NUMO FREDERICK TAWIAH AND TETTEH ADEYENAH v. TEYE KWESI KWETEY AND 14 ORS

Plaintiff/Applicant herein Numo Frederick Tawiah Tetteh Adeyenah has filed this

Application for an Order for Interlocutory Injunction against the fifteen (15)

aforementioned Defendants/Respondents praying the Court to restrain the said

Defendants/Respondents, their Servants, Agents, Assigns, Privies, Workmen or

Successors and all who claim through them from further interfering or dealing with

or developing the subject matter land in any manner whatsoever adverse to the

Plaintiff/Applicant’s interest pending the final determination of the instant suit.

This Application is being opposed by the Defendants/Respondents through their

various Affidavits in Opposition to the Application. The 1st, 12th and 13th

Defendants/Respondents filed their Affidavit in Opposition and a subsequent

Supplementary Affidavit in Opposition deposed to by 1st Defendant/Respondent

Nene Teye Kwesi Kwetey II.

The 3rd and 4th Defendants/Respondents also entered appearance and filed Affidavit

in Opposition. The 7th Defendant also entered appearance and filed Affidavit in

Opposition through their Counsel. The 15th Defendant/Respondent also filed his

Affidavit in Opposition and subsequent Supplementary Affidavit in Opposition

deposed to by himself Nene Aadegbor Ngmongmowuyaa Kwesi Animle VI.

I have perused all the evidence adduced in respect of this Application and have

heard the legal arguments put forward by respective Counsel for Plaintiff and also

for the Defendants/Respondents who were represented by their respective Counsel

and have filed their Affidavit in Opposition. I have also applied the relevant statutes

and case laws and the guiding principle in Interlocutory Injunction as espoused

therein.

It is my considered opinion that, in the instant Application, Plaintiff/Applicant has

not convincingly demonstrated to this Court that indeed they have protectable legal

interest in the disputed land which same cannot be remedied by monetary

compensation should he come out victorious in the pending suit.

In the Case of the American Cynamid Co. vrs. Ethicom Ltd. (1975) A.C. 396, Lord

Diplock opined thus:

“The Plaintiff’s need for such protection must be weighed against the

corresponding need of the (Respondents) to be protected against injury

resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights

for which he could not be adequately compensated under the (Applicant’s)

undertaking in damages if the uncertainty were resolved in the Defenda