Try asking the following...
RULING
Plaintiff/Applicant herein Patience Abayateye Adabanka filed this Motion for
Interlocutory Injunction under Order 25 rule 1 of C.I 47 on the 18th of November,
2022 praying for an Order to restrain the Defendant/Respondent herein, his Agents,
Servants, Workmen, Privies and any other person(s) dealing with the land in dispute
in any manner whatsoever adverse to the Plaintiff/Applicant interest pending the
final determination of the instant suit.
It is Plaintiff/Applicant’s case that her late father acquired the subject matter land
from the Agau family and they have been in possession of the said land for about
eight (8) years.
That a private company approached her family for space to erect a mast for MTN. At
the commencement of the construction of the same mast, the Defendant led a group
of land guards to destroy the ongoing project with the explanation that he was
taking the land back.
This resulted in some of the workmen sustaining injuries.
It is Plaintiff/Applicant’s case that Defendant’s/Respondent’s conduct constitutes
trespass on the land and is therefore praying the court to restrain the
Defendant/Respondent, his Workmen, Privies, Allies, Assigns and anyone working
through him from having any further dealings with the land till final determination
of this suit.
In opposing this application, Defendant/Respondent filed his Affidavit in
Opposition on the 13th of December 2022 and states that the late husband of
Plaintiff/Applicant purchased the land from his family which he is the current head.
That per the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Exhibit 1 (An Indenture dated 19th July, 2014), it is
clear that the land acquired by the late husband of Plaintiff (Yaw Adabanka Owen)
was for residential purpose only.
That Plaintiff has granted a portion of the said land to a Company to erect Telephone
Mast on it of which the residents are complaining about the hazards associated with
mast in a residential area. He is therefore praying that the Plaintiff’s Injunction
Application must be refused because according to him, if the said injunction is
granted, it would amount to endorsing an illegality. He is not denying the fact that
he went on the land. The issue for determination is whether or not this Application
for injunction ought to be granted.
Respective counsel for parties made their legal submissions on behalf of their clients.
The law governing the grant of Interlocutory Injunction is trite as the courts are
required to grant interlocut