KUPOUR LIMITED VS GA GBESE KORLE STOOL & 4 ORS

On the 29th day of April, 2022, the Plaintiff/Applicant filed the instant Application praying the Court for an Order of Interlocutory Injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents from having anything to do with the subject land pending the final determination of the Suit.

The Application was resisted by the Defendants/Respondents.

It is trite law that an injunction is a judicial order directed at one or more of the parties in a civil trial to refrain from doing a specific act or acts.

Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition Reissue, Volume 24, states that the object of an Interlocutory Injunction is the preservation of “matters pending the trial of matters in dispute” (page 804).

It is salient to note that the grant or refusal of an Application for Interlocution Injunction is at the discretion of the Court.

This clearly is in line with Rule 1(1) of Order 25 of C.I.47 which empowers the Court to grant an Injunction Order in all cases in which it appears to the Court to be just or convenient to do so.

For an Applicant to succeed in an Application for Interlocutory Injunction, in addition to showing that he has a cause of action in law entitling him to a substantive relief, he has to establish a prima facie case.

In the case of American Cyanamid Company v Ethicon Limited [1975] 1 All ER 504 however the House of Lords in England rejected the prima facie requirement and the American Cyanamid position has been firmly established in Ghana since the Court of Appeal’s decision in Vanderpuye v Nartey [1977] 1 GLR 428.

Quite clearly, it is considered sufficient for the Applicant to show that the claim he is making in the action is not frivolous and vexatious and that, in the light of the processes filed he has a reasonable prospect of succeeding at the trial, or that there is a serious question of law to be tried.

In recent times what the Court does when faced with an Application for Interlocutory Injunction is first, to consider from the papers before it whether the Applicant has demonstrated a sufficient probability of right, and if he has, to make a determination as to the adequacy of damages or other relief, followed by a determination as to what the relative position of the parties would be if the interlocutory relief is not granted.

But, as noted from Halsbury’s (supra), the object of an interlocutory injunction is to preserve the matters in issue in the action, pending the trial of the action. And, indeed, this is what the Plaintiff is se