (2) a probable right to the relief sought; and (3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim.  Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204.  Irreparable injuries are those for which the injured party cannot be adequately compensated by damages or for which damages cannot be measured by a pecuniary standard.  Id.

Whether to grant or deny a temporary injunction lies within the trial court’s sound discretion.  Id. (citing Walling, 863 S.W.2d at 58 and State v. Walker, 679 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Tex. 1984)).  We should reverse an order granting injunctive relief only if the trial court abused its discretion.  Id.  We must not substitute our judgment for the trial court’s judgment unless the trial court’s action was so arbitrary that it exceeded the bounds of reasonable discretion.  Id. (citing Johnson v. Fourth Ct. of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 918 (Tex. 1985) and Davis v. Huey, 571 S.W.2d 859, 861–62 (Tex. 1978)).  Finally, a temporary injunction is not a trial on the merits, and we may not review the merits of the underlying litigation on appeal from a temporary injunction order.  See 8100 N. Freeway Ltd. v. City of Houston, 329 S.W.3d 858, 864–65 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.).

B.        Application

Here, Eto has not asserted that the trial court abused its discretion in entering the temporary injunction.[2]  Rather, he opens his brief with the following statement regarding the standard of review:  “The issues in this appeal primarily relate to the interpretation of the constitution of World Igbo Congress Inc. [WIC] and matters of constitutional jurisprudence for which de novo review is appropriate.”  He then proceeds to complain of issues regarding the merits of the underlying litigation, including whether (a) Onwuchekwe was qualified under the WIC constitution to stand for election, (b) the election in which Eto was elected was a valid election, (c) the trial court erred by violating the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution by “dissimilarly treating candidates for WIC elections,” (d) the trial court erred by entering an order inconsistent with its findings of fact, and (e) the trial court erred by denying his motions for res judicata and collateral estoppel and to reconsider.

But the issue before the trial court was whether the parties were entitled to a temporary injunction.  See id.; see also EMS USA, Inc. v. Shary, 309 S.W.3d 653, 658 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (“The legal issues before a trial court at a temporary injunction hearing are whether the applicant showed a probability of success and irreparable injury.  The underlying merits of the controversy are not presented.” (citation omitted)).  Here, Eto’s issues are dispositive of the underlying litigation.  In reviewing a trial court’s granting of an application for a temporary injunction, we review only the trial court’s exercise of discretion in determining that a party showed a likelihood of success on the merits at trial and irreparable injury.  EMS USA, Inc., 309 S.W.3d at 658.  Eto has not presented any issues on appeal asking us to review these factors.  Accordingly, we overrule his five issues because they are not appropriate for review in the context in which they have been presented—i.e., on appeal from a temporary injunction order. 

CONCLUSION

Because none of Eto’s issues pertain to the trial court’s exercise of discretion in granting the temporary injunction at issue in this appeal, we overrule his five issues and affirm the trial court’s order.

                                                                        /s/        Adele Hedges

                                                                                    Chief Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Boyce.

---

[1] This factual background is largely taken from the trial court’s unchallenged findings of fact.

[2] In fact, Eto has not cited a single legal authority regarding the appropriate standard of review for an appeal from a temporary injunction order.