MILLIAN QUARRY VS UNI AFRICA LTD.

By Court: The requirement for the grant of an Interlocutory Injunction as stated in the case of Welford Quarcoo v. Attorney General & The Electoral Commission [2012] 1 SCGLR at page 261 are first, the Applicant must establish that there is a serious question to be tried. Secondly, he or she will suffer irreparable damage which cannot be remedied by the award of damages unless the Interlocutory Injunction is granted. Thirdly, the balance of convenience is in favour of granting him/her the Interlocutory Injunction. It is the basic principle of Injunction law also that prima facie, the Court will not grant an Injunction to restrain an actionable wrong for which damages is the proper remedy. In this application before the Court at this stage, it is not the merits therefore that is being decided rather, whether based on all the Affidavit evidence, the pleadings, the statement of case and the arguments and submissions made this morning, it will be just and convenient to grant the application. This Court is of the opinion that there are issues to be tried in this matter: whether or not the Respondent has indeed trespassed into the concession area of the Applicant. And therefore, on the balance of convenience, the Court is of the opinion that the Injunction should be granted purposely to cover the 50 acre land concession referred to in the schedule in Exhibit ‘SEQ1’. The Plaintiff/Applicant is to also sign an undertaking to compensate the Defendant/Respondent if at the end of the day, they were not entitled to the grant of the injunction.

(SGD.)

H/L JANE HARRIET AKWELEY QUAYE (MRS.)

(JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT)

R.A.