Try asking the following...
RULING
This is a motion on notice filed by counsel for and on behalf of the plaintiff for an
order of interlocutory injunction to restrain the 1st defendant, or any person claiming
interest in the land through him from entering the land which is the subject of this
dispute until the final determinations of the suit. Counsel did not come to move the
motion but because interlocutory matters are matters in which time is of the essence,
and because the 1st defendant had responded, I adjourned for ruling based on the
averments contained in the motion paper and affidavit in support and in opposition
respectively.
BY COURT:
In Punjabi Bro vrs. Namih (1958) WALR 83, it was held that some of the factors
that a Court should consider before granting or refusing applications of this nature
are, but not limited to:
(a) Whether or not the applicant has disclosed a legal right to the disputed
property:
(b) The party to suffer greater hardship or relative inconvenience should the
application be granted or refused;
(c ) Whether or not the applicant can be adequately compensated, in the event that
he or she wins the suit, if the application is refused,
(d ) Whether or not a refusal to grant the application would render the entire action
nugatory; etc. See also Owusu vrs Owusu Ansah [2007-2008] SCGLR 870
The Plaintiff/applicant disclosed in his affidavit in support that he is the head of the
Asona Family and that the property in dispute is a family property. By this, he has
disclosed a legal right to the disputed property.
Being a plot of land, if I do not grant the application, what it means is that I have
clothed the defendants with the right to continue building the house on the subject
matter, and this would render the entire suit nugatory.
The main issue to be determined at the end of trial is ownership of the disputed
land, which cannot be done now.
For these reasons, to create a level playing field, and for the scale of justice to be
fairly balanced at this stage, I restrain both parties from further developments on
the disputed land until the final determination of the suit. This order also affects
their agents, assigns, labourers, workmen, and all who claim interest in the
disputed land through the parties.
The defendant would be adequately compensated in the event that they win the suit,
as the subject is land which appreciates in value over time. No orders as to costs.
(SGD)
H/W GEORGE DAVIS KWESI OFORI (MAGISTRATE)