KRISTO ASAFO MISSION OF GHANA vs MR. SEKUO BROWN & ANOTHER
November 14, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE AMOS WUNTAH WUNI
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
November 14, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In the Ghana High Court, Justice Amos Wuntah Wuni considered a motion for interlocutory injunction brought by a La (Labadi) church congregation seeking to restrain several defendants and those claiming through them from issuing threats of harm or death and from disturbing the congregation6s peaceful occupation of a worship structure on disputed land. The applicants described the defendants as squatters trading from kiosks and containers and obstructing worship and planned temple construction. The 6th and 10th defendants, members of the Andrews family, opposed, claiming an ancestral grant by the Lenshie Quarter of La to their forebear Emmanuel Kojo Andrews and residence and business on the land. Applying Order 25 and Supreme Court guidance, the Court held the requested restraint of threats is an idle, unenforceable order and, on the balance of convenience, refused the injunction to preserve the status quo ante, awarding costs against the applicant.
By a Motion on notice for an Order of Interlocutory Injunction, the Plaintiff/Applicant (hereafter called the Applicant) supplicates this Court to –
“restrain the Defendants/Respondents either by themselves or any person or any group of persons claiming through them from using threats of harm or threat of death against Plaintiff/Applicant’s members at La from occupying its structure built on the land in dispute or disturbing Plaintiff/Applicant’s Branch Members at La peaceful and quite occupation of its structure in the interest of justice until the final determination of the suit.”
The Court’s power to grant Interlocutory Injunctions is circumscribed and regulated by Order 25 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) and the Ghanaian legal landscape is replete with clear and authoritative pronouncements by our Apex Court on when, how and who may be granted an Order of Interlocutory Injunction. Some notable decisions, of the millennium, handed down by the Apex Court in respect of interlocutory injunctions include:
· 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
On the authorities, it is settled 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 also unanimous that, in considering an application for Interlocutory Injunction, the Court is not called upon to embark upon a voyage of discovery to establish which party has better title to the land in dispute. The fundamental 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 supplicant and that, on the balance of convenience, the Applicant will suffer greater hardship and inconvenience should the application be refused.
By Order 25 Rule 1(1), the Court may grant an injunction by an interlocutory order in all cases in which it appears to the Court to be “just or convenient” so to do. Indeed, in clarifying the indicia for determining whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction, the Supreme Court (per Osei-Hwere JSC) stated in REPUBLIC v HIGH COURT, HO; EX PARTE EVANGELICAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF