NAA KUOKOR AGYEMAN II VS GODFRED ODOTEI & 8 ORS
November 14, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP EMMANUEL AMO YARTEY (J)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
November 14, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this motion determined by His Lordship Emmanuel Amo Yartey (J), the Applicant sought interim relief to restrain the Respondents and their agents from entering and developing a disputed parcel of land, including digging, cutting surface soil and constructing a fence wall, pending trial. Both sides filed affidavits, annexures and statements of case; the court noted evidence that each party had exhibited title documents and judgments evidencing claimed ownership. Applying Order 25 of C.I. 47 and authorities such as American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., Vanderpuye v. Nartey and Pountney v. Doegah, the court reiterated that an applicant must show a right, the balance of convenience must favor relief, and damages must be inadequate. To avoid greater harm and preserve the status ante, the court granted the interlocutory injunction and restrained all parties from developing or selling the land until the suit’s final determination.
On the 15th day of July, 2022 the Plaintiff/Applicant filed the instant Application praying the Court for an Order of Interlocutory Injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents either by themselves, or their agents, assigns, workmen, privies, representatives or howsoever described from entering upon Plaintiff’s land, digging, cutting the surface soil, cutting trees, plants, digging foundation, constructing building or developing fence wall, developing the subject matter in dispute pending the final determination of the suit.
Attached to the Application is an Affidavit, Annexures and a Statement of Case.
The Application was resisted by the Defendants.
Attached to the Affidavit in Opposition are Annexures and a Statement of Case.
Perusing the judicial authorities on the grant or refusal of Applications for Interlocutory Injunction, three (3) principles of law become apparent, namely;
a) Applicant must have a legal or equitable right;
b) The Court must determine where the balance of convenience lies; and
c) Whether the award of damages will be adequate compensation.
A. Applicant must have a legal or equitable right
It is trite learning that before a person can ask a Court of competent jurisdiction to grant a prayer for injunction, the person must first and foremost show that he or she has a right to protect.
In the case of Centracor Resources Ltd. v Boohene & Others [1992-93] GBR PT4 2 1512, it was held that;
“The Plaintiff (Applicant) who seeks an order of Interim Injunction must show that the right he seeks to protect really exists and that there has been an unjustified interference by the Defendant and such interference is likely to continue”.
See also Quansah v Quansah [1984-86] 1GLR 718 CA at 723
This fundamental requirement in considering an Application for Interlocutory Injunction was emphasized by Her Ladyship Sophia Adinyira, JSC in Owusu v. Owusu-Ansah & Anor. [2007-2008] SCGLR 870 at 876 thus:
“The fundamental rule [in Applications for Interim Injunction] is that a trial Court should consider whether the Applicant has a legal right at law or in equity, which the Court ought to protect by granting an Interim Injunction. This could only be determined by considering the pleadings and affidavit evidence before the Court.”
This principle of law is also illuminated in the locus classicus case in respect of injunctions, American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. [1975] 1 AER 504 where it is stated that the primary and cardinal iss