GH - ROCHELLE OWUSU ANTWI VS SAMUEL LARBI DARKO

The Plaintiff/Applicant (herein after) simply referred to as Applicant is seeking an order of interlocutory injunction against Defendant/Respondent (herein after) referred to as Respondent.

This is an application permitted by ORDER 25 of C. I. 47/04. In Rule 1 of the Order stated supra, an order of interlocutory injunction may be made, when it is JUST and CONVENIENT to do so.

It is a discretionary jurisdiction conferred on the Court, and it is properly exercised, when the end of justice is served.

A successful applicant is required to establish the following conditions: 1. That he has a right of interest in the subject matter of dispute, a right which is enforceable at law or equity, that has been flouted unjustifiably by respondents conduct.

2. That the action has raised serious questions of law and fact that must be investigated.

3. That on the balance of convenience, he stands to suffer irreparable injury if the conduct of respondent is permitted to continue.

4. The applicant is required to adduce sufficient evidence based on which the status quo must be determined, and decision reached on whether to maintain same or alter it appropriately.

THE FACTS AND ASSESSMENT OF IT Applicant has traced her source of title to an assignment from Nii Sodja Obodai, whom she described as Acting Chief of Mpehuasem, East Legon, dated 19/02/2002. She has annexed EXHIBIT ‘B’ in support she then traced another source of title, which is a grant she got from the Numo Nmashie Family of Teshie.

She stated she had been informed that the said family have been declared Allodial Title holder in the land by a judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on 21/07/2006. The deposition showed that she had to re-negotiate with Numo Nmashie family of Teshie, to re-purchase the land.

She tendered EXHIBIT ‘C’ as the second grant of same land made between her and Daniel Nii Adzete Adzei, the acting Head of Family dated 10/01/2017. This Court has perused same.

In addition, applicant stated she has been in possession and has commenced development of the land to an advanced stage, and desirous of completing same.

Besides, she recounted acts of adverse possession and interference she had to deal with.

And the assistance given by her new grantor family when the issue was reported to Legon Police.

She concluded that respondent has entered the land and erected a wall and has mobilized material and workmen to continue further development of the land.

The opposition to the application is