NTHC PROPERTIES LTD vs SAMUEL ADJEI MENSAH & ORS

By a motion on notice for an Order of Interlocutory Injunction, the Plaintiff/Applicant (hereafter called the Applicant) prays for –

“... the grant of an Order of Interlocutory Injunction to restrain the 1st and 2nd Defendants herein whether by themselves, their servants, agents, assigns or privies from proceeding into execution by entering upon, occupying, recovering possession of, ejecting any persons from or demolishing any structures on the Plaintiff’s lands at Adjiringanno the subject matter of this dispute pending the final determination of this action upon grounds and for reasons set out in the accompanying affidavit and for such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit.”

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 replete with clear and authoritative pronouncements by our Apex Court on when, why, how and who may be granted an Order of Interlocutory Injunction. Some notable reported decisions, of the millennium, handed down by the Apex Court in respect of interlocutory injunctions 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

On the authorities, it is 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 are also unanimous that, in considering an application for Interlocutory Injunction, the Court is not called upon to embark upon a judicial voyage of discovery to establish which party 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 Applicant 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 inter