SAMUEL BADU BOTCHWAY AND CLEMENT BOTCHWAY vs. DOMINIC ASAMOAH DANQUAH AND DANNIEL BORKETEY BOIFIO A.K.A NII BAATSONAA

The plaintiffs/applicants applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants/respondents, their agents, servants, privies, hirelings or workmen from interfering with or developing disputed land pending the final determination of the suit. The applicants relied on a purported leasehold agreement as the basis of their claimed interest in the land. The 1st respondent, however, asserted possession, having fenced the property and commenced building construction on it. The court found that the applicants’ document lacked a commencement date and was unstamped, and therefore did not establish a protectable legal or equitable interest in the land. [Portion relied on: “The Plaintiffs/Applicants have applied for interlocutory injunction to restrain the Defendants/Respondents… from interfering or developing the disputed land pending the final determination of this suit… The documents which he relies on as the leasehold agreement cannot pass for one. It does not satisfy the condition of a valid lease since it has no commencement date. It is also not stamped… the 1st Respondent has fenced the property and commenced building construction on it.”]

The Plaintiffs/Applicants have applied for interlocutory injunction to restrain the Defendants/Respondents in this suit either by themselves, their agents, servants, privies, hirelings or workmen or howsoever described from interfering or developing the disputed land pending the final determination of this suit. Under Order 25 rule 1(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules, C. I 47, the court is permitted to determine the application on the basis of the papers filed. The court is also permitted to direct lawyers in the suit to address it on specific points of law and or facts. This has been done. The principles which govern the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions are well-settled in case law. They may be summarized as follows: (i) The right the Applicant is seeking to protect exists and that there has been an unjustified interference by the Respondent. (ii) The Applicant’s action is not frivolous or vexatious. (iii) That an irreparable damage which cannot be comp.....