GENERAL DEACON ISAAC BOATENG vs. ELDER ESTHER NKETIAH AND 3 OTHERS [2019]DLHC10269

Date	2019-03-01
Suit No.	SUIT NO. GJ/1088/18
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10269

HER LADYSHIP ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS).

[2019]DLHC10269
																																						<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" >GENERAL
DEACON ISAAC BOATENG<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APP.)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ELDER
ESTHER NKETIAH AND 3 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESP.)<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: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO.
GJ/1088/18&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE:
1ST MARCH 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<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: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

HER LADYSHIP ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS).<o:p></o:p>

</div>MOTION
ON NOTICE FOR AN ORDER OF INTERIM INJUNCTION<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: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>&nbsp;The
plaintiff/applicant, per this application is requesting the Court for an order
of interim injunction to restrain the 1st, 2nd, 3rd
and 4th defendants/respondents from interfering in the day-to-day running
and management of the fifth (5th) defendant’s affairs until the
final determination of the substantive suit.<o:p></o:p>The
reasons of the applicant for this request among others are that the 1st,
2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants/respondents have
been actively disrupting the activities of the 5th defendant church
and preventing the church from holding any religious or social activities to
the detriment of the 5th defendant.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The defendants/respondents have vehemently
opposed this application. The defendants/respondents say that there is no truth
whatsoever in the allegations of the plaintiff/applicant that the defendants
are causing trouble in the church and that the plaintiff/applicant is only
seeking to sow seeds of confusion in the 5th defendant church. They
therefore requested the Court to refuse the application.<o:p></o:p>It
is trite to say that the order of interim injunction is essentially a
discretionary remedy and the fundamental principle in the grant of such a
remedy is whether or not the applicant has a legal right at law or in equity
which the Court ought to protect by maintaining the status quo until the final
determination of the substantive matter or action on its merits. See the case
of OWUSU VS OWUSU ANSAH AND ANOTHER
[2007-2008] 2 SGLR p. 870.<o:p></o:p>This
Court has considered the affidavit evidence of both parties and has also looked
at all their annexures and the Court is of the opinion that the applicant has
not shown that he has a legal right at law or in equity which the Court ought
to protect pending the determination of the substantive suit. This Court is of
the opinion that this present application is without merit and same ought not
to be granted. <o:p></o:p>The application
is thus dismissed. Cost of GH₵1,000.00
is awarded against the plaintiff/applicant in favour of the
defendants/respondents.<o:p></o:p>(SGD)<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE
ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS)<o:p></o:p>

JUSTICE
OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p></main>