IKEMARC REAL ESTATE VS NII ANDREWS KOTEY NMASHIE & ORS
March 21, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE NICHOLAS M.C. ABODAKPI J.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
March 21, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In the High Court ‘MCG’, His Lordship Justice Nicholas M. C. Abodakpi considered an application for interlocutory injunction brought by the 1st, 5th, and 6th Defendants under Order 25 of C.I. 47/04. The judge reiterated Rule 1’s standard that such relief is granted when just and convenient and outlined guiding principles: a cognizable interest or right, serious legal and factual questions, risk of irreparable injury on the balance of convenience, and sufficient affidavit evidence to ascertain and preserve the status quo. After perusing depositions and annexures, the court found allegations of destruction of property on the land corroborated, noting that a prior injunction had been granted in favor of the respondents and was misapplied. The respondents were served on 13/03/2019 and, despite sufficient notice by 21/03/2019, filed no opposition; the court took this as implied admission of the applicants’ averments. The court restrained respondents and those claiming through them from entering or acting on the land and, to maintain the status quo, restrained both sides from further development.
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’.