KWAKU BAFFOUR & ANOR vs KOJO ADU & ORS

MOTION ON NOTICE FOR AN ORDER OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION

Counsel for the Plaintiffs/Applicants: Your Ladyship, we have before you Motion on Notice for an Order of Interlocutory Injunction filed on 5/12/2022. I move in terms of the motion paper and the supporting affidavit and rely on all the averments contained in the Affidavit in Support and Statement of Case.

We pray that our application be granted.

I move accordingly.

Order 25 rule 1(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 (C.I. 47) is the main rule of procedure relevant in applications for Interlocutory Injunction and states as follows:

"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 to do so, and the order may be 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.

In Owusu v Owusu-Ansah [2007-2008] 2 SCGLR 870, the Supreme Court held that:

“The fundamental principle in applications for interim injunction is whether the applicant has a legal right at law or in equity, which the court ought to protect by maintaining the status quo until the final determination of the action on its merits.

This could only be determined by considering the pleadings and affidavit evidence before the court.”

Also see Vanderpuye v Nartey [1971] 1 GLR 428, CA; Lardan v Attorney General (1957) 3 WALR 55; Punjabi Bros v Namih (1958) 3 WALR 381; American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd 1975 1 All ER 504; Pountney v Doega and Musicians Union of Ghana v Abraham 1982–83 GLR 337; Frimpong v Nana Asare Obeng II (1974) 1 GLR 16.

In the case of 18th July v Yehans International Ltd (2012) SCGLR 167, it was held as follows:

“Even though [the grant of injunction] is discretionary, we are of the view that a … court in determining interlocutory application must first consider whether the case of an applicant was not frivolous and had demonstrated that he had legal or equitable right which a court should protect.

Second, the court is also enjoined to ensure that the status quo is maintained so as to avoid any irreparable damage to the applicant pending the hearing of the matter.

The trial court ought to consider the balance of convenience and should refuse the application if its grant would cause serious hardships to the other party…”

In the instant Application, I note the follo