ENOCH ANNAN KONEY & ANOR VS KWAME OWUSU OKOREE

On 21/02/2019, the motion under consideration was filed.

The relief sought is an order to vary or set aside interlocutory injunction order entered against the Defendant/Applicant.

The deposition in support has been made by Emmanuel Darfour, a law clerk of the law firm acting for the applicant.

The deposition is to the effect that applicant is the Managing Director of Maxpal Intermediaries Ltd. The company occupying and carrying out business in the property in dispute.

Furthermore, the deposition showed how applicant came to be an occupant of the property.

Reference was made to EXHIBIT ‘1’, which has been described as Pre-Rent Agreement.

I have examined EXHIBIT ‘1’ David Tettey Konney and Justice Koney of House No. 21, 11th avenue, South Tesano, Accra are of one part And Maxpal Intermediaries Ltd. is of the other part.

And the parties to the document have been described as landlord and Tenant respectively.

The property has been described and monies allegedly paid, and cost of work to be done, etc.

have all been captured therein.

The document has been executed by Defendant herein and David and Justice Koney.

Secondly, the deposition showed that 1st Plaintiff/Respondent is aware of the agreement and he is fixed with knowledge of it, as he participated by way of suggestions to the renovation work that had been carried out.

The fact that a disagreement developed among siblings who claim interest in the property has been admitted.

Thirdly, Applicant blamed his failure to contest the application for interlocutory injunction on his lawyer who had conduct of the case when he failed to file an affidavit in opposition.

Fourthly, Applicant averred that, Maxpal Intermediaries is in occupation of the building, and had moved into occupation after the renovation, before the order of injunction was granted.

Finally, in paragraphs 24 through to the end, it was averred as follows: “That as a party to the instant matter, the Defendant/Applicant was present in the Court and tried to put his case before the Honorable Court but to no avail. ”And paragraph 25, it has been stated: “That the Ruling made by this Honourable Court is respectfully otiose considering the status of the property at the time of the Ruling. ”It has been contended Maxpal has many employees and there will be hardship and huge embarrassment occasioned if the order of injunction is allowed to stand.

In the supplementary affidavit in support, it was stated Defendant /Applicant acted on behalf of