GH - NUMO OGBAMEY-FIO KOMMEY & ORS vs NII AHINQUANSRO BADOO & ORS

By an application for Interlocutory Injunction, the Plaintiffs/Applicants (hereafter called the Applicants) pray for an order –

i. “Restraining Defendants, their assigns, affiliates, successors, subjects and workmen or anyone claiming through them from interfering with Plaintiffs tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment of the land in dispute known as Amomoley lands until the matter is determined.” and

ii. “Restraining Defendants/Respondents, their agents, servants, workmen or anyone claiming through them from granting any portion of the land in dispute known as Amomoley land until the matter is determined.”

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 our Courts have spoken clearly, loudly and authoritatively on when, why, how and who may or may not be granted an Order of Interlocutory Injunction. Indeed, eminent Ghanaian Jurists, Legal Practitioners and Students of the Law have distilled notable ex cathedra pronouncements and indicia from reported cases of our Courts, particularly our Apex Court, to guide all Courts in hearing and determining applications for interlocutory injunctions. A few of such pronouncements and indicia would serve to underpin and fortify this Ruling.

First and foremost, in ODONKOR and Others v AMARTEI [1987-88] 1 GLR 578 the Supreme Court, speaking through His Lordship Adade JSC, held that:

“(1) The basic purpose of interim orders was, as much as possible, to hold the balance evenly between the parties, pending a final resolution of matters in difference between them, and also to ensure that at the end of the day the successful party did not find that his victory was an empty one, or one that brought him more problems than blessings.”

Also, speaking through Her Ladyship Justice Sophia Adinyira JSC, in OWUSU v OWUSU-ANSAH and Another [2007-08] 2 SCGLR 870, the Apex Court, in Holding (1) stated that:

“(1)The granting or refusal of an injunction is at the discretion of the trial court but that discretion has to be exercised judiciously ... The fundamental principle in applications for interim injunction is whether the applicant has a legal right at law or in equity, which the court ought to protect by maintaining the status quo until the final determination of the action on its merits. This could only be determined by considering the pleadings and affidavit evidence before the court.”

Again, the Supreme Court, this ti

By an application for Interlocutory Injunction, the Plaintiffs/Applicants (hereafter called the Applicants) pray for an order –

First and foremost, in ODONKOR and Others v AMARTEI [1987-88] 1 GLR 578 the Supreme Court, speaking through His Lordship Adade JSC, held that:

Also, speaking through Her Ladyship Justice Sophia Adinyira JSC, in OWUSU v OWUSU-ANSAH and Another [2007-08] 2 SCGLR 870, the Apex Court, in Holding (1) stated that:

Again, the Supreme Court, this ti

NUMO OGBAMEY-FIO KOMMEY & ORS vs NII AHINQUANSRO BADOO & ORS

Areas of Law

RULING