KATE KAI KOTEY 56, BOTWE STREET, ABAKA, ACCRA (SUING FOR HERSELF AND ON BEHALF OF OKUNE KATAWELE FANILY OF NGANOMON) vs SAMUEL MILLER DUKE ACCRA

MOTION ON NOTICE FOR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION

Counsel for Plaintiff/Applicant Your Ladyship we have before you Motion on Notice for an Order of Interlocutory Injunction filed on 6/04/2023. I move in terms of the motion paper and the supporting affidavit.

Your Ladyship, we rely on Exhibit KAT1 which is a Land Certificate title in the name of the family dated 5/10/2022. We have given portion of the land to customers and also a portion given to Valley View as stated in our Affidavit in Support.

We thus pray for the Defendant to be injuncted from developing on the land as the Counsel for the Defendant/Respondent Your Ladyship, we are vehemently opposed to the instant application and pray to rely on our Affidavit in Opposition filed on 30/03/2023. Though a date of lease dated 11/01/2001 but we omitted to attached evidence of same but have a 2016 lease from the same grantors.

RULING ON MOTION ON NOTICE FOR AN ORDER FOR INTERLOCUTORYINJUNCTION Order 25 rule 1(1) the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 (C. I 47) is the main rule of procedure relevant in applications for Interlocutory Injunction and is to the effect that a court may grant an order of Interlocutory Injunction in cases where it just or convenient to do so and the order maybe 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 including the following: Owusu v Owusu-Ansah [2007-2008] 2 SCGLR 870, Vanderpuye vrs. Nartey [1971]1GLR 428, CA; American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd 1975 1 All ER 504; Musicians Union of Ghana v Abraham 1982 – 83 GLR337; Frimpong v Nana Asare Obeng II (1974)1GLR 16 From the litany of judicial decisions, it has also long been settled that in considering an application for injunction, a court ought to consider inter alia the following factors:

a. Whether the case of the Applicant is not frivolous. That is to say, whether the Applicant prima facie, has demonstrated a legal or equitable right that ought to be protected by the Court.

b. Whether hardship would be occasioned if the application is granted or refused and which of the parties will suffer greater hardship.

c. Whether on the facts, it is just and convenient for the preservation of the status- quo.

d. Whether the loss, damage or injury can be quantified in money and whether damages could afford adequate compensation if the application was refused.

Having he