Try asking the following...
MOTION ON NOTICE FOR AN ORDER OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION
Counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicants Your Ladyship, Respectfully, we have before you Motion on Notice for an Order of Interlocutory Injunction filed on 30/01/2023. We served the Defendant via Substituted Service on the 28/02/2023. We move in terms of the motion paper, the supporting affidavit as well as the Exhibits attached and the Statement of Case.
We rely entirely on all the processes filed and pray that the instant application be granted We humbly pray.
RULING ON MOTION ON NOTICE FOR AN ORDER FOR INTERLOCUTORYINJUNCTION
Order 25 rule 1(1) the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 (C. I 47) is the main rule of procedure relevant in applications for Interlocutory Injunction and is to the effect that a court may grant an order of Interlocutory Injunction in cases where it just or convenient to do so and the order maybe made either unconditionally or upon such terms and conditions as the Court considers just. The principles that govern applications for injunction, interim or interlocutory are settled in a plethora of cases including the following: Owusu v Owusu-Ansah [2007-2008] 2 SCGLR 870, Vanderpuye vrs. Nartey [1971]1GLR 428, CA; American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd 1975 1 All ER 504; Musicians Union of Ghana v Abraham 1982 – 83 GLR337; Frimpong v Nana Asare Obeng II (1974)1GLR 16 From the litany of judicial decisions, it has also long been settled that in considering anapplication for injunction, a court ought to consider inter alia the following factors: a. Whether the case of the Applicant is not frivolous.
That is to say, whether the Applicant prima facie, has demonstrated a legal or equitable right that ought to be protected by the Court.
b. Whether hardship would be occasioned if the application is granted or refused and which of the parties will suffer greater hardship.
c. Whether on the facts, it is just and convenient for the preservation of the status- quo.
d. Whether the loss, damage or injury can be quantified in money and whether damages could afford adequate compensation if the application was refused.
Having heard Counsel and having perused the filed processes, The Defendant though served with the instant application on the 2/02/2023 via Substituted Service have not filed any response.
The Applicant have established title in the Land with Exhibit EL3 being a Land Certificate dated 14/07/2022. The Applicant exhibited pictures being Exhibit ELX2 showing Plaintiff’s ac