[2019]DLHC7041 • January 14, 2019 • High Court
EBUSUAPANYIN WIABO {SUING FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE BRETUO EBIRADZE ROYAL FAMILY OF HIMAKROM AS IT’S HEAD OF FAMILY, FARMER HIMAKORM} (PLAINTIFF) vs. OPANYIN SOMIAH AND NANA EBEN AYEBOAFO IX
The plaintiff, acting as head of the Bretuo Ebiradze Royal Family of Himakrom, filed suit seeking interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with disputed land pending final determination. The plaintiff claimed to be licensor of the land and sought revocation of a license granted to the first defendant to farm on the land. The first defendant denied the plaintiff's claim, and the second defendant asserted ownership of the land as stool land, challenging the plaintiff's license and title.
read moreRULING By this application the plaintiff seeks an order of interlocutory injunction retraining the defendants, their agents, assigns and all who claim through them from having anything to do with the disputed land pending the final determining of the Suit. Order 25 rule I sub rule 1 of the High Court {Civil Procedure} Rules C.I 47 defines the Court’s discretionary power to determine such applications. The Rule states that, the Court may grant an injunction by an interlocutory order in all cases in which it appears to the Court to be just or convenient to do so and the order may be made either unconditionally or upon such terms and conditions as the Court considers just. I believe all the legal and equitable principles espoused in case law in granting or refusing injunctions are captured under this just or convenient test prescribed by the rule. In applying the test and for that matter the legal and equitable principles, the duty of the Court is to act judicially and on the basis.....