Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
April 27, 2023
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
MOTION ON NOTICE FOR AN ORDER OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION
Counsel for Plaintiff/Applicant: Your Ladyship, we have before you a Motion on Notice praying for an Order for the grant of an Interlocutory Injunction filed on 17/04/2023. We pray moving under Order 25 Rule 2 (3) of C. I. 47 as amended. We have attached our Affidavit in Support and Statement of Case. I rely on all the averments contained in the application and pray that our application be granted.
Counsel for the Defendant/Respondent: Your Ladyship, we are vehemently opposed to the instant application and rely on our Affidavit in Opposition filed on 26/04/2023 and pray that the application be refused.
RULING ON THE MOTION ON NOTICE FOR AN ORDER OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION
Order 25 Rule 1(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 (C. I. 47) is the main rule of procedure relevant in applications for Interlocutory Injunction and states as follows: 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 to do so, and the order may be 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.
In Owusu v Owusu-Ansah [2007-2008] 2 SCGLR 870, the Supreme Court held that: “The fundamental principle in applications for interim injunction is whether the applicant has a legal right at law or in equity, which the court ought to protect by maintaining the status quo until the final determination of the action on its merits. This could only be determined by considering the pleadings and affidavit evidence before the court." Also see Vanderpuye v Nartey [1971] 1 GLR 428, CA; Lardan v Attorney General (1957) 3 WALR 55; Punjabi Bros v Namih (1958) 3 WALR 381; American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd 1975 1 All ER 504; Pountney v Doega and Musicians Union of Ghana v Abraham 1982–83 GLR 337; Frimpong v Nana Asare Obeng II (1974) 1 GLR 16.
In the case of 18th July v Yehans International Ltd (2012) SCGLR 167, it was held as follows: “Even though [the grant of injunction] is discretionary, we are of the view that a court in determining interlocutory applications must first consider whether the case of an applicant was not frivolous and had demonstrated that he had a legal or equitable right which a court should protect. Second, the court is also enjoined to ensure that the status quo is
AI Generated Summary
In a ruling on a motion for interlocutory injunction, Justice Enyonam Adinyira of the Ghana High Court considered the Applicant’s request to preserve the subject land pending trial. Guided by Order 25 Rule 1(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules (C.I. 47) and Supreme Court authorities including Owusu v Owusu-Ansah and 18th July v Yehans International Ltd, the court evaluated the parties’ affidavits and exhibits. The Applicant traced title through receipts and a 1998 site plan that did not clearly identify the disputed land. The 2nd Respondent’s opposition relied on an unstamped 2022 Indenture, two site plans (one unsigned), and an Indenture with interlineations on the Oath of Proof. Applying the principles of legal or equitable right, status quo, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience, the court granted the interlocutory injunction, extended it to trespassers, and directed the suit to proceed.