GH - IKEMARC REAL ESTATE VS NII ANDREWS KOTEY NMASHIE & ORS

This application for an order of interlocutory injunction has been filed by 1st, 5th, and 6th Defendants. It is ORDER 25 of C. I. 47/04 which is the applicable rule of procedure. And in Rule 1, it is provided that an order of interlocutory injunction may be granted when it is JUST and CONVENIENT to do so. But the guiding principles are these:

The applicant must establish that he has an interest or right in the subject matter of the litigation that has been flouted or threatened unjustifiably.

The applicant must establish that there are serious legal and factual matters raised by the action, which cannot be seen as frivolous.

The applicant must show that on the balance of convenience, he will suffer irreparable injury if the acts complained about are permitted to continue.

Finally, the applicant must adduce sufficient affidavit evidence from which the status quo must be found and a determination made by the court as to whether to maintain it or alter the same. This Court has perused the deposition in support and the annexures. The allegations of destruction of property on the land have been corroborated sufficiently. I have found that this very Court has granted an order of interlocutory injunction in favor of respondents in this motion and against the applicants herein. It is stated that the destructions occurred when the respondents misapplied the order of this Court by using it as justification for what they have done on the land. The respondents have been served with the motion on 13/03/2019. And today being 21/03/2019, they have had sufficient notice of the pendency of it. But they have not filed any process in opposition. I take it that they have impliedly admitted the averments of applicants herein. The respondents shall be restrained from entering the land. They and people claiming through them shall cease all activities on the land forthwith. In effect, both sides are restrained from further development of the land.

(SGD.) H/L NICHOLAS M. C. ABODAKPI JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT ‘MCG’.

The applicant must establish that he has an interest or right in the subject matter of the litigation that has been flouted or threatened unjustifiably.

The applicant must establish that there are serious legal and factual matters raised by the action, which cannot be seen as frivolous.

The applicant must show that on the balance of convenience, he will suffer irreparable injury if the acts complained about are permitted to continue.

(SGD.) H/L NICHOLAS M. C. ABODAKPI JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT ‘MCG’.

IKEMARC REAL ESTATE VS NII ANDREWS KOTEY NMASHIE & ORS

Areas of Law

RULING