LEEFORD YEMOH TETTEH vs ENOCH ADDOKWEI PAPPOE & ORS
October 13, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE AMOS WUNTAH WUNI
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Equity and Trusts
- Property and Real Estate Law
October 13, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice Amos Wuntah Wuni of the High Court of Ghana determined an application for an interlocutory injunction in a land dispute by applying established principles under Order 25 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) and guidance from Supreme Court authorities. Emphasizing that injunctions must be granted according to legal principles—'just as well as convenient'—and that courts at the interlocutory stage do not decide the better title, the court assessed the affidavits and pleadings. The 3rd Defendant demonstrated longstanding occupation, structural development to first-floor level, a completed sale with the 2nd Defendant, receipt of payment (Exhibit W5), and bona fide purchaser status. Substantial payments, including through the Applicant’s counsel, weighed against restraint. Finding it inequitable to grant relief, the court refused the injunction and awarded costs of GH¢5,000 against the Applicant.
The Court’s power to grant Interlocutory Injunctions is regulated and circumscribed by Order 25 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47).
The Law is settled, and admits of no equivocation, 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 declare and maintain that, in considering an application for Interlocutory Injunction, the Court is not called upon to undertake a voyage of discovery, at that stage, to determine who has better title to the land in dispute. The 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.
The Court is therefore enjoined to do what is “just and convenient” when determining the fate of applications for interlocutory injunctions before it. Indeed, in clarifying the yardstick for determining whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction, our Apex Court (per Osei-Hwere JSC) stated in REPUBLIC v HIGH COURT, HO; EX PARTE EVANGELICAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF GHANA and Another [1991] 1 GLR 323 at 343 that:
“It has been explained that the words ‘just or convenient’; must be read as ‘just as well as convenient’: … they do not mean that the court can grant an injunction simply for the protection of rights simply because the court thinks it convenient, but mean that the court should do so according to legal principles. They confer no arbitrary or unregulated discretion on the court”.
The authoritative pronouncements by our Law Lords on when, how and who may be granted an Order of Interlocutory Injunction are legion. A few authorities would serve to underpin and fortify this Ruling.
First and foremost, in KOJACH LTD v MULTICHOICE GHANA LTD [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 1494, His Lordship Justice Anin Yeboah JSC (as he then was) stated ex cathedra in Holding (1) that:
“(1) In virtually all interlocutory applications that come before the courts, evidence in support would be in the nature of affidavit evidence by Order 19, r4 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47). In the normal course of determining interlocutory applications, the court would rely on the affidavits filed together wi