DORCAS KYERAWAA vs SIDIME FADE

This is an application for interlocutory injunction. I have considered the application and the supporting affidavits for and against by the parties. I have also read the written submissions by their lawyers.

Both parties claim they have interest in the property in dispute. Whether rent has been paid to any of them or otherwise is not the question to be resolved in this application. The justice of this application in my opinion lies in the grant of the application.

Order 27 empowers a court to appoint a receiver/manager when it finds it just and convenient to do so.

An injunction as per Order 27 (2) is an ancillary relief. And by order 25 of CI 47 a court may grant an injunction to project a party against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages.

The grant is also to preserve the subject matter.

Of interest to this application is where a party shows that he/she has sufficient interest in the relief.

And on the balance of convenience i.e. weighing the advantage of granting the relief against the disadvantage of not granting the same.

Considering the circumstances of the parties before me, the disadvantage of not granting the application outweighs the disadvantage of granting it and so same is hereby granted as prayed. If the application is refused the respondent will be the only one enjoying the property to the detriment of the applicant. Additionally, the grant of the application also ensures the preservation of the subject matter of the application, i.e. property in dispute.

By Court

The regional accountant is appointed as receiver and the respondent is injuncted from further interfering with the properties in dispute. The receiver is also to manage the property.

BY COURT

Suit is adjourned to 5-04-2023 at 10.00 a.m.

[SGD.]

H.L. JUSTICE CYNTHIA WIREDU (MRS.)

(JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT)