JUDGMENT OF KPEGAH J.
This is an application for an order of interim injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents, servants and representatives "from having anything to do with the disputed land pending the final determination of this suit." In her writ of summons, the plaintiff is seeking a declaration of title to a certain piece of land therein described. It is clear from the description that the plaintiff’s and the defendants' family have a common boundary and the issue is where this boundary is to be fixed, or its correct position is.
In support of her application, the plaintiff sought to rely on certain documents, including a previous judgment in favour of one Mrs Mary Brew through whom the plaintiff is claiming the disputed land. This felow, the plaintiff says is her predecessor in title and shares boundary with the defendants’ land. This explains the common [p.101] boundary between the parties. It is also admitted that the defendants have leased over 500 acres of the disputed land to a company, Ameen Sangari Industries, which has cultivated a vast expanse of palm plantation to support its soap industry. The plaintiff is also seeking to restrain all tenants put on the land by the defendants.
In opposing the application for interim injunction, learned counsel for the defendants, Mr Frank Sawyerr, submitted that the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case to entitle her to the grant of the interim relief she seeks. The ground for this argument is that the case is one of boundary dispute and the exact position of the boundary has not been established by the plaintiff to entitle her to the relief; for one cannot grant such a relief in respect of land the identity of which is not known. The argument was in response to an earlier one by Mr Spio, for the plaintiff, that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case to entitle her to the grant of an order of interim injunction. Both counsel advanced their respective cases as if they were unaware of the case of Vanderpuye v. Nartey [1977] 1 G.L.R. 428. But I do not think so, for at least Mr Sawyerr specifically referred to it in his submission before this court. The Vanderpuye case (supra) is often cited as authority for the proposition that it is not necessary, in an application for an order of interim injunction, for the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case but rather the consideration should be whether there is a need to preserve the status quo in order to avoid irreparab
