Try asking the following...
RULING
Per the instant Application the Plaintiff/Applicant is praying the Court for an order of Interlocutory Injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, assigns, hirelings or otherwise howsoever described from entering the land the subject matter of this suit pending the final determination of the suit.
Attached to the Application are Annexures and a Statement of Case.
The Application was resisted by the Defendants/Respondents.
Perusing the judicial authorities on the grant or refusal of Applications for Interlocutory Injunction, three (3) principles of law become apparent, namely;
Applicant must have a legal or equitable right;
The Court must determine where the balance of convenience lies; and
Whether the award of damages will be adequate compensation.
Applicant must have a legal or equitable right
It is trite learning that before a person can ask a Court of competent jurisdiction to grant a prayer for injunction, the person must first and foremost show that he or she has a right to protect.
In the case of Centracor Resources Ltd. vrs. Boohene & Others [1992-93] GBR PT4 2 1512, it was held that;
“The Plaintiff (Applicant) who seeks an order of Interim Injunction must show that the right he seeks to protect really exists and that there has been an unjustified interference by the Defendant and such interference is likely to continue”.
See also Quansah vrs. Quansah [1984-86] 1GLR 718 CA at 723.
This fundamental requirement in considering an Application for Interlocutory Injunction was emphasized by Her Ladyship Sophia Adinyira, JSC in Owusu vrs. Owusu-Ansah & Anor. [2007-2008] SCGLR 870 at 876 thus:
“The fundamental rule [in Applications for Interim Injunction] is that a trial Court should consider whether the Applicant has a legal right at law or in equity, which the Court ought to protect by granting an Interim Injunction. This could only be determined by considering the pleadings and affidavit evidence before the Court.”
This principle of law is also illuminated in the locus classicus case in respect of injunctions, American Cyanamid Co. vrs. Ethicon Ltd. [1975] 1 AER 504 where it is stated that the primary and cardinal issue to be considered in deciding on whether or not to grant injunctions was, whether there is a legal right at law or in equity worthy of the court’s protection [Emphasis supplied].
The Court must determine where the balance of convenience lies.
The Court’s exercise of this discretionary power should be di