Try asking the following...
RULING
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