ANTHONY OSEI AMEYAW vs. MICHAEL ANDOH [2013]DLHC15054

Date	2013-05-20
Suit No.	SUIT NO. FTR 7/13
Citation No.	[2013]DLHC15054

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM

JOHN DAVID MERSON FOR APPLICANTS

INNOCENT AKWAYENA FOR RESPONDENTS

[2013]DLHC15054
																																						<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>[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: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 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: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 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: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0in;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">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>“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>