O’SULLIVAN ESTATES LTD. vs YAKUBO ABRAHAM & ORS

This is a ruling on an application for interlocutory injunction praying this Honourable Court to restrain the Defendants/Respondents (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondents”), their privies, agents and assigns from entering or dealing with the land in dispute until the final determination of this suit.

The Plaintiff/Applicant (hereinafter referred to as “the Applicant”) had the application moved by its lawyer in terms of the motion paper, the affidavit in support and the exhibits attached thereto as well as the Applicant’s statement of case.

It bears stating peremptorily that gross indiscipline and unbridled lawlessness are fast becoming part and parcel of the Metropolitan Land Market of Accra. For those despicable reasons, it is becoming the norm and practice, for land owners and legitimate land users to seek the intervention of our Courts to protect and/or preserve the nature and character of their pieces or parcels of land in dispute, pending the determination of such disputes by our Courts. The instant application for interlocutory injunction filed by the Applicant on 13th February 2023 is one such application.

Happily, by Order 25 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) our Courts have power to grant Interlocutory Injunctions; and the Ghanaian legal landscape is literally inundated with a plethora of authoritative pronouncements on when, why, how and who may be granted an Order of Interlocutory Injunction. Some notable Supreme Court decisions on Injunctions (listed chronologically as decided) 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 A/G & Another [2012] 1 SCGLR 259 and

· KOJACH LTD v MULTICHOICE GHANA LTD [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 1494.

From the authorities, it is crystal clear and 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 declare and maintain that, in considering an application for interlocutory injunction, the Court is not called upon to embark upon a voyage of discovery to establish who 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 supplicant and that, o