ANTHONY OSEI AMEYAW vs. MICHAEL ANDOH [2013]DLHC12042

Date	2013-05-20
Suit No.	SUIT NO. FTR 7/13
Citation No.	[2013]DLHC12042

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM

JOHN DAVID MERSON FOR APPLICANTS

INNOCENT AKWAYENA FOR RESPONDENTS

[2013]DLHC12042
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >ANTHONY OSEI
AMEYAW<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MICHAEL ANDOH<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, ACCRA)<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>JOHN DAVID MERSON FOR APPLICANTS,<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: black; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid black 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>The applicants herein are
calling upon this Court to make an order of Interlocutory Injunction against
the respondents. The respondents vehemently
opposed this move by the applicants. The main feature of an order of Injunction
is that it may issue only when it is just or convenient to do so. Order 25 r 1
(2) of CI47 expressly provides:<o:p></o:p><a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a>“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 conditionally or upon
such terms and conditions as the Court considers just.”<o:p></o:p>In the American Cyanamid
Co. vrs. Ethicon [1975] 1 ALL ER 540, HL, the House of Lords&nbsp; introduced what has&nbsp; been described as a “sea change” of approach
to the grant of interlocutory injunction. Various factors thus come into play
in deciding whether it is just and convenient to grant or deny an Interlocutory
Injunction. The decision of the court must depend on the facts, the relevant
rules and the principles that must be applied.<o:p></o:p>In Ekwam vrs. Pianim (No.
1) [1996-1997] SCGLR 117. Kpegah JSC held that:<o:p></o:p>“I have to consider not
only the justness of the order but also whether it will be convenient to grant
an interim Injunction at this stage. Considering the totality of the case, I
think the applicant cannot be denied the temporary relief he seeks for equality
is equity”.<o:p></o:p>In this present case, there
are some issues raised by the applicants. The respondents have also
counteracted those assertions. It will only be just and fair in this
regard to restrain the respondents, assigns, agents, privies from doing
anything in the matter between the parties.<o:p></o:p>Application for an order
for interlocutory injunction is hereby granted.&nbsp;
No order as to costs.<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;</main>