Try asking the following...
RULING
MOTION ON NOTICE FOR AN ORDER OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION
Counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant
Your Ladyship, at the last sitting we were to move our application for Interlocutory Injunction and Counsel on the other side pleaded that she was going to file her Affidavit in Opposition on the 8/03/2023. Your Ladyship, up to now I have not been served with any Affidavit in Opposition
By Court: : - This Proof of Service is defective as there is no Affidavit in Opposition to the injunction application.
Kindly proceed to move your application.
Counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant Your Ladyship, we have before you Motion on Notice for pursuant Order 25 Rule 1 (2) of C. I. 47. I move in terms of motion paper, and the Supporting Affidavit and the annexures thereof as well our Statement of Case.
It is our intention to rely entirely on our averments contained in the Affidavit in Support and the averments as contained in our Statement of Case.
We have our indenture dated 26/05/2011. Your Ladyship, acts of possession on the land is sand and stones on the land.
The Defendant has also most finished the construction on the land.
We therefore pray that an Order be granted to restrain the Defendant.
We pray accordingly.
RULING ON MOTION ON NOTICE FOR AN ORDER FOR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION
Order 25 rule 1(1) the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 (C. I 47) is the main rule of procedure relevant in applications for Interlocutory Injunction and is to the effect that a court may grant an order of Interlocutory Injunction in cases where it just or convenient to do so and the order maybe 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 settledin a plethora of cases including the following: Owusu v Owusu-Ansah [2007-2008] 2 SCGLR 870, Vanderpuye vrs. Nartey [1971]1GLR 428, CA; American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd 1975 1 All ER 504; Musicians Union of Ghana v Abraham 1982 – 83 GLR337; Frimpong v Nana Asare Obeng II (1974)1GLR 16 From the litany of judicial decisions, it has also long been settled that in considering anapplication for injunction, a court ought to consider inter alia the following factors:
a. Whether the case of the Applicant is not frivolous.
That is to say, whether the Applicant prima facie, has demonstrated a legal or equitable right that ought to be protected by the Court.
b. Whether hardship would be occasioned if the a