MRS. MERCY FENUKU BOLUS vs GEOCOM CO. LTD & ORS
2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE AMOS WUNTAH WUNI
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Equity and Trusts
- Probate and Succession
2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice Amos Wuntah Wuni of the High Court ruled on a motion for an interlocutory injunction in a family land dispute. The Plaintiff/Applicant’s motion was supported by an affidavit deposed to by Mawutor Nudokpo of Dabala. The Defendants/Respondents opposed, asserting that Letters of Administration de bonis non were issued in 2017 to the 3rd Defendant after the original administrators died, and that the administrator, after an initial attempt in Greater Accra, registered the land in the Eastern Region. Respondents said they financed registration and, with family consent, granted 10.30 acres to the 1st Defendant to raise funds and counter encroachment, with letters evidencing support. They alleged the Applicant misidentified the land, pointing to coconut tree landmarks. Applying Order 25 of C.I. 47 and Supreme Court guidance and avoiding prejudgment of title, the court found the application lacked merit and dismissed it, awarding costs of GH¢3,000 against the Applicant.
This is a ruling on an application for interlocutory injunction pending the determination of the substantive matter. Counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant moved the application in terms of the motion paper and relied on the affidavit in support deposed to and filed on 11th September 2020 by Mawutor Nudokpo of Dabala in the Volta Region as well as the Applicant’s statement of case.
The Court’s power to grant Interlocutory Injunctions is circumscribed and regulated by Order 25 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) and the Ghanaian legal landscape is saturated with authoritative pronouncements by the Apex Court on when, how and who may be granted an Order of Interlocutory Injunction. Some notable Supreme Court decisions of the millenium (listed chronologically as decided) include:
· OWUSU v OWUSU-ANSAH and Another [2007-08] 2 SCGLR 870;
· 18TH JULY LTD v YEHANS INTERNATIONAL LTD [2012] 1 SCGLR 167;
· WELFORD QUARCOO v ATTORNEY GENERAL & Another [2012] 1 SCGLR 259
· KOJACH LTD v MULTICHOICE GHANA LTD [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 1494
The Law is crystal clear and settled that, the grant of an application for interlocutory injunction, although discretionary, must be carefully considered in the light of the Pleadings and affidavit evidence before the Court. The authorities also declare and maintain that, in considering an application for Interlocutory Injunction, the Court is not called upon to embark upon a voyage of discovery to establish who has better title to the land in dispute. The fundamental requirement is that, the Applicant must demonstrate that he or she has a legal or equitable interest worthy of protection by the Court; that, damages will not suffice to placate the supplicant and that, on the balance of convenience, the Applicant will suffer greater hardship and inconvenience should the application be refused.
By Order 25 Rule 1(1), 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” so to do. Indeed, in clarifying the indicia for determining whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction, the Supreme Court per Osei-Hwere JSC stated in REPUBLIC v HIGH COURT, HO; EX PARTE EVANGELICAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF GHANA and Another [1991] 1 GLR 323 at 343 that:
“It has been explained that the words “just or convenient"; must be read "just as well as convenient": … they do not mean that the court can grant an injunction simply for the protection of