THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF GHANA vs JOSEPH CLARENCE OPARE ABETIA & ORS

By its amended motion on notice for Interlocutory Injunction filed on 23rd August 2022, the Plaintiff/Applicant (hereafter called the Applicant) prays for an order of Interlocutory Injunction to restrain the Defendants/Respondents (hereafter called the Respondents) “whether by themselves, their owners, servants, agents, privies, hirelings and workmen or any of them howsoever described from interfering or developing the property specified ... the subject matter of the dispute in the instant action, pending the final determination of this suit.”

While Order 25 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) circumscribes and regulates the Court’s power to grant Interlocutory Injunctions, our courts have spoken lucidly 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 relative to Interim Orders 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 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 time speaking through His Lordship Justice Anin Yeboah JSC