LIFE GROUP OF COMPANIES LTD vs NOWAK DEVELOPMENT LTD & ANOTHER

On 7th May 2020 at 12:20 pm, the Plaintiff/Applicant (hereafter called the Applicant) commenced proceedings in this suit by a Writ of Summons (and statement of claim) for stated reliefs. Also filed, on that day at 12:25 pm, was the instant motion on notice praying this Honourable for the following relief –

“An order of Interlocutory Injunction restraining the 1st Defendant, its assigns, heirs, successors or any person or persons claiming under or in trust for 1st Defendant from going onto and dealing with the parcel of land known as Plot 1A measuring an approximate area of 0.97 of an acre situate at Airport Commercial Centre, Accra in the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana, pending the final determination of the instant suit.”

The application which was slated to be moved on 27th May 2020 stalled, for a wide spectrum of reasons, but was finally heard on 17th January 2023 after this Court had directed Counsel for the Plaintiff to cause a Hearing Notice (with Court Notes) to be issued for service, ex abundanti cautela, on the 1st Defendant as well as its Lawyer.

It is trite learning that the Court’s power to grant an Interlocutory Injunction, in Ghana, is circumscribed and regulated by Order 25 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) and, thankfully, the Ghanaian legal landscape is replete with clear and authoritative pronouncements by our Apex Court on when, why, how and who may be granted an Order of Interlocutory Injunction.

Some notable reported decisions handed down, in recent times, 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. See: Punjabi Bros v E & J Namih (1958) 3 WALR 381.

Generally, in an application for interlocutory injunction, the Applicant is required to show that he has put forward a se