YAW NKANSAH & ANOTHER vs JOHN OWUSU KANKAM

By a motion on notice filed on 7th October 2022, the Plaintiffs/Applicants (hereinafter referred to as “the Applicants”) supplicate this honourable court for an Order of Interlocutory Injunction to restrain the Defendant/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent”), “his principal, agents, heirs, personal representatives, executors and assigns from interfering with the property in dispute until the final determination of this suit”. Counsel for the Applicants moved the application in terms of the motion paper, the affidavit in support as well as the statement of case.

It is trite learning that, the Court’s power to grant Interlocutory Injunctions is regulated and circumscribed by Order 25 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) with the Ghanaian legal landscape being replete with a plethora of authoritative pronouncements by the Apex Court on when, why, how and who may or may not be granted an Order of Interlocutory Injunction. Indeed, notable ex cathedra pronouncements (and indicia) to guide our Courts in dealing with applications for interlocutory injunctions have been distilled from reported cases of the Ghanaian Apex Court inclusive of the following:

· OWUSU v OWUSU-ANSAH and Anor [2007-08] 2 SCGLR 870;

· 18TH JULY LTD v YEHANS INTERNATIONAL LTD [2012] 1 SCGLR 167;

· WELFORD QUARCOO v ATTORNEY GENERAL & Anor [2012] 1 SCGLR 259;

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

On the authorities, it is 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 are unanimous that, in considering such applications, the Court is not called upon to embark upon an expedition to establish which party 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 Applicant and that, on the balance of convenience, the Applicant will suffer greater hardship and inconvenience should the application be refused. Therefore, by Order 25 rule 1(1) the Court may grant an injunction by an interlocutory order if it appears “just or convenient” so to do.

In determining the instant application, this Court is cognizant and mindful of judicial exhortations directed at our courts to refrain fr