EMEKA ACHILEFU NWANGWA vs MARILYN STEPHEN
November 24, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE AMOS WUNTAH WUNI
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Tort Law
November 24, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In the High Court, His Lordship Justice Amos Wuntah Wuni considered a motion by the Defendant/Applicant seeking a mandatory interlocutory injunction to compel the Plaintiff/Respondent to remove persons occupying the Respondents uncompleted house on disputed land. The Applicant alleged serious nuisance and health risks from occupants, citing open defecation, public bathing, and careless refuse burning, and referenced interventions by the Adentan Municipal Assembly. The Respondent denied these allegations and produced photographs of a fitted washroom, clean compound, and boundary trees, asserting harassment by the Applicant. Reiterating established principles under Order 25 and Supreme Court authority, the court emphasized the discretionary, just or convenient standard and the need to avoid deciding merits or title. Noting repeated applications with previously filed exhibits, the court found, on the totality of pleadings and the balance of convenience, that the application lacked merit, refused the injunction, and awarded GH A2,000 costs against the Applicant.
By a motion on notice for an order of Mandatory Injunction, the Defendant/Applicant (hereafter called the Applicant) prays for –
“... an order of Mandatory Injunction directed at the Plaintiff/Respondent herein to remove the persons currently occupying his uncompleted house on the disputed land as per the grounds contained in the accompanying Affidavit.”
It is trite learning that, the Court’s power to grant Interlocutory Injunctions is regulated and circumscribed by Order 25 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) and our jurisprudence is loaded with clear and authoritative pronouncements by the Supreme Court of Ghana on when, why, how and who may or may not be granted an Order of Interlocutory Injunction. Indeed, Jurists, Legal Practitioners and Students of the Law have distilled notable ex cathedra pronouncements and indicia to guide our Courts in dealing with applications for interlocutory injunctions from reported cases of the Apex Court including:
· OWUSU v OWUSU-ANSAH and Anor [2007-08] 2 SCGLR 870;
· 18TH JULY LTD v YEHANS INTERNATIONAL LTD [2012] 1 SCGLR 167;
· WELFORD QUARCOO v ATTORNEY GENERAL & Anor [2012] 1 SCGLR 259
· KOJACH LTD v MULTICHOICE (GHANA) LTD [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 1494
On the authorities, it is settled that, the grant of an application for interlocutory injunction, although discretionary, must be carefully considered in the light of the Pleadings and affidavit evidence before the Court.
The authorities are also crystal clear and unanimous that, in considering an application for Interlocutory Injunction, the Court is not called upon to embark upon a judicial voyage of discovery to establish which party has better title to the land in dispute. The fundamental requirement is that, the Applicant must demonstrate that he or she has a legal or equitable interest worthy of protection by the Court; that, damages will not suffice to placate the Applicant and that, on the balance of convenience, the Applicant will suffer greater hardship and inconvenience should the application be refused.
By Order 25 Rule 1(1), the Court may grant an injunction by an interlocutory order in all cases in which it appears to the Court to be “just or convenient” so to do.
Therefore, in determining the instant application, this Court is cognizant and mindful of judicial admonishments for our courts to refrain from expressing an opinion on the merits of the case when dealing with applications for interlocutory injunctions before