PETER ALABI BORLABIE vs. METALEX LIMITED [2019]DLHC10322

Date	2019-03-29
Suit No.	SUIT NO. FAL/181/2014
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10322

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS).

[2019]DLHC10322
																																						<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" >PETER ALABI BORLABIE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>METALEX LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<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. FAL/181/2014&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: 29TH
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 JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS).<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;MOTION
ON NOTICE FOR THE GRANT OF AN ORDER OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION<o:p></o:p>Ruling<o:p></o:p>The
order of interlocutory injunction is a discretionary remedy which may be
granted by the Court either unconditionally or upon such terms as the Court may
consider just. It is granted by the Court if it appears to the Court to be just
or convenient to do so in order to maintain the status quo pending the final
determination of the substantive suit. That is the tenor of Order 25 rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, C.I 47.<o:p></o:p>The
instant application is a request to the Court by the plaintiff/applicant to
grant an order of interlocutory injunction against the defendant/respondent,
its agents, assigns, privies, workmen, servants however described etc. to
restrain the defendant from dealing with or having anything to do in any manner
whatsoever with the land, subject matter of the substantive suit pending the
final determination of the suit. <o:p></o:p>As
rightly pointed out by both Counsel in their Statements of Case, the grant of
an interlocutory injunction is usually founded on the following factors<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether there is the
existence of a right to be protected or question to be tried on same.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether there is a real
prospect of success for the case of the plaintiff<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;
iii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether damages would
adequately compensate the plaintiff in the event that the uncertainty was resolved
in his favour at the trial<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;
iv.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether on the balance of
convenience the plaintiff would suffer more harm if the order sought for is not
granted.<o:p></o:p>This
Court, after carefully considering the affidavits of both parties, their
exhibits and Statements of Case, is not inclined to grant this present
application because the Court thinks the plaintiff/applicant has not been able
to show the exact extent of the land he is claiming. While his Exhibit ‘PAB1’
gives the size of the land as 0. 17.02 acres or 6.89 hectares, his Exhibit ‘PAB
2’ gives the size as 13.37 acres or 5.41 hectares. One parcel of land certainly
cannot have two different sizes. The correct size of the land must be known. <o:p></o:p>Secondly,
the defendant/respondent has stated in its Affidavit in Opposition and
Statement of Defence that it is not the owner of the land in issue and that it
is not putting up any structure on the land. The respondent says the ‘true
owner’ of the land in dispute is a company called ‘Clay and Metal Products
(Ghana Ltd.)’ and that that company got the land as a grant from the Government
of Ghana. The defendant/respondent maintains that the plaintiff/applicant has
brought the wrong person to Court and that the applicant has</main>