This motion for an order of interlocutory injunction has been filed on 29/06/2018, with an affidavit and statement of case in support.
The Applicant is seeking to injunct Defendants and other persons claiming through them, from selling or interfering in any manner whatsoever with an unnumbered house at Malejor, Accra.
In the deposition in support, made by one Daniel Adjorgeh a law clerk (and not the Plaintiffs), the house has been identified in detail.
It has been contended that, the 2nd Plaintiff had offered the house to 1st Defendant/Respondent to secure repayment of money she owed to the Respondent.
But Respondent rejected the offered, so the house was sold to one commander Ben Baba Abdul and Isabella Cobey Abdul.
The fact that an order for public auction of the house has been made and execution has commenced has also been stated.
In addition the fact that an Interpleader proceedings affecting the house has been filed and heard and a decision to the effect that, the sale of it was void, has also been stated.
Secondly, Applicants contended that the house is a joint property of Plaintiffs and therefore, it cannot be sold in satisfaction of the debt owed by 2nd Plaintiff alone.
FACTS On the other hand, the deposition made on behalf of Respondent is that, he had commenced and won a case against the 2nd Applicant, who has been indebted to him since 2013, but has not shown sufficient commitment towards payment of it.
He also denied the averments to the effect that the house has been sold and that if it has been sold, then proceeds from the sale must be applied to the payment of the debt owed to him.
And therefore the application for injunction is a sham and must be dismissed.
I have perused the statement of case which has been filed on behalf of the parties.
It is trite to state that it is Order 25 of the High Court Civil Procedure, Rules, 2004, is the relevant rule of procedure.
The High Court, under this rule is invested with discretionary jurisdiction, which if properly exercised in protection of rights or interest, when it is satisfied that it is JUST and CONVENIENT to do so.
Firstly, the Applicants herein must establish that, they have a right or interest that require protection, from the unjustifiable conduct of the Respondent.
The interest requiring protection, may be legal or equitable.
Secondly, Applicants must establish that on the balance of convenience they stand to suffer irreparable damage if Respondent is permitted to continue w
