Mrs. Angelina D. Appertey v. Rev. Samuel T. Appertey

MOTION ON NOTICE FOR AN ORDER OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION Counsel for Petitioner Your Ladyship, we have before you an order for Motion on Notice -for an order for Interlocutory Injunction filed on 6/12/2022. I move in terms of the motion paper and supporting affidavit and rely on all the averments contained in the Affidavit in Support.

Your Ladyship our specific prayer is for the respondent to be injuncted from divesting the property as a sole owner until the final determination of the suit.

Counsel for the Respondent Your Ladyship, we would not have opposed to the instant application if the Applicant had sought for an Order for preservation.

However, we are vehemently opposed to this application seeking to injunct these two properties as these would cause serious inconvenient to the Respondent.

Applicant has also demonstrated her legal or equitable interest in the property and thus we rely on our Affidavit in Opposition filed on 1/2/2023. We pray that the application be dismissed.

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 states as follows: The Court may grant an injunction by an interlocutory order in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just or convenient to do so, and the order may be 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.

In Owusu v Owusu-Ansah [2007-2008] 2 SCGLR 870, theSupreme Court held that: “The fundamental principle in applications for interim injunctionis whether the applicant has a legal right at law or in equity, whichthe court ought to protect by maintaining the status quo until thefinal determination of the action on its merits.

This could only bedetermined by considering the pleadings and affidavit evidencebefore the court. "Also see Vanderpuye vrs. Nartey [1971]1GLR 428, CA; Lardan vrs. Attorney General (1957) 3 WALR 55; Punjabi Bros vrs. Namih (1958) 3WALR 381; American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd 1975 1 All ER504; Pountney v Doega and Musicians Union of Ghana v Abraham 1982– 83 GLR 337; Frimpong v Nana Asare Obeng II (1974)1GLR 16 In the case of 18th July vs. Yehans International Ltd (2012) SCGLR 167, it was held as follows: “Even though [the grant of injunction]