KORKOR SAAYE vs DORLU QUAYE GYAASETSE & 4 ORS

this Ruling is in respect of an application for interlocutory injunction filed on 16th November, 2022. Counsel for the Applicant moved the application in terms of the motion paper and the affidavit in support as well as supplementary and further supplementary affidavits in support of the application filed on 9th December 2022 and 1st February 2023 respectively.

In the instant application, it is contended that, an earlier refusal of this Court to grant an application for interlocutory injunction (by the Applicant) had been abused, subverted and undermined as the Respondents are developing the land in dispute; and that their conduct would render whatever decision the Court makes at the end of the trial, nugatory, if the instant application for interlocutory injunction is refused once again.

By this application, the Applicant seeks –

“... an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain the Defendants herein, their agents, heirs, personal representatives, executors and assigns from interfering with the quiet enjoyment of the property in dispute until the final determination of this suit.”

It is the case of the Applicants that, in view of the speed with which the Defendants are developing the land, unless the Court injuncts them, the Plaintiff/Applicant’s reason for being in Court will be in vain.

On the contrary, the Defendants/Respondents who are opposed to the application rely on their affidavit in opposition filed on 13th December, 2022 and a Supplementary Affidavit in Opposition filed on 17th January, 2023 and contend that the application before the court is incompetent on the grounds that the same application came before the Court on 2nd June, 2020 and was refused.

It is their case that, the wording of the motion paper of the instant application and the earlier one refused by this Court are, in essence, the same. The learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that, if the Applicant was dissatisfied with the earlier ruling, her remedy should have been by way of Appeal. Therefore, having failed to file an Appeal, the instant application, which is a repeat application is incompetent.

Counsel for the Respondent also maintains that, as contained in the affidavit in opposition and the supplementary affidavit in opposition, the Defendants (who are farmers) are rearing animals on the land so, it will be most unjust and unfair, in these times of food crises, to restrain them from going ahead with their farming activities. The Respondents attached photogra