GREAT MISSION INTERNATIONAL vs. JOHN KWAKU YEBOAH [2019]DLHC8892

Date	2019-12-19
Suit No.	SUIT NO.: LD/0611/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC8892

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE E. K. BOSOMPEM APENKWAH J.

FELIX QUARTEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF PRESENT

SAMUEL KOFI NARTEY HOLDING BRIEF FOR DENNIS ADJEI DWOMOH WITH

HIM IS NAA DROMO ADJABENG FOR THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS PRESENT

[2019]DLHC8892
																																						<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" >GREAT MISSION
INTERNATIONAL<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/
APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>JOHN KWAKU YEBOAH<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (LAND DIVISION 5), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT NO.: LD/0611/2019&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; &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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 19TH DECEMBER, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>FELIX
QUARTEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF PRESENT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SAMUEL
KOFI NARTEY HOLDING BRIEF FOR DENNIS ADJEI DWOMOH WITH HIM IS NAA DROMO
ADJABENG FOR THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS PRESENT <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">BEFORE
HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE E. K. BOSOMPEM APENKWAH J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Applicant has
applied for an order for interlocutory injunction against Defendant. I have
looked at the pleadings and opposing affidavits and annexed exhibits. In the
case of 18th July Ltd vrs Yehans International Ltd [1012] 1 SCGLR
167 at holding (2) of the headnotes the court held as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Even though granting
an interim injunction was discretionary, a trial court in determining an
application for an interlocutory injunction must be guided by the following
principles:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Consider whether the case of an applicant was not
frivolous and had demonstrated that he had legal or equitable right which a
court should protect<o:p></o:p>ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Ensure that the status quo was maintained so as to
avoid any irreparable damage to the applicant pending the hearing of the matter
and <o:p></o:p>iii)&nbsp;&nbsp;
Consider the balance of convenience and should
refuse the application if its grant would cause serious hardship to the other
party.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I have
observed that the Applicants case is not frivolous and indeed it raises triable
issues. However, both parties admit the Defendant/Respondent has already put up
a house on the disputed plot and is in possession of the said plot of land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>