Try asking the following...
RULING
The Plaintiffs/Applicants brought the instant application dated 27th January 2023 for an Interlocutory Injunction against the Lands Commission and its Departments in Koforidua and Accra either by themselves or their Officers, Departmental heads, Divisions, Workers, Representatives, Land guards etc. restraining them from processing, plotting, surveying and registering, issuing, stamping, endorsing any document of title or ownership or process etc., involving or purporting to involve or cover any interest or right or grant or conveyance or leasehold or document of title or ownership or transfer of any interest in or in any manner or form changing the character of the land in dispute or the subject matter of this suit or interest in the land or subject of this suit in documentary form or otherwise covering or relating to the land the subject matter of this suit or any document of title or ownership emanating from or granted in favour of or granted to the 1st, 2nd or 3rd Defendants or any person or group of persons or Institution deriving title or interest from them or in any way related to the land the subject of this suit situate lying and being at Kuntunse pending the final determination of the suit.
Before Counsel for the Plaintiffs/Applicants would move the motion, counsel for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Respondents raised a preliminary legal objection as to the propriety of the application on the ground of a patent breach of the audi alterem partem rule.
Counsel submitted that a clear look at the motion paper paragraph (a) amply shows that the Plaintiffs/Applicants are seeking for an order of Interlocutory Injunction purposely directed at the Lands Commission and not to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants named in the motion paper.
That the Lands Commission against whom the order is sought from the Court is not a party to the suit and in the unlikely event that the application is granted and they refuse to do what the Applicant is seeking for and a matter of contempt arises who would be held responsible?
Counsel for Respondents submitted that in the motion paper the applicant makes it clear that it is the Lands Commission they seek to restrain and it is trite learning that they should be a party to the suit.
Counsel for the Applicant simply responded that the legal objection raised is misconceived and not grounded in law.
That what they are asking for in the motion paper affects interest in the subject matter of the suit especially as it relates to