JOHN DE-GRAFT MENSAH vs ELIZABETH BOATENG & ORS

By a Motion on Notice filed on 24th November 2022, the Plaintiff/Applicant (hereafter called the Applicant) prays for an Order of Interlocutory Injunction to restrain nine (9) named Defendants/Respondents (hereafter called the Respondents), “their agents, assigns, servants and or workmen from continuing their trespassory activities and interfering with or having anything to do with any part or portion of the land contained in the Plaintiff’s statement of claim ... pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit”.

Order 25 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) circumscribes and regulates this Court’s power to grant Interlocutory Injunctions; with the Courts speaking consistently and authoritatively on when, why, how and who may or may not be granted an Order of Interlocutory Injunction. Indeed, the principles and precepts which guide our Courts in hearing and determining applications for interlocutory injunctions have virtually crystalized from several reported cases of our Courts, particularly the Apex Court, which has handed down an impressive array of authorities on the Law relating to Injunctions including the following:

· ODONKOR and Others v AMARTEI [1987-88] 1 GLR 578

· REPUBLIC v HIGH COURT, HO; EX PARTE EVANGELICAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF GHANA and Another [1991] 1 GLR 323

· OWUSU v OWUSU-ANSAH and Another [2007-08] 2 SCGLR 870

· 18TH JULY LTD v YEHANS INTERNATIONAL LTD [2012] 1 SCGLR 167

· WELFORD QUARCOO v ATTORNEY GENERAL & Another [2012] 1 SCGLR 259

· KOJACH LTD v MULTICHOICE GHANA LTD [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 1494

From the authorities listed above, the Law is settled and admits of no equivocation, that the grant of an application for interlocutory injunction, although discretionary, must be carefully considered in the light of the Pleadings and affidavit evidence before the Court.

The authorities are unanimous that, in considering an application for Interlocutory Injunction, the Court is not called upon to undertake a juridical expedition, at that stage, to determine who has better title to the land in dispute. The requirement is that, the Applicant must demonstrate that he or she has a legal or equitable interest worthy of protection by the Court; that, damages will not suffice to placate the Applicant and that, on the balance of convenience, the Applicant will suffer greater hardship and inconvenience should the application be refused. The Court is therefore enjoined to do what is “just and co