response, the respondent applied to discharge the interim order but did not prosecute the application. In the meantime, he persisted in his building. Upon hearing the appellant's application for interlocutory injunction, the trial judge withheld the order. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge, through Achike JCA and held thus: “It is intriguing that despite the prevailing order of the lower court warning the respondent to desist from further construction work….the respondent persisted in his trespassory acts… He wants to be allowed to continue brazenly in his unlawful infringement on the property. He contends that to grant the injunction would be oppressive to the respondent who has incurred considerable expenses in erecting the building, that the erection of the building will appreciate the value of the land rather than constitute a waste and that the cement already purchased for the construction work will congeal if the work is terminated by the order of the court… I find this contention unimpressive. It is a firmly established equitable maxim that he who seeks equity must come with clean hands… It amounts to intransigence for a party against whom an order for inunction is sought to intensify his interference with the res. That can only gain him a Pyrrhic but vain victory.” In Nwose v. Mbaekwe (1973) 3 ECSLR 136 at 137, the applicant deposed that they had six shops on the disputed land, but in the counter-affidavit the respondent deposed that they were erecting twelve shops on the land. Rejecting the application, his lordship rules: “It is hard to see what injury the applicants will suffer by taking over, on winning, a building containing twelve shops… instead of having to build one themselves and when one considers the fact that the alleged original