NANA OKAE KWAKYE II VS MERCY ABANYI & ORS

On the 31st day of March, 2023, the 2nd and 4th Defendants/Applicants filed the instant Application praying the Court for an Order of Interlocutory Injunction restraining Plaintiff, his assigns, affiliates, successors, subjects and workmen or anyone claiming through him from further development on the land until the matter is determined.

The Applicant further prayed the Court for an Order mandating Plaintiff/Respondent, his agents, servants, workmen, privies and anyone claiming through him within three (3) days from the date of this Order to remove all their working tools or any item whatsoever belonging to them from the land in dispute.

Attached to the Application are Annexures and Statement of Case.

The Application was resisted by the Defendant/Respondent.

Attached to the Affidavit in Opposition are Annexures and 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. vrs. 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 vrs. 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 vrs. 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 injunctio