MR. ELVIS AMPONSAH & ANOR VS MADAM CYNDY & ORS

1. In interlocutory injunction application an applicant is enjoined to establish the following: (i) That he has a right or interest in the subject matter of the litigation, which has been flouted or threatened by the unjustifiable conduct of the Respondent in the action.

ii) That on the balance of convenience he stands to suffer irreparable damage if the Respondent is permitted to continue with the conduct, he seeks to enjoin, in the action.

iii) That the Claim/Reliefs indorsed in the action are not frivolous and that there are serious questions of law and fact, which have been raised in the action.

iv) That the status must not be determined by the Court and addressed so as to ensure substantial justice.

In other words, Applicant must adduce evidence to establish the status quo, and make a case for it to be maintained or altered as appropriate.

The application under consideration is one permitted by ORDER 25 of C. I. 47/04. In Rule 1 an order of interlocutory injunction, may be granted when itis JUST and CONVENIENT to do so.

This Court has examined the affidavit evidence adduced by Applicant.

Theevidence is about the source of Plaintiff’s title and the nature of interestacquired.

It also showed acts of interference with the land the subject matterof the litigation.

These evidence stands uncontroverted.

The failure to file a response, despiteproof of service of the processes on Defendants/Respondents amounts toadmission of the averments in support.

They constitute estopped as well.

I refer to AGO SAI VS LA STOOL [2010] SCGLR and, In RE ASERE STOOL, NIKOI OLAI AMOTIA IV VS AKOTIA OWORSIKA III [2005/2006] SCGLR 637. I am satisfied that this is a proper case in which the Defendant must berestrained.

The application is granted.

2. Cost of GH¢4, 000. 00 is awarded against the Defendants, and it is in Plaintiff’s favour.

(SGD. ) H/L NICHOLAS M. C. ABODAKPI JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT‘MCG’.