Try asking the following...
Counsel for the Plaintiffs/Applicants Your Ladyship, we have served the Defendant with a Hearing Notice and we want to enquire if there is a Proof of Service on the Court’s docket? By Court: It was served on the Defendant’s lawyer’s secretary personally at Adentan.
Counsel for the Plaintiffs/Applicants Your Ladyship, we were also ordered to file a clear copy of our Indenture.
By Court: I noticed what you have filed is also not clear.
Kindly proceed to move your application.
MOTION ON NOTICE FOR AN ORDER OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION Counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant Your Ladyship, we have before you is a Motion on Notice for an Order of Interlocutory Injunction filed on 7/02/2022. We move in terms of the motion paper and the supporting affidavit and the Exhibits attached thereto.
I rely on all the averments contained in the Affidavit in Support and pray that our application be granted.
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 application is granted or refused and which of the parties will suffer greater hardship.
c. Whether on the facts, it is just and convenient for the preservation of the status- quo.
d. Whether the loss, damage or injury can be quantified in money and whether damages could afford adequate compensation if the application was re